Smt K Asha Rani

1 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: Smt K.ASHA RANI, XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Dated this the 14 th day of October, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No. 2324 OF 2022

Between:

The State through the Sub Inspector of Police

P.S. Ramgopalpet..... Complainant

AND

A1-Shalu Khan S/o. Fundan Khan Aged 26 years, Occ Business:, R/o.H.No.16-9-428, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. N/o. Nadraala, Etah, Uttarpradesh.

A2- Mohammad Zaheer Ahmed S/o. Mohammed Basha Aged 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 1-35-132, Vallabhai patel Nagar,

Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. ... Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt J.Bhargavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sri. VVS. Satyanarayana for Learned Counsel for Accused upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ramgopalpet Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.242/2022 for an offence punishable under Section 420 and 486 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :-

(a) LW1/Syed Mohd Farooque lodged a complaint on 18.10.2022 at 16:30hrs, stating that he is an authorized representative for M/S United Overseas Trade Mark Company to represent and investigate & detect infringement of Copyright, on verifying the product on behalf of the company all over India. Among their clients represent M/s. Levi Strauss &

Co. Jeans pants and Shirts. On the basis of information revealed from enquiries conducted 2 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022 in around Hyderabad city recently, found two Outlets named 1) "SK2 Traders" situated at

Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet. 2) "M.F. Traders "Situated at Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet

Secunderabad, the above said whole sale dealers are engaged in supply of counterfeit M/s

Levi Strauss & Co. Jeans pants and Shirts as genuine and cheating the general public.

Hence, he request to take necessary action against the above as per law.

(b) Basing on the contents of complaint, LW7/Ch. Srinivasulu Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.242/2022 U/S 420 and 486 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation.

(c) During the course of investigation, LW7/K.Govardhan Reddy SI of Police examined LW1 and recorded his detailed statement in CD Part II. LW1 submitted the following documents viz., Letter of Authority given by Levis Company to LW1 Special

Power of Attorney, Letter of Authority to whom it may concern, Trademark Registry of

Levis brand. LW7/K.Govardhan Reddy SI of Police informed the same to superior officers and obtained permission from ACP, Saifabad Division and LW7/K.Govardhan

Reddy SI of Police summoned the presence of two panchayathdars LW3/Shail Moinuddin & LW4/Shaik Waheed appraised them about information received and drafted search proceedings. LW7/K.Govardhan Reddy SI of Police along with staff LW5/Md.Quddus &

LW6/P.Elisha and the panchas rushed to the spot and reached SK2 Traders, situated at

Nallagutta, Sec-bad and entered into premises and found one person selling spurious duplicate Levis brand Jeans pants. On enquiry, the said person disclosed his identity as

Shalu Khan @ Salman. Then, LW7/K.Govardhan Reddy SI of Police served search proceedings on him under proper acknowledgment by disclosing his name and purpose of visit and upon he admitted that he is selling the counterfeit jeans pants of Levis Brand to the innocent customers by telling them that they are genuine. Then, LW7/K.Govardhan

Reddy SI of Police recorded confession cum seizure panchanama of accused person/Shalu

Khan @ Salman in presence of panchas in which he admitted the guilt in the commission of offence, he purchased duplicate Jeans pants of Levis Brand from various shops of

Delhi state and selling the same by stocking the spurious items in his shop and cheating the customers by showing them as genuine company products, thereby cheating the customers as well as the companies. On being showed by the A-1, LW7/K.Govardhan

Reddy SI of Police seized (30) jeans pants of Levis Brand from the Possession of accused

A-1 in the presence of panchas and pasted their signed panch chits on them. Further,

LW7/K.Govardhan Reddy SI of Police observed the scene of observation panchanama and drew rough sketch before panchas. Further, LW7/K.Govardhan Reddy SI of Police 3 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022 along with staff and panchas proceeded to M.F traders, Nallagutta, Secunderabad and entered into the premises and found one person selling spurious duplicate Levis brand

Shirts. On enquiry, the said person identified himself as Mohammed Zaheer Ahmed.

Then, LW7/K.Govardhan Reddy SI of Police served search proceedings on him under proper acknowledgment by disclosing his name and purpose of visit and on which he admitted to have been selling the counterfeit Shirts of Levis Brand to the innocent customers by telling them that they are genuine. LW7/K.Govardhan Reddy SI of Police recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama of the A-2 Mohammed Zaheer Ahmed in presence of panchas in which he admitted the guilt in the commission of offence that he purchased duplicate Shirts of Levis Brand from various shops of Delhi state and selling the same by stocking the spurious items in his shop and cheating the customers by showing them as genuine company products, thereby creating the customers as well as the companies. On being showed by the accused person A-2. LW7/K.Govardhan Reddy SI of

Police seized (20) Shirts of Levis brand from Possession of accused A-2 in the presence of panchas and pasted their signed panch chits on them. Further, LW7/K.Govardhan

Reddy SI of Police secured the presence of LW3/Shail Moinuddin & LW4/Shaik Waheed and drafted the observation panchanama and rough sketch of Scene in presence of panchas. Further, LW7/K.Govardhan Reddy SI of Police recorded the detailed statement of LW2/Sai Kumar in part-II case diary, in which he stated same contents of FIR.

Thereafter, LW7/K.Govardhan Reddy SI of Police prepared the notices U/s. 41 (A)

Cr.P.C. and served on the accused persons A1 & A2 under proper acknowledgment. After completion of investigation, he filed Chargesheet.

4. On filing of Charge sheet and on perusal of material on record,this court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section under section 420 and 486 r/w 34 of

IPC. On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were supplied to them as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure..

5. Accused No.1 and 2 were examined Under section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure.

The charges were framed against them for the offence under section 420 and 486 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution has cited as many as (07) witnesses, out of them, it could examine (05) witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. PW1 Syed Mohd. Farooque is the

Complainant. PW2 Narahari/PC-4718 is the Circumstantial witness. PW3 P.Sai Kumar is 4 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022 the Investigation officer. PW4 Ramachander is the Panch witness. PW5 Ch. Srinivasulu is

Investigation officer. Ex.P1 is the complaint. ExP.2 is the signature on confession cum seizure panchanama dated 10-11-2018. Ex.P3 is the FIR. Ex.P4 is the Authorization letter given to PW1. ExP.5 is the copy of Registration of Trademark. Ex.P6 is the confession cum seizure panchanama. MO.1 are 41 T-shirts with tag of “Boss HUGO Boss.”

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

i) “Whether Accused No.1 and 2 had cheated general public by selling spurious products and whether the prosecution is able to prove the offence

under section 420 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?”

ii) “Whether Accused No.1 and 2 sold goods with Counterfeit property and whether the prosecution is able to prove the offence under section 486 of

Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:

The alleged offence against the accused are under sections 420 and 486 of IPC.

For the sake of convenience, the sections are hereunder reproduced:- section 420 of Indian Penal Code :-

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

section 486 of Indian Penal Code :-

Whoever sells, or exposes, or has in possession for sale, any goods or things with a counterfeit property mark affixed to or impressed upon the same or to or upon any case, package or other receptacle in which such goods are contained, shall, unless he proves:

5 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022

That, having taken all reasonable precautions against committing an offence against this section, he had at the time of the commission of the alleged offence no reason to suspect the genuineness of the mark, and that, on demand made by or on behalf of the prosecutor, he gave all the information in his power with respect to the persons from whom he obtained such goods or things, or that otherwise he had acted innocently, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

11.PW1/Defacto-Complainant deposed that, on Previously, he worked as

Investigation Officer at VSK Global Services. LW2 is colleague. As a part of their duty, he investigates and to verify counterfeit products. The VSK Global Service has given

Authorization to him for Levis Strauss & Company. As per, the instructions of company,

LW2 visited Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad, he conducted market survey, he visited SK2 Traders and MF Traders, he found owner of shops are selling duplicate garments (Shirts and Jeans Pants) of Levis Strauss & Company, LW2 informed to him, inturn he informed to Company. On 18-10-2022, he went to PS and lodged the

Complaint. Thereafter, the Police alongwith Panchas, he and LW2 proceeded to scene of offence, the Police conducted search in the above two shops, they found the counterfeit products in SK2 Traders around 30 Jeans and MF Traders they found 20 Shirts of Levis

Strauss & Company Brand Garments. The Police brought the seized material to the Police

Station, thereafter, the Police recorded his Statement.

12. PW2/Eye witness pleaded ignorance of case facts, and he was declared hostile by prosecution. PW4/ Panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama, was also declared hostile by prosecution.

13. PW3/Circumstantial witness deposed that he is working as Surveyor at VSK Globle

Services, he pleaded ignorance of case facts. As a part of his duty, he was conducting survey to verify the duplicate products. On 18-10-2022, he proceeded to SK Traders, he found one person was available in the shop, he verified the products, he found that owner of the shop is selling counterfeit products of Levis jeans pants. After noticing the same, they proceeded to MM traders there, he observed that they are selling the counterfeit products of Levis shirts. Then he along with Faruqee (PW1) went to PS and lodged a complaint. Thereafter, the police seized 30 Levis jeans from SK2 traders and 20 shirts from MF trades which are counterfeit products. Police examined and recorded his statement.

6 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022

14. PW5/investigation officer deposed that, on 18-10-2022 at 16.30 hours, received complaint under Ex.P1 from PW1. Basing on the same, he registered a case in

Cr.No.242/2022 U/Sec. 420, 486 R/w. 34 of IPC. He submitted original FIR to Hon'ble

Court and all copies to concerned Officers. He examined and recorded statement of LW1 in part - I CD. He obtained permission from his Superior Officers u/Sec. 165 of Cr.P.C for search. On the same day, he proceeded to SK2 Traders situated at Nallagutta,

Secunderabad along with PW3 and PW4 panch witness and LW5/PC-3344 and LW6/PC- 3410 and served search proceedings on Al. He searched his shop and seized duplicate 30

Jeans pant with Levis brand. He drawn rough sketch of scene of offence in presence of panch witnesses and enquired accused and he voluntarily confessed that he purchased those seized spurious Jeans pants from Delhi streets and he drafted confession cum seizure panchanama. On the same day at about 7.30 PM, he along with panch witnesses and above PC's proceeded to MF Traders at Nallagutta, Secunderabad and served search proceedings from A2/Mohd. Zaheer Ahmed and on enquiry he confessed that he is selling shirts of duplicate Levis brand which were purchased by him from Delhi streets. He seized 20 duplicate Levis branded shirts from A2's shop and affixed panch slips and also drafted confession cum seizure panchanama including rough sketch. He brought Al and

A2 along with seized property to PS and served Sec. 41 (A) Cr.P.C notice. He subjected seized property for expert examination along with original brand of Levis shirt and pant produced by PW1 and he received report stating that hanged tags are duplicate as per brand label standards, font and size of logo as Counterfeit. He examined and recorded statement of LW2 at PS prior to serving Se.c 41 (A) Cr.P.C notice on Al and A2. PW.1 also handed over to the letter of authorization given to him by Levis company as Special

Power of Attorney for lodging complaints against infringement of their intellectual property rights. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

15. On entire careful perusal of the prosecution witnesses, the case of prosecution is that

PW2 who is working as surveyor in M/s.VSK Global services, visited the shop of accused and found counterfeit products of Jeans pants (30) of Levis brand, situated at Nallagutta,

Ramgopalpet. PW1 worked as Investigation officer at VSK Global Services. Thereafter, he stated to have lodged complaint under Ex.P1 at PS Ramgopalpet.

LW7/PW5/K.Govardhan Reddy SI of Police conducted the raid in said shop and found 30-Jeans pants and 20-Shirts of counterfeit garments of Levis company, the concerned police seized the T-shirts from the possession of owner of the shop.

7 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022

16. The defence rightly cross examined on the points, that Investigation officer/PW5 failed to examine Independent witnesses near scene of offence, he did not collect the documents to show PW1 is deputed by M/s. VSK Global Services to investigate spurious products or from accused did he collect any permission from GHMC or any certificate relevant to trade marks to accused for this question, the investigation officer answered “no”. PW5 also stated that he did not collect documents from VSK Global services to show that they were directly authorized to conduct raides for different products of Levis brand. He neither collected any documents from affiliated firms/corporations/companies to Levis company, he did not collect the original documents, he also did not stated about the seized T-shirts or the descriptive particulars of the same and he did not mention in form 66 and confession cum seizure panchanama. PW5 also stated that he did not calculate the seized jeans pants and shirts from the possession of accused. He also stated that he did not send to FSL for opinion from above cross examination, the defence counsel had straightly striked on the role of Investigation officer that should actually done

before filing the case.

17. It is peculiar to see that, on all above questions of PW5/Investigation officer answered in negative form stating that, he neither collected any documentary proof of shop in the name and style of "SK2 Traders" situated at Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet and "M.F. Traders "Situated at Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet. He filed case against accused to show that they are engaged in selling or other products to show that the seized T shirts/

MO.1 is where is in his possession. The stock register of shop was not produced before this court and as rightly contended, the PW5 did not verify the stand of PW1 in filing present case as they have stated that they have been conducting survey and investigation case by inspecting the shops to know about the counterfeit products of Levis company.

But, PW3 and PW5/investigation officers not properly conducted investigation and submitted by the prosecution or put up by PW5 in Chargesheet. PW1 and PW3 are cited to be members of VSK global services as per Ex.P1 MSVS office at Shivarampally,

Hyderabad. As per the contents of Ex.P1, PW1 stated to have been authorized representative for National and International Company to represent them all over India and they are authorized to detect the counterfeit products and infringement, copyright trade marks of Levis Company. They stated to have been found the alleged offence at

Ramgopalpet in the name and style of "SK2 Traders" situated at Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet.

and "M.F. Traders "Situated at Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet except Ex.P19 authorization 8 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022 letter given by VSK global services to PW1 to investigate any copyrights and find out duplicate and original products and seized any counterfeit products.

18. Upon perusal of Ex.P19/Authorization letter issued in favor of PW1, the validity of

Authorization letter is only for 15 days and complaint under Ex.P1 is shown to have lodged on 10-12-2018 within stipulated period. However, there appears no direct agreement between Levis company Trade Mark Managment with VSK Global Services to detect in the alleged offences. The letter of authority along with documents submitted by

PW1 to police shows that M/s.United Overseas Trade Mark company was actually given power of Attroney by M/s.Levis Company Trade Mark Management GMBH & Co., to one Raju Methri of M/s. VSK Global Services to initiate, prosecute and conduct criminal prosecution before relevant forums for infringement of property rights. In respect of Levis company Trade mark Management, one Raju methri is shown to have said Authorization under Ex.P19. To support said document, the concerned person was not examined by prosecution. The documents under Ex.P20 had registered under Trade Mark of Levis company is also said to have been submit direct to police. Without the police and other concerned departments. PW5 did not subject the seized products of 30 Jeans pants and 20 shirts of Levis company to FSL to know whether seized products are counterfeit products.

Hence, in the absence of the material evidence, it becomes difficult for court to hold the accused guilt for alleged offence.

19. To attract the offence under section 420 of IPC, two ingredients are required that are :-i) Cheating and ii) Dishonest inducement, which should be proved by prosecution.

To prove first ingredients of section 420 of IPC, the prosecution should have to examined the customers of said spurious products or shop run in the name of SK2 Traders and

M.F.Traders to know that counterfeit products are sold at alleged shop. The investigation officer examined as PW5 did not examine any independent witnesses he examined any customers of said shop. Except the PW1 and PW3. The scale of proof required in criminal cases is “Beyond Reasonable doubt”. The Investigation done by PW5 is not at all convincing to the court to convict the accused in present case. There is no connecting evidence to say that said shop in the name and style of SK2 Traders and M.F.Traders is run by Accused. The confession cum seizure panchanama recorded by PW5 under Ex.P6 is inadmissible in evidence for the reason it being hit by section 25 and 26 of Indian

Evidence Act. LW5/Shaik Waheed is examined as PW4 did not supported case of prosecution to say that to prove the alleged seizure of confession of accused. The 9 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022 prosecution for offence under section 486 of IPC is baseless for the reason that, no FSL report was issued and seized products under MO.1 are not submitted into court. On entire careful perusal of evidence of PW1 to PW5 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P21, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offence against accused under section 420 and 486 of IPC. Hence,the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

20. In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under 420, and 486 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the

Code of criminal procedure. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Unmarked case property viz., I) 30- jeans pants of Duplicate Levis Brand ii) 20- Shirts of Duplicate Levis Brand shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by him and corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 14 th day of October, 2024).

//Sd/-//

XXII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:- Syed Mohd. Farooque - Nil -

PW2 :- Shail Moinuddin

PW3 :- P.Sai Kumar

PW4 :- Shaik Waheed

PW5 :- K.Govardhan.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 :- Complaint. - Nil -

Ex.P2 :- signature on search proceedings.

Ex.P3 to Ex.P6 :- signatures on confession cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P7 :- Signature on search proceedings.

Ex.P8 to Ex.P11 :- signatures on confession cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P12 :- FIR,

Ex.P13:-confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 dt. 18-10-2022

Ex.P14 :- confession cum seizure panchanama of A2 dt. 18-10-2022

Ex.P15:- CDF dt.18-10-2022 at 9.00 PM.

Ex.P16 :- CDF dt. 18-10-2022 at 9.40 PM.

Ex.P17 :- requisition for search proceedings dt.18-10-2022 at 5.30 AM.

10 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022

Ex.P18 :- search permission proceedings given by ACP Saifabad division, Hyderabad dt. 18-10-2022.

Ex.P19 :- letter of authority given to Mr. Raju Methari of M/s. VSK Global Services

Ex.P20 :- power of attorney dt.02-09-2021 along with certificate of registration of trade mark and connected documents.

Ex.P21 :- Analysis report dt.25-11-2022.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -- Nil - //Sd/-//

XXII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

11 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: Smt K.ASHA RANI, XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Dated this the 30 th day of June, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO.2703 OF 2019

Between:

The State through the Sub Inspector of Police

P.S. Lallaguda..... Complainant

AND

A1- Bashaboina Narasaiah S/o. Bashaboina Dharmaiah (late) Aged 83 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.2-1-76, Housing Board Colony, Ramagundam. (Abated on 11-02-2022).

A2- Bashaboina Gopala Krishnaiah S/o. Bashaboina Narasaiah Aged 57 years, Occ: Employee in Singareni, R/o.H.No.2-1-75, Housing Board Colony, Seetha Nagar, Ramagundam.

A3- Parupally Venkatesh S/o. Late Rangaiah Aged 52 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No. 7-24, Prabhu Nagar, Sulthanabad, Karimnagar.

A4- Parupally Ajay Kumar S/o. Parupally Vaikuntapathi Aged 32 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.5-138, Prabhu Nagar, Near Police Station Lane, Sulthanabad, Karimnagar.

A5- Bangari Sharath S/o. Bangari Saraiah Aged 31 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. Plot No.34, H.No.2-132/4/B/1, Behind JNS Sai Sadan, Engineers Enclave, Gangaram, Chandranagar, Hyderabad. …….Accused

HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE U/sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C 12 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022

Q. The Accused No.2 to 5 found guilty for the offence under section 323 and 506 of IPC, for which prescribed punishment is extended upto One (1) year of imprisonment for offence under section 323 of IPC and upto Two (2) years of imprisonment for offence under section 506 of IPC with fine. What do you say?

Ans: A2 to A5 had not submitted anything to take linent view in imposing the sentence on them.

Hence, considering the material on record and on appreciation of the evidence and also on considering the nature of the offence, the year of institution of the case, this court sentences that the Accused No.2 to 5 shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of One (1) year and also pay the fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under section 323 of IPC.

Further, the Accused No.2 to 5 shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of One (1) year and also pay the fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under section 506 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the Accused No.2 to 5 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One (1) month. The sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

The A2 to A5 are informed about their right of appeal against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by this court and also about free legal aid through Hon’ble Legal Services Authorities by legal aid defence counsels. The remand period, if any, undergone by A2 to A5 shall be given set off under 428 of Cr.P.C.

The Case against A1 was abated on 11-02-2022.

A2-

A3-

A4-

A5-

XXII ACJM

13 of 10 CC.No. 2324 of 2022

CC.No. 981 of 2021/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 1 of 10

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt. K. Asha Rani, II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 28 th Day of March, 2026

C.C. No. 981 of 2021

Between:-

The State through The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Abids, Hyderabad.

....Complainant

// A N D //

Bhukya Ashok Kumar Nayak, S/o. Srinu, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o: H.No.9-100, Beside water tank, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. …. Accused

This Case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Sr.APPO appearing on behalf of the Prosecution, and of Sri. K. Narasimha Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused and on perusal of the case record and after hearing both sides, this court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The State represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Abids, Hyderabad, has filed Charge Sheet in Crime No. 290 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 323, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) against the Accused.

2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are that:-

(a) On 31.12.2020 at about 14:30 hours, a complaint was received from K. Kavitha, aged about 28 years, resident of Veilatur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District. She stated that she had earlier filed a petition before the Human Rights Commission (HRC) on 03.11.2020 against the accused Bukya Ashok Kumar Nayak, alleging that he had maintained a relationship with her but refused to marry her. She had also lodged complaints against him at Kushaiguda

Police Station and Jawaharlal Nehru Police Station.

(b) According to the complainant, on 31.12.2020 at about 01:20 PM, when both parties appeared before the Human Rights Commission Office at Gruhakalpa Building, Nampally,

CC.No. 981 of 2021/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 2 of 10

Hyderabad for a hearing, the accused allegedly assaulted her with his hands, causing injury to her right hand, and submitted that he had no relationship with her. It is further alleged that the accused abused her in filthy language in the presence of the public, thereby insulting her modesty and causing physical and mental harassment. Hence, the complaint.

(c)Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.290/2020 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 and 509 of IPC and took up investigation.

(d)During the course of investigation, the complainant was examined by the woman police officer WPC R. Lakshmi, who recorded her detailed statement. The complainant was sent of

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, for medical examination and treatment. The Investigating

Officer also visited the scene of offence at the Gruhakalpa Complex, conducted a scene of observation and prepared a rough sketch. Statements of witnesses, including police personnel on duty at the Human Rights Commission office, were recorded. The accused was apprehended by the police personnel present at the spot and brought to the police station. After enquiry, a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., was issued to him, which he complied with.

(e)During investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the Medico-Legal Certificates (MLC) from the doctor of Osmania General Hospital, who examined the complainant. The doctor opined that the complainant had sustained abrasion on the right hand and abrasion on the middle finger, and that the injuries were simple in nature. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused.

3. After perusal of the record, the case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 323, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code. On appearance of the Accused, copies were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation under

Sections 323, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilty of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P4.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of

CC.No. 981 of 2021/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 3 of 10

Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution. The accused denied the said incriminating evidence and did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

7.The Learned APP submitted that, the evidence adduced by the prosecution through PWs 1 to 6, coupled with Exs.P1 to P4 has proved the offence under Sections 323, 506 and 509 of Indian

Penal Code against the accused and as such, prayed to convict the accused.

8.The Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution through PWs 1 to 6, coupled with Exs.P1 to P4 are not sufficient to prove the offence and the alleged facts do not attract the ingredients of the offence under Sections 323, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code against the accused and as such, prayed to acquit the accused.

9.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

10. Now, the point for determination in this case is :

“Whether Accused had voluntarily caused hurt to LW-1/K. Kavitha by beating her due to which she sustained injury and abused her in most filthy language, also outraged the modesty of PW1, and whether prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences leveled against accused U/sec. 323, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

POINT :-

11.The alleged offences against accused are under sections 323, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal

Code. For the sake of convenience, these sections are hereunder reproduced:-

Section 323 of IPC - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt:

Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 506 of IPC - Punishment for criminal intimidation: Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

CC.No. 981 of 2021/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 4 of 10

if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or (imprisonment for life) or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 509 of Indian Penal Code – Word, gesture or act intended to insult the

modesty of a woman:

Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.

12.The first alleged offence against the accused is under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, which is penal provision of the offence for causing voluntarily hurt. What is voluntarily hurt is defined under Section 321 of Indian Penal Code saying that doing any act with an intention to cause hurt or with the knowledge that the act will cause hurt to any person is committing an act of voluntarily hurt. What is hurt is defined under Section 319 of Indian Penal Code, which says that causing bodily pain, desease or infirmity.

Section 319 of IPC – Hurt :

Whoever causes bodily pain, desease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

Section 321 of IPC – Voluntarily causing hurt :

Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said “voluntarily to cause hurt”.

13.In order to prove the alleged offence, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked

Exs.P1 to P4. PW1 is the de facto complainant, PWs 2 and 3 are the eye-witnesses, PW4 is the

Casualty Medical Officer (CMO), Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, PW5 is a Woman

Police Constable (WPC-31148), and PW6 is the Investigating Officer.

14.PW-1 deposed that, she knew the accused and at the time of lodging the case she was residing at A.S. Rao Nagar. She stated that in March/April 2017 the house owners introduced the accused to her, who was already a tenant in their house. After one or two days the accused came to her and asked her to give him a hug, for which she scolded him and he went away, and again after two days he came to her room. She further stated that she informed the accused that one Rama

CC.No. 981 of 2021/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 5 of 10

Naidu had tied a knot with her in the year 2011 and that in the year 2015 her relative P. Ashok

Kumar had promised to marry her after getting a job but later refused as she was already tied with

Rama Naidu, due to which she lodged a report against Ashok Kumar and fourteen others at PS

Kushaiguda. She stated that those persons conspired and sent the accused to her and when she approached the Human Rights Commission, Telangana State on 31-12-2020 complaining that justice was not done and police were not taking action, the accused appeared there and she sustained injuries on her right hand and cheek. She further stated that she lodged a report before the police which was marked as Ex.P1 and the police examined her and recorded her statement.

15.PW-2 deposed that, on 31-12-2020 at about 1:30 p.m., while he along with

LW-3/Vijayshanti, Home Guard, were on duty at the Human Rights Commission, he noticed two persons arguing with each other in the HRC premises. On enquiry, he came to know their names as Ashok Kumar (accused) and Kavita (PW-1), and that they were disputing with respect to a love affair and had come to the HRC for a hearing. He further stated that he saw the accused beating

PW-1 with his hands, and later the police examined him and recorded his statement.

16.PW-3 deposed that, she has been working as a Home Guard at the Human Rights

Commission since October 2020. She stated that on 31-12-2020 at about 11:00 a.m., while she was performing her duty outside the HRC office, she saw the accused and PW-1 coming out of the office while abusing each other. On questioning PW-1, she informed that the accused had cheated her after having a love affair with her. PW-3 further stated that the police examined her and recorded her statement.

17.PW-4 deposed that, he is presently working as Civil Surgeon at District Hospital, Gajwel,

Siddipet since August 2024 and previously worked as Casualty Medical Officer at Osmania

General Hospital from March 2017 to February 2022. He stated that on receipt of a requisition from the S.H.O., PS Abid Road, he examined a patient by name Kavita, aged about 25 years, resident of Dilsukhnagar, on 31-12-2020 at about 6:05 p.m. and found (1) abrasion on the right hand and (2) abrasion on the middle finger. He further stated that the injuries were alleged to have been caused in an assault by her boyfriend at about 1:35 p.m. on 31-12-2020 at HRD, Nampally.

He issued the Medical Certificate of the victim, which was marked as Ex.P2, and stated that the patient was accompanied by PC No.1731 of PS Abid Road and that the injuries found were simple in nature.

18.PW-5 deposed that, she is presently working as WPC-31148 at PS Abids since 2020. She

CC.No. 981 of 2021/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 6 of 10

stated that on 31-12-2020 at about 1:20 p.m., they received a Dial-100 call from the Human

Rights Commission informing that the defacto complainant (PW-1) was beaten by one person by name B. Ashok Kumar Naik during the proceedings at HRC. On the instructions of the S.I. of

Police, she brought the complainant from HRC at Gruhakalpa and obtained a complaint from her, which was marked as Ex.P1, and recorded her statement in Part-II case diary. She further stated that as per her information, the dispute was relating to love failure for which the defacto complainant had filed a case before the State Human Rights Commission.

19.PW-6 deposed that, he is presently working as S.I. at Shahinayat Gunj Police Station since 2022 and previously worked as S.I. at PS Abids from 2017 to 2021. He stated that on 31-12-2020 he received a complaint from LW-1 and basing on it registered a case in Crime No. 290/2020 for the offences under Sections 323, 506 and 509 IPC. He further stated that he got the statement of

LW-1 recorded through PW-5 and referred her to Osmania General Hospital for medical examination. During investigation he visited the scene of offence at Gruhakalpa Complex, prepared a rough sketch, examined LW-2 and LW-3 and recorded their statements, and served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused. After receiving the medical certificate of LW-1, he filed the charge sheet. He identified Ex.P3 as the FIR and Ex.P4 as the CD file along with the rough sketch.

20.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the accused was introduced to the defacto- complainant/PW1 through her house owner situated at A.S. Rao Nagar, in the month of

March/April 2017, as he was already one of the tenants in the owner’s house. Thereafter, PW1 and the accused developed a relationship, even after the accused came to know that PW1 had already been married to Rama Naidu in the year 2011. Later, the accused refused to marry her on the ground that she was already married to Rama Naidu. Due to this, PW1 filed a complaint against the accused and fourteen others at Police Station Kushaiguda. Thereafter, alleging that the accused and others conspired against her, she approached the Human Rights Commission on 31.12.2020 and submitted a complaint regarding the issue. During the proceedings before the

Commission, the accused appeared, and PW1 alleged that she sustained injuries during the incident, for which she subsequently lodged a complaint before Abids police.

21.During the course of cross-examination, PW1 admitted that she had lodged the complaint at Police Station Kushaiguda, stating that the accused did not marry her despite making a promise to marry her. She also admitted that she had filed a case against the family members of the accused/Ashok Kumar. She denied the suggestion that the Commission refused to entertain her

CC.No. 981 of 2021/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 7 of 10

complaint and that she caught hold of the collar of the accused and dragged him from the room.

However, she admitted that she caught hold of the shirt of the accused outside the Commission room. The evidence of PW1 does not clearly disclose the actual grievance before the Court.

However, on a reading of the contents of the complaint marked under Ex.P1, it appears that the case of PW1 is that the accused failed to marry her despite promising to do so, and therefore she approached the Human Rights Commission.

22.As per the complaint, it is contented that during the proceedings before Human Rights

Commission, the accused stated that he had no relationship with PW1, whereas PW1 alleged that the accused had assaulted her with his hands and subjected her to emotional harassement. The issue involved in the present case is whether the offence under Section 323 of IPC is made out.

During the cross-examination of PW1, it is evident that she admitted about catching hold of the collar of the accused outside the Commission room. Such conduct would definitely leads to a dispute, resulting in a verbal exchange and scuffle between the parties, rather than a deliberate act intended to cause hurt under Section 323 of IPC. Voluntarily causing hurt is an essential ingredient for establishing the offence under Section 323 of IPC. The evidence of PW4/doctor shows that, upon physical examination of PW1 on 31.12.2020 at 06:05 PM, only an abrasion on the right hand and middle finger of PW1 was noticed. The measurement of the injury and age of injury was not mentioned in the medical report, making it difficult to ascertain whether the injury was intentionally caused or occurred during the scuffle. Therefore, the injuries cannot conclusively be held to have been intentionally caused by the accused.

23.Further, the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, who are a Head Constable and a Woman Home

Guard, respectively, shows that they noticed PW1 and the accused arguing with each other in the premises of the Human Rights Commission. Upon enquiry, they came to know their names and that the dispute had arisen due to a love affair between them. PW2 deposed that the accused was beating PW1 with his hands. However, disputes arising out of emotional circumstances such as out of a broken relationship may lead to heated exchange of arguments and scuffles. In such situations, the mere existence of minor injuries cannot by itself determine whether the hurt was voluntarily caused by the accused.

24.During the course of the trial, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (APPO) filed a petition under Section 242(2) Cr.P.C. The petition was returned for compliance of certain objections. On perusal of the said petition, counter and material on record, it is noticed that the prosecution filed several documents without specifying which of them relate to the present case

CC.No. 981 of 2021/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 8 of 10

and without filing a proper list of documents. As the documents were not properly arranged or numbered to facilitate proper adjudication, the petition was returned with a direction to comply with the procedure contemplated under Section 242(2) Cr.P.C. However, it was not re-submitted thereafter, despite several adjournments granted from 24.09.2025 until the date of delivery of judgment. It was also reported during the docket proceedings dated 27.11.2025 that the petition was not intended to be re-submitted and a request was made to proceed with the matter.

Considering fact that the case pertains to the year 2021, which is one of the oldest pending matters, the Court proceeded to deliver the judgment.

25.The demeanor of PW1 was observed by the Court from the beginning of the proceedings during the trial. She appears to be aggressive with uncontrollability behaviour, and frequently cause disturbances during the court proceedings despite repeated counseling to present her grievance properly through the learned APPO, as the case is a State case and not a private complaint. Her conduct during the proceedings indicates a tendency to engage in disputes.

Further, her admission during cross-examination that she caught hold of the shirt collar of the accused outside the Commission room suggests her overt acts which could have led to the alleged dispute. Hence, there is no other evidence on record to show that PW1 was voluntarily beaten by accused without there being any provocation from PW1 and thereby on consideration of entire evidence on record coupled with material available on record, the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code against accused.

26.The second alleged offence against the accused is under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, which is penal provision of the offence for causing criminal intimidation. What is criminal intimidation is defined under Section 503 of Indian Penal Code. For the sake of convenience this section is hereunder reproduced:-

Section 503 of IPC – Criminal Intimidation:

Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

27.The required ingredients of Section 503 of Indian Penal Code are causing injury to his person, property, reputation or to the person in whom the injured is interested. In order to prove the offence of criminal intimidation the prosecution has to lead evidence to show the language

CC.No. 981 of 2021/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 9 of 10

used by the accused which instilled fear in the mind of PW1. The entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses mainly the material witnesses PWs 1 to 3 did not disclose about any language used by the accused, which could have instilled fear in the mind of PW1 and as such even the prosecution failed to prove offence under Section 503 of Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code.

28.In order to prove the offence under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that accused intended to insult the modesty of PW1/victim, by uttering a word and making a gesture intended to be seen by the victim. The further questions of defence during

PW1’s cross-examination shows that, accused promised to marry PW1 but after knowing her past he refused to marry her, for which the alleged dispute might have occurred. However, the victim/PW1 herself did not depose before the court any evidence attracting the offence under

Section 509 of Indian Penal Code. Neither, the PWs 2 and 3 did not state specific language used by the accused which would have resulted in insulting the modesty of PW1. No supporting evidence in this regard was lead as rightly contended by the defence. The evidence of PW1 is itself with multiple contradictions, improvements and exaggerations that do not inspire confidence of the court to presume that the alleged incident occurred and as such the prosecution though lead evidence of PWs 1 to 3 could not establish the alleged offence under Section 509 of Indian Penal

Code against the accused.

29.The alleged incident does not attract the ingredients of Section 509 IPC, as there is no material to show that the accused had the intention to outrage the modesty of PW1. It appears that the alleged incident had occurred on the spur of the moment due to a scuffle between the parties arising out of their disputes. Therefore, upon overall consideration of the matter, coupled with the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P4, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offences under Sections 323, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

30.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 323, 506 and 509 of

Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the

Accused person, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as required U/Sec. 437(A)

Cr.P.C.

NOTE:The alleged offence under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment upto three years and therefore the case ought to have been dealt with as a warrant

CC.No. 981 of 2021/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 10 of 10

case. Accordingly, the examination of accused should have been conducted under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C., and charge ought to have been framed under Section 240 of Cr.P.C. However, the learned predecessor of this Court conducted examination of accused under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., which is applicable to summons cases. Hence, in order to rectify the procedural irregularity, charge is being framed under Section 240 of Cr.P.C., on this day of delivering the judgment. As per Section 464 of Cr.P.C., mere omission or error in framing of charge shall not vitiate the proceedings or invalidate the judgment unless it has occasioned a failure of justice.

Dictated to D. Sindhu, Jr. Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of March, 2026.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

:Appendix of Evidence:

:No. of witnesses examined for:

Prosecution: Defence

PW1 : K. Kavitha -Nil- PW2 : Mohd. Babar PW3 : M. Vijaya Shanthi PW4 : Dr. Pranitha PW5 : R. Lakshmi PW6 : K. Laxmaiah :No. of documents marked for:

Prosecution Defence.

Ex.P1 : Report. -Nil- Ex.P2 : Medical Certificate of PW1. Ex.P3 : FIR. Ex.P4 : Crime Details Form along with rough sketch.

:Material Objects Marked:

- Nil -

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

CC.No.20441 of 2019/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT: HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt. K. Asha Rani, II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 16 th Day of March, 2026

CC.No. 20441 of 2019

Between:-

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.

....Complainant

//AND//

A1) Kalyankar Rupender, S/o. K. Mohanlal, aged 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-3- 397, Esamiya Bazar, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad.

A2) Mohammed Mahmood Qureshi, S/o. Mohd. Hakeemuddin, aged 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-8-220 to 29/D/7, Airline Towers, Sindhi Colony, Secunderabad. ….Accused Nos.1 & 2

This Case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Sr. APPO appearing on behalf of the Prosecution, and of Sri. M. M. Ahmed Khan, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Accused Nos.1 and 2, and on perusal of the case record and after hearing both sides, this court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The state represented through the Sub-Inspector of police PS Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad has filed a Charge Sheet against the Accused Nos.1 & 2 in Cr.No.148 of 2019 for the offences punishable

Under Section 406 & 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :-

(a)On 16.10.2019 at 1600 hours the complainant Bhawani Singh Rajpurohit lodged a police report stating that he is the proprietor of M/s. Paras Collection and running ready made cloth business at Shop No. 33, Mithila Complex, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad-500005. Two persons namely Mohd.

Mahmood and Ruby are known to him since long time and they started their own business of readymades in Shop No.5-1-764/1/B, Koti, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad and requested the complainant to supply readymades on credit basis and the complainant have been supplying the same to them and they were clearing the bills within 8 to 10 days and the business was going on regular basis and the complainant was supplying readymades and they were clearing the bills within a short period. That about one month back Mohd. Mohamood and his friend Ruby requested the complainant to supply the material for about 10.00 Lakhs as they are receiving bulk orders and the LW-1 trusted them and

CC.No.20441 of 2019/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 2 of 8

supplied readymades for about 10.00 Lakhs. After a short period the above said persons approached him and informed that this business of readymades is not profitable and gave an undertaking to him that the readymades garments be kept in their shop No.5-1-764/1/B, Koti, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad and they will run business.

(b)After executing the said undertaking Mohd. Mahmood/ A2 issued a cheque vide B.No.004934

dt: 01.10.2019 for an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs of India Overseas Bank, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad

and Rupender/ A1 issued cheque B.No.000034 dt: 01.10.2019 for an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs of Andhra

Bank, Koti Branch, Hyderabad, totaling Rs.10 Lakhs, but the same have been dishonoured. On asking, the Accused Nos.1 and 2gave evasive replies and avoided to talk with LW-1 and when he requested to make full payment of the readymades supplied to them or return the entire goods, firstly the accused persons avoided to talk with him and thereafter he started giving threats saying that they would bring their own musclemen and close LW-1s mouth and also he shall not open his mouth at any time.

Basing on the complaint, LW10-K. Subbarami Reddy, SI of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.148/2019 U/Sec.406, 420 of IPC and handed over the case file to LW-11/K. Madusudhan, SI of

Police for further investigation.

(c)During the course of his Investigation LW-11 examined the LW-1/Bhavani Singh Rajpurohit and recorded his statement in Part-II case diary and collected relevant documents i.e. 1) Cheque return

Memos, 2) Invoice copies of different dates in favour of Mohammed Mahmood and K. Rupender from the complainant and also visited scene of offence situated at Paras Collection Shop No. 33,

Mithila Complex, Bank Street, Koti, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad and secured the presence of LW4-

Joravar Sing Rathod & LW5-Mohd Saber and drafted rough sketch and conducted Crime Detail Form in their presence. During the course of his further investigation, LW11 served Notice U/Sec.41(A)

Cr.P.C to the Accused Nos.1 and 2 under proper acknowledgment, with a direction to cooperate with the investigation and to comply with provision laid down, but the Accused Nos.1 and 2 failed to comply with the terms of notice.

(d)Later, on the transfer of LW11, the LW12-K. Chandra Mohan, SI of Police, took up further investigation, during the course of his investigation the LW12 verified the investigation done by

LW11 and found in proper lines, further, secured the presence of LW2-Vikram Singh & LW3-Umesh

Singh and examined and recorded their statements. While the investigation is under progress, on credible information, on 16.11.2019 at 1100 hours the LW12 with the assistance of his staff apprehended the A1 and on interrogation, the A1 voluntarily admitted his guilt in the commission of offence in collusion with the A2. Accordingly, LW12 secured the presence of LW6-Mangal Singh &

LW7-Kheth Singh and recorded the confession statement of A1 and later, affected his arrest at 1400 hours duly informing the grounds and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. While the

CC.No.20441 of 2019/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 3 of 8

investigation is under progress, on 23-11-2019 the A2 surrendered before the LW-12 and on interrogation the A2 voluntarily admitted his guilt in commission of offence and affected his arrest and enlarged him on bail. During the course of his further investigation, LW12 collected the account statement of A/c.No.012411021057 of Paras Collection from 01.09.2019 to 30.10.2019 from LW8-

Chauhan Lokesh. On completion of investigation, LW12 filed charge-sheet against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences U/Sec.406 and 420 of IPC.

(e)The investigation conclusively establishes that the Accused Nos.1 and 2in collusion approached the complainant to supply ready made garments on credit basis worth of Rs.10 Lakhs and received the same and failed to pay. Later, on the request of LW1 to repay the credit amounts, the A1 issued Cheque B.No.000034 dated 01.10.2019 for Rs.5 Lakhs and the A2 issued Cheque B.No.004934

dated 01.10.2019 for Rs.5 Lakhs, when LW1 presented said cheques they were dishonored for the

reason of Insufficient Funds. Later, on further demand of LW1 to repay the amounts, the Accused

Nos.1 and 2threatened the LW1 with dire-consequences and thereby, committed criminal breach of trust and cheated the complainant and caused wrongful loss to him. Thus, filed charge sheet.

3.On perusal of record, the case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 406, 420 of

Indian Penal Code. On appearance of Accused Nos.1 and 2copies of case record are furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused Nos.1 & 2 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/Sec.406, 420 of

Indian Penal Code. Charge for the offences U/Sec.406, 420 of IPC was framed against Accused Nos.1 and 2, the contents of the same are read over and explained to them in their vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW Nos-1 to 4 and got exhibits Exs.P1 to P9 marked. Basing on the report dated 17.10.2025 of police concerned the evidence of LW3-Umesh Singh & LW4-Joravar Singh Rathod was closed. Further, the learned APP given up the evidence of LW6-Mangal Singh, LW8-Chauhan Lokesh, LW9-K. Vivek Chary, LW10-K. Subbarami

Reddy, LW11-K. Madhusudhan. Further, basing on report of police concerned dated 14.01.2025 the evidence of LW7-Kheth Singh was closed.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating material appearing against them in prosecution evidence, for which, they submitted all such evidence is false and reported no-defence on their behalf.

7.The Learned APP submitted that, the evidence adduced by the prosecution through PWs 1 to 4, coupled with Exs.P1 to P9 has proved the offence U/Sec.406 & 420 of Indian Penal Code against the

CC.No.20441 of 2019/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 4 of 8

accused and as such, prayed to convict the accused.

8.The Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution through PWs 1 to 4, coupled with Exs.P1 to P9 are not sufficient to prove the offence and the alleged facts do not attract the ingredients of the offence U/Sec.406 & 420 of

Indian Penal Code, as the material placed on record coupled with documents marked by the prosecution, the prosecution couldn’t able to prove the essential ingredients of the offences U/Sec.406 & 420 of IPC, as the prosecution failed to establish the inducement caused by Accused Nos.1 and 2 towards PW1 in entrusting the property and thereby misappropriated the same causing wrongful loss to PW1, as such, prayed to acquit the accused.

9.Heard Arguments from both sides.

10.Now, the point of determination in this case is :

Whether Accused Nos.1 and 2 committed criminal breach of trust by Cheating PW.1 and whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences leveled against him U/Sec.406 and 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:-

11.The alleged offences against Accused Nos.1 & 2 is under Sections 406, 420 of Indian Penal

Code. For the sake of convenience the Sections are hereunder reproduced:-

Section 406 of IPC – Punishment for criminal breach of trust :- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 420 of IPC – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property :-

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

12.In order to prove the offences U/Sec.406 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the Accused

Nos.1 and 2 were entrusted with property, with directions for its dispossession, but they have misused the said property to their own use. In order to prove the offence of cheating as defined U/Sec.420 of

IPC, the dishonest intention to cheat should be from the point of inception of the transaction.

13.The word cheating is defined U/Sec.415 of IPC and for the sake of convenience the Section is hereunder reproduced:-

Section 415 of IPC - Cheating :- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person, or to consent that any person

CC.No.20441 of 2019/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 5 of 8

shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

14.The two ingredients required to prove cheating are fraudulent transaction and dishonest inducement and thereby, on playing of dishonest inducement by the accused the victim had delivered the property. The word fraudulent and dishonest intentions are defined U/Sec.24 & 25 of IPC. The word dishonest is defined U/Sec.24 of IPC which says that whenever an act is done with an intention of causing wrongful gain to one person and wrongful loss to another person. The word fraudulent intention is defined U/Sec. 25 of IPC which says that, a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with an intention to defraud but not otherwise.

15.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4. PW1 is the defacto-complainant. PW2 is the son of PW1. PW3 is the panch witness for CDF and rough sketch.

PW4 is the Investigating Officer.

16.The PW1 who is the defacto-complainant, deposed that he is having ready made cloth business and has been running the said business since 20 years in the name and style of M/s. Paras Collection.

He knows Accused Nos.1 and 2, as they are his regular customers since 2019. PW1 further deposed that, he supplied stock of cloths to the accused on credit basis after obtaining prepaid cheques for Rs.5 lakhs each from the accused and the transaction was on rotation basis. After receiving the said cheques

PW1 supplied cloths of Rs.5 lakhs to each accused and thereby issued bills. Despite several requests by PW1 to Accused to repay the amounts, the accused did not pay the amounts and closed their shop by taking all their belongings. When the PW1 deposited the said two cheques in his bank, the same were returned for insufficient balance. Due to which he lodged report before the police. PW2 who is the son of PW1, deposed in the same lines that of PW1. The PW3 who is the panch witness for CDF and Rough Sketch, did not support the prosecution case, accordingly, he was declared as hostile witness.

17.The PW4/ Investigating Officer deposed that, basing on the report dated 16.10.2019 of the

PW1, LW10-K. Subbi Rami Reddy, registered this case in Cr.No.148/2019 U/Sec.420 & 406 of IPC, issued FIR and handed over the investigation to LW11- K. Madhusudhan, SI of Police. During the course of his investigation LW11 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses in part-II CD, collected relevant documents i.e. cheque return memos and invoice copies on different dates in favour of A1 and A2. Further, visited the scene of offence at Paras Collection, shop no.33, Mithila Complex,

Bank Street, Koti Sultan Bazar and made enquiries and further, secured the presence of LW4-Jorvar

Singh and PW3 and prepared CDF. Further, served notice U/s.41A CrPC to the accused. Later, on his transfer, PW4 took up further investigation, during the course of his investigation PW4 examined and

CC.No.20441 of 2019/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 6 of 8

recorded the statements of witnesses in part-II CD, later, as Accused Nos.1 and 2 did not comply with the conditions of notice, he apprehended the A1 and recorded his confession and produced him before the court for judicial remand and enlarged A2 on bail on furnishing sureties. During the course of his further investigation, PW4 collected bank statements of PW1 and on completion of investigation he filed charge-sheet.

18.On close scrutiny of evidence of PWs1 and 2, the case of prosecution in brief is that the PW1 supplied a stock of garments to Accused Nos.1 and 2 on credit basis and thereafter, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 failed to repay the amounts. Later, on demanding to repay the amounts, they threatened PW1 with dire-consequences and also failed to make payments. Further, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 issued two cheques B.No.000034 dated 01.10.2019 for Rs.5 Lakhs and Cheque B.No.004934 dated 01.10.2019 for Rs.5 Lakhs respectively, which were subsequently, dishonored for the reason of insufficient funds and on threatening by accused, PW1 filed the case.

19.In order to prove the offence of cheating, as stated above, the concept of deceptive intention should be from the inception of the transaction. The contents of Ex.P1 shows that due to the acquaintance between PW1 and, Accused Nos.1 and 2 that had developed in the course of long relationship, PW1 supplied stock to A1 and A2 on credit basis which is worth of Rs.10 Lakhs. He also stated in Ex.P1 that the A1 and A2 used to repay the amounts within 8 to 10 days of taking stock on credit bills from PW1. The said concept of deceptive intention from the beginning cannot be derived from the contents of Ex.P1 or from the evidence of PW1 & 2. The alleged transactions of giving stock on credit basis as per the carbon copies of bills marked under Ex.P2 were of dated in the month of

September 2019 and the said bills are not clear to say whether it was provided under credit basis or cash basis. The terms and conditions of the bills state that all payments must be made within 15 days, otherwise, interest @ 24 % would be charged extra. The alleged disputed credit transactions started from the month of September to till the end of month i.e., 26.09.2019 and the complaint was lodged on 16.10.2019. The entire transactions between PW1 and A1, A2 appears to have been occurred within span of one and half month and for which the present complaint was lodged.

20.As rightly contended by the defence counsel, the exact date of the alleged offence is not mentioned in Ex.P1. But, from the bills filed into the Court shows that the alleged disputed transactions took place between 03.09.2019 to 26.09.2019. To attract criminal offence, the dates of alleged incidents are important and mainly when the transactions related to the supply and payments, the dates of alleged incidents are also important. The disputed cheques were not enclosed with the complaint, but as shown from the bank statement of PW1 under Ex.P3, it shows that the cheques were returned on the grounds of insufficient funds on 14.10.2019. If there had been disputes between PW1 and A1, A2, the reason for issuance of cheques is unclear. Soon after dishonor of cheques on 14.10.2019, the complaint was lodged on 16.10.2019 under Ex.P1. Even on a rough calculation of all

CC.No.20441 of 2019/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 7 of 8

the credit worth stock supplied to A1 and A2, there is no clarity whether Rs.5 Lakhs worth material each was supplied to A1 and A2 separately. The original record of Paras Collection i.e. cash book is not produced before this court, for verification as to the genuinity of the carbon papers with that of the business transactions of the PW1.

21.Further, the evidence of PW4 shows that there was no shop for A1 and A2, but they were selling material on foot path and push cart, whereas, the PW1 stated in Ex.P1 that they are running a shop at No.5-1-764/1/B, Koti, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. There appears clear contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW4 as to the material particulars of the transaction and prosecution case. PW1 stated that he does not have close acquaintance with the A1 and A2, the statement itself is contradictory to the contents in Ex.P1. The entire disputes between PW1 and A1, A2 is unclear, to say that there was dishonest intention on part of Accused Nos.1 and 2 to cheat PW1 and as such, no clear evidence as to wrongful gain acquired by Accused Nos.1 and 2 wrongful loss caused to PW1 is clearly established by the prosecution to attract the offence U/Sec.420 of IPC, as such, the accused are entitled for acquittal for the alleged offence U/Sec.420 of IPC.

22.The second alleged offence is U/Sec.406 of IPC, for which, the prosecution must prove that

Accused Nos.1 and 2 were entrusted with property with a direction for its dispossession, but they have not followed the conditions and utilized the property entrusted for their own benefit. The alleged facts of the prosecution do not attracts the contents of criminal breach of trust as defined U/Sec.405 of IPC as there is no entrustment of alleged material into the hands of Accused Nos.1 and 2 with directions for its dispossession.

23.This court relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arshad Neyaz Khan Vs.

State of Jharkand and another dated 24.09.2025, wherein, in para no.21, while relying on the

Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690, stated that:

Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that if it is the case of the complainant/respondent No.2 that the offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415, punishable under Section 420 IPC. This Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2024) 10 SCC 690 observed that there is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriates the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver a property. In such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously. Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the

CC.No.20441 of 2019/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 8 of 8

offences that are independent and distinct. The said offences cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set of facts as they are antithetical to each other.

24.Therefore, on consideration of entire material in the case on hand and in view of the above

Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish alleged offences under Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code against the accused for which the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

25.In the result, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence Under Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six(06) months as required U/sec.

437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

No property order is passed as there is no property deposited.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-II of IX ACJM Court, transcribed by him, after correction

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16 th day of March, 2026.

II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: :WITNESSES EXAMINED: For Prosecution For Defence PW-1 : Bhawani Singh - NIL - PW-2 : Vikram Singh PW-3 : Mohd. Saber PW-4 : K. Chandra Mohan

:EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Duplicate bills (13 Nos) issued to A1 & A2 Ex.P3 : Bank statement of PW1 from 01.09.2019 to 30.10.2019 Ex.P4 :Signature of PW3 on CDF dated 16.10.2019 Ex.P5 : Signature of PW3 on rough sketch dated 16.10.2019 Ex.P6 : FIR Ex.P7 : CDF Ex.P8 : Rough SKetch Ex.P9 : Relevant portion of confession

: MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-NIL-

II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

CC.No. 9997 of 2022/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT: HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt. K. Asha Rani, II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 24 th Day of February, 2026

C.C. No. 9997 of 2022

Between:-

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Afzalgunj, Hyderabad.

....Complainant

//AND//

Shaik Baji, S/o. Shaik Subhani, Age: 51 years, Occ: Driver, R/o: 16-65, Bavajipalem, Nizampatnam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. ….Accused

This Case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Sr.APPO appearing on behalf of the Prosecution, and of Md. Tazoddin, counsels appearing on behalf of Accused and on perusal of the case record and after hearing both sides, this court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The state represented through the Sub-Inspector of police PS Afzalgunj, Hyderabad has filed a

Charge Sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.544 of 2022 for the offence punishable Under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :-

(a)On 09.11.2022 at about 20:00 hours, LW-1/Janardhan Goud, the then Police Constable of PS

Afzalgunj, lodged a complaint stating that on 23.10.2022 at about 23:00 hours, while he along with another Police Constable was on night patrol duty at BC-II limits, they received a Dial-100 call informing that an unknown female had met with a road traffic accident opposite Victoria Playground,

Chaderghat, Hyderabad. On reaching the spot, they found an unknown female lying injured on the road. On enquiry with the bystanders, it was learnt that an unknown vehicle, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the victim and fled away. The injured was shifted to Osmania General Hospital through 108 Ambulance and admitted for treatment. On 09.11.2022 at about 08:38 hours, death intimation was received from Osmania General Hospital stating that the said injured female succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. Hence, the report.

CC.No. 9997 of 2022/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 2 of 8

(b)Basing on the above report, a case in the Cr.No.544/2022 was registered under Section 304(A) of IPC and investigation was taken up.

(c)During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the material witnesses and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence, prepared the Crime Detail Form and rough sketch in the presence of mediators. Inquest over the dead body was conducted at the OGH mortuary in the presence of panch witnesses. Post-mortem examination was conducted and the doctor opined that the cause of death was due to “Head Injury”.

(d)During further investigation, CCTV footage collected from the vicinity of the scene disclosed a bus bearing the name “Sri Krishna Travels” with initial letters “AR” on the registration number. On enquiry with travel operators, the vehicle was identified as Bus No. AR 01 T 6666. The owner of the said vehicle stated that he had leased the bus to Sri Krishna Travels and that on the relevant date and time, the accused Shaik Baji was driving the said vehicle. The accused appeared before the police on 25.11.2022 and, upon enquiry, admitted that while driving the said bus at the relevant time and place, he hit an elderly woman and left the spot out of fear. Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued to him. The Motor Vehicle Inspector examined the vehicle and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect.

(e)Despite efforts made to ascertain the identity of the deceased through circulation of notices and enquiries, her identity could not be established. Thus, the prosecution alleges that the accused, by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, caused the death of the unidentified female, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Thus, filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offence.

3.On perusal of record, the case was taken on file for the offence under Section 304(A) of Indian

Penal Code. On appearance of Accused copies of case record are furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/Sec. 304(A) of Indian Penal

Code. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW Nos-1 to 8 and got exhibits Exs.P1 to P7 marked. The evidence of LW-3/Venkatesh/eye-witness and LW-6/B.

Padma/panch witness for Inquest, was closed based on the reports filed by the Prosecution. Further, as per the docket order dated: 31.10.2025, the evidence of LW-10/M. Ravindar Reddy, LW-12/Parmesh

CC.No. 9997 of 2022/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 3 of 8

and LW-13/N. Jagadeesh/Police Officials, was deposed by PW8, as such their evidence stands closed.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., to explain the incriminating material appearing against him in prosecution evidence, for which, he submitted all such evidence is false and reported no-defence.

7.The Learned APP submitted that, the evidence adduced by the prosecution through PWs 1 to 8, coupled with Exs.P1 to P7 has proved the offence U/Sec. 304(A) of Indian Penal Code against the accused and as such, prayed to convict the accused.

8.The Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution through PWs 1 to 8, coupled with Exs.P1 to P7 are not sufficient to prove the offence and the alleged facts do not attract the ingredients of the offence U/Sec. 304(A) of Indian

Penal Code and as such, prayed to acquit the accused.

9.Heard Arguments from both sides.

10.Now, the point of determination in this case is :

Whether accused was the driver of the Crime vehicle i.e., Bus bearing No. AR-01-T-6666 on the date of the alleged incident on 23.10.2022 at Victoria Playground, Chaderghat, Hyderabad, and also the one unknown woman/deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused and thus, whether the prosecution is able to prove the offence punishable U/sec.304(A) of IPC, beyond its reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

11.The alleged offence against Accused is under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. For the sake of convenience the Section is hereunder reproduced:-

Section 304 (A) of IPC – Causing death by negligence :-

Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

12.To prove the alleged offence U/Sec. 304(A) of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the identity of accused in being driver of the crime vehicle on the day of accident and that due to his rash and negligent act of driving, he caused accident resulting death of one unknown female, who eke her livelihood by begging.

13.Firstly, to prove the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC, the identity of accused in being driver of the crime vehicle should be proved. In order to prove the same, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 8 and got exhibits Exs.P1 to P7 marked. PW1 is the defacto-complainant and also

CC.No. 9997 of 2022/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 4 of 8

police constable, likewise PW2 is also police constable and circumstantial witnesses, PWs 3 and 4 are panch witnesses for crime detail form, PW5 is Motor Vehicle Inspector, PW6 is Doctor, PW7 is panch witness for Inquest and PW8 is Assisted Investigating Officer.

14.PW1/Defacto-complainant deposed that he is presently working as Police Constable at Film

Nagar Police Station and previously worked as PC No. 6895 at Afzalgunj Police Station. He further deposed that on 23.10.2022, while he was on patrolling duty on a two-wheeler at MGBS along with

Lw.2, they received information through Dial 100 on their phone tab that an accident had occurred near Chaderghat Victory Playground. Immediately, they reached the spot at about 11:00 p.m. and found a woman in an unconscious condition. He called 108 Ambulance, and the injured woman was shifted to Osmania General Hospital at about 11:30 p.m. He stated that no vehicle was found at the place of accident. On enquiry with the public, they informed him that some unknown vehicle had hit the woman and fled away. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. The said complaint is marked as Ex.P1. He further stated that the police examined him and recorded his statement.

15.PW2/Police Official/Circumstantial witness deposed that he is working as Police Constable at

Afzalgunj Police Station. He further deposed that on 23.10.2022, while he along with PW–1 was on patrolling duty on a two-wheeler at MGBS along with Lw.2, they received information through Dial 100 on their phone tab that an accident had occurred near Chaderghat Victory Playground.

Immediately, they reached the spot at about 11:00 p.m. and found a woman in an unconscious condition. PW–1 called 108 Ambulance, and the injured woman was shifted to Osmania General

Hospital at about 11:30 p.m. He stated that no vehicle was found at the place of accident. On enquiry with the public, they informed that some unknown vehicle had hit the woman and fled away.

Subsequently, the police examined him and recorded his statement.

16.PW3/panch witness for crime detail form, deposed that, on 10.11.2022, the police called him along with PW–4 near Victoria Playground, Chaderghat, and conducted the Crime Details Form (CDF) proceedings in respect of the accident. The police also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence in their presence. After drafting the panchanama, he and PW–4 attested the same. Ex.P2 is the

Crime Details Form along with the rough sketch.

17.PW4/panch witness for crime detail form, deposed that, on 10.11.2022, the police called him along with Lw.4 near Victoria Playground, Chaderghat, and conducted Crime Details Form (CDF) proceedings in connection with the accident. The police also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence in his presence. After drafting the panchanama, he and the other panch witness attested the same. He identified his signature on the said document. Ex.P3 is his signature on Ex.P2.

CC.No. 9997 of 2022/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 5 of 8

18.PW5/Motor Vehicle Inspector, deposed that, he is presently working as Motor Vehicle

Inspector (MVI), RTA, Kukatpally since February, 2024. Prior to that, he worked as MVI at RTA,

Hyderabad, Khairtabad from December, 2020 to February, 2024. He further deposed that on 25.11.2022, he received a requisition from the S.H.O., Afzalgunj Police Station, to conduct inspection of the crime vehicle bearing Registration No. AR-01-T-6666, Ashok Leyland HPV Bus. Accordingly, he inspected the said vehicle on the same day at the office of the SRTA, Hyderabad, Central Zone.

Upon inspection, he found no damage to the vehicle. He also verified the vehicle documents and found that the permit was valid up to 30.11.2026, the insurance was valid up to 14.06.2023, the

Fitness Certificate was valid up to 25.11.2023, and the owner of the vehicle was Ch. Venugopal. He issued the Motor Vehicle Inspector Report (MVI Report) dated: 25.11.2022, which is marked as

Ex.P4. He further stated that, to the best of his knowledge, the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle.

19.PW6/Civil Assistant Surgeon Specialist Department of Forensic Medicine Osmania General

Hospital, deposed that he previously worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Forensic Department at

Osmania General Hospital from July, 2022 to October, 2023 and is presently working as Assistant

Professor at Government Medical College, Suryapet. He further deposed that on 11.11.2022 at about 11:00 a.m., he received a requisition from the S.H.O., Afzalgunj Police Station, to conduct Post-

Mortem Examination Report (PME Report) over the dead body of an unknown female. Accordingly, he commenced the PME at 11:10 a.m. and concluded it at 12:10 p.m. He stated that he noted the antemortem injuries as in Column No.9 of the PME Report. The approximate time of death was about two days prior to the PME. He opined that the cause of death, to the best of his knowledge and belief, was due to head injury. He issued the PME Report, which is marked as Ex.P5.

20.PW7/panch witness for Inquest, deposed that he does not know Lw.6 or the deceased. He further deposed that in the year 2022, while passing through Victoria Playground, he noticed that an accident had already taken place and a large number of people had gathered at the spot. He immediately informed the police. On arrival, the police shifted an injured woman, who had bleeding injuries on the back side of her head, to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. He stated that while undergoing treatment, the said woman died after about 15 days. Thereafter, the police called him to the Police Station and obtained his signature on the inquest report. The inquest report is marked as

Ex.P6. He further stated that, to his knowledge, the deceased died due to severe bleeding injury on the back side of her head.

21.PW8/Investigating Officer, deposed that he is presently working as S.I. at Reinbazar Police

Station since July, 2025 and previously worked at Afzalgunj Police Station from 2022 to June, 2025.

On 09.11.2022 at 20:00 hours, Lw.10, Inspector of Police, Afzalgunj P.S., received a complaint from

CC.No. 9997 of 2022/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 6 of 8

Lw.1 and registered Crime No.544/2022 under Section 304-A IPC. The F.I.R. was submitted to the

Hon’ble Court and marked as Ex.P7. Investigation was thereafter entrusted to PW8. During

investigation, he recorded the statements of Lw.1 and Lw.2. It was revealed that while on patrolling duty, they received information that an unknown female aged about 60–65 years had fallen near

Victory Playground, Chaderghat Signal, and she was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. On receipt of death intimation from the hospital, PW8 visited OGH, conducted inquest in the presence of panch witnesses, and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He inspected the scene of offence, prepared CDF and rough sketch, and made efforts to identify the deceased, but she remained unidentified. Subsequently, on 20.11.2022, he handed over the case diary to Lw.13.

During further investigation, CCTV footage revealed the involvement of a vehicle belonging to Sri

Krishna Travels, driven by Shaik Baji. The accused surrendered on 25.11.2022 and was served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. After receipt of MVI and PME reports, Lw.13 filed the charge sheet.

22.From the evidences of PWs 1 to 8, no individual witness spoke about the identity of accused in being driver of crime vehicle. However, the accused during the course of 313 Cr.P.C., examination submitted to the Court voluntarily that he intended to make a statement in Telugu when he was asked to say anything regarding this case and he submitted that while he was driving the bus one woman came up to divider in full drunken state and fell in front of the bus. He stopped the bus and shifted her to hospital and also informed to the owner of the bus who in turn scolded him. As such, from the statement of accused the identity of accused being driver of the crime vehicle bus B.No. AR 01 T 6666 is proved by the prosecution.

23.The second required ingredient is that rash and negligent act of accused while driving the vehicle. PWs 1 and 2 are the circumstantial witnesses and they only deposed about the receiving of phone call on their dial 100 phone on tab informing about the accident that had occurred near

Chaderghat Victory Playground and they immediately, reached the scene of offence and found one woman in unconscious state and called 108 Ambulance and shifted her to OGH at 11:30 PM and at the place of accident there were no vehicles are found. But, on enquiry nearby persons informed that some unknown vehicle came and hit one unknown woman, and fled away. The same evidence is deposed by PW2 as well. No eye-witness or circumstantial witness informed that the unknown vehicle was bus. However, the statement of accused through 313 Cr.P.C., examination is came to known as bus. However, appreciating the true submissions of the accused as to the involvement of him and vehicle in alleged accident, no individual witness spoke about the manner and mode in which the crime vehicle was driven. It is the submissions of the accused that the lady herself came up to the level of divider and fell infront of the bus and that she was in drunken condition.

24.The Post-Mortem Examination (PME) does not indicate that any viscera was preserved to

CC.No. 9997 of 2022/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 7 of 8

ascertain whether the deceased had consumed alcohol. However, the PME report of the abdomen reveals that the stomach and its contents had no specific smell, and most of the internal organs were found to be normal with nothing significant to note. As such, the contention of the accused that the deceased was in a drunken condition is not supported either by the medical evidence or by the PME report. At the same time, no independent witness has spoken about the manner and mode in which the alleged accident occurred. The Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) Report, marked as Ex.P4, shows that there was no damage to the vehicle. Although it is noted that the body was at Osmania General

Hospital (OGH) on 09.11.2022 at 08:38 AM, the requisition for conducting the PME was made only on 11.11.2022, after a lapse of three days. By that time, rigor mortis had already passed off. Therefore, the possibility of the smell of alcohol, if any, having dissipated cannot be ruled out.

25.The scene of offence is near Victoria Playground beside the Divider and no individual who have witnessed the alleged accident was examined by the Investigating Officer nor the Investigating

Officer filed any CCTV footage collected from nearby scene of offence to know the actual mode and manner of the accident. Hence, on entire consideration of the matter, the mode and manner in which the accident occurred is not proved by the prosecution, no doubt, by the evidence of all prosecution witnesses coupled with Ex.P5/PME Report and material on record, the prosecution could prove death of unknown woman, dated: 09.11.2022, while she came in front of the bus at Victoria Playground,

Chaderghat, Hyderabad, met with an accident. But in view of above discussion, the prosecution could not prove that due to the rash and negligent driving of accused the alleged accident occurred, and thereby on entire consideration of the matter and in the light of above discussion coupled with the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P7, the prosecution failed to establish alleged offence under

Section 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code against accused for which the accused is entitled for acquittal.

26.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec.304(A) of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six (06) months as required U/sec. 437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to D. Sindhu, Jr. Assistant, transcribed by her, Corrected and Pronounced by me in

the Open Court on this the 24 th day of February, 2026.

II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: :WITNESSES EXAMINED:

For Prosecution For Defence

PW-1 : Janardhan Goud/defacto-complainant/Police Constable - NIL -

CC.No. 9997 of 2022/II ACJM/HYD Page No. 8 of 8

PW-2 : Sudhakar Goud/circumstantial witness

PW-3 : Chandrakanth/panch witness for crime detail form

PW-4 : Y. Vinay/panch witness for crime detail form

PW-5 : L. Srinu Babu/Motor Vehicle Inspector

PW-6 : Dr. A.Kranti Kiran/Civil Assistant Surgeon Specialist Department of Forensic Medicine

Osmania General Hospital

PW-7 : S. Raghu/panch witness for Inquest

PW-8 : P. Rama Kishan/Investigating Officer

:EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P1 : Complaint/report. - NIL -

Ex.P2 : Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch.

Ex.P3 : Signature on Ex.P2.

Ex.P4 :MVI Report, dated: 25-11-2022.

Ex.P5 : PME Report, dated: 11-11-2022.

Ex.P6 : Inquest Report.

Ex.P7 : FIR.

:MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-NIL-

II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

1 of 8 CC.No. 385 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD

PRESENT: Smt K.ASHA RANI, XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Dated this the 30 th day of September, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No. 385 OF 2019

Between:

The State through the Sub Inspector of Police

P.S. Ramgopalpet..... Complainant

AND

Mohd. Abdul Khaleq S/o. Mohd. Abdul Aziz Aged 36 years, Occ Business:,

R/o.H.No. 17-4-570, Yakatpura, Hyderbad. ... Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt J.Bhargavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sri. Rajashekar Reddy for Learned Counsel for Accused upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ramgopalpet Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.291/2018 for an offence punishable under Section 420 and 486 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :-

(a) LW1/Syed Mohd Farooq lodged complaint on 10-12-2018 at 14.00 hrs, stating that he is authorized officer to investigate & detect for copyright, trademarks and patents violation and verifying the products on behalf of the M/s V.S.K Global Services, having its office at H.No. 6-10-33/1/A, Shivaji Nagar, Shivarampally, Hyderabad. The company represent HUGO BOSS Trade mark management, GMBH & Co. Germany Office at KG

Diesel strasse, 12, 72555, Metzingen, Germany branded apparels. On 10-12-2018 during the survey by above authorized agency they found some suppliers by name 1) Z DOT

Shop No. 2-3-164, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad are selling the counterfeit product of their mentioned branded products (Shirts & T Shirts). They have prominently displayed the copyright & trademark of the complaint party, and used colour combination 2 of 8 CC.No. 385 of 2019 and printing style which is artistic work of complaint party exclusively. To verify the T shirts of HUGO BOSS (T Shirts) in said shop his company survey officer Mr. Sai went to

Shop and found huge number of HUGO BOSS (TShirts) are available. Hence, he requested to necessary action.

(b) Basing on the contents of complaint, LW7/Ch. Srinivasulu Sub-Inspector of Police had registered a case in Crime No.291/2018 U/S 420 and 486 of IPC and took up the investigation.

(c) During the course of investigation, LW7/Ch. Srinivasulu Sub-Inspector of Police informed the same to superior officers and summoned the panchayathdars

LW5/Ramachander & LW6/Satyanarayana, appraised them about the information received and drafted the search proceedings in their presence as the delay to obtain an arrest warrant from the Hon'ble court may cause disappearance of material evidence.

LW7/Ch. Srinivasulu Sub-Inspector of Police along with staff, complainant LW1/Syed

Faroque, LW2/Sai Kumar and Panchayathdars LW5/Ramachander & LW6/Satyanarayana rushed to the spot located at M/s. Z DOT Garments No. 2-3-164 Nallagutta,

Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad and entered to the said premises and found owners selling the brands of spurious HUGO BOSS T-Shirts separately, LW7/Ch. Srinivasulu Sub-

Inspector of Police recorded the confessional cum seizure panchanama of Mohd Abdul

Khaleq, Owner of M/s. Z DOT Garments and seized 41 spurious HUGO BOSS brand T

Shirts in presence of panchas and signed panch slips are affixed on them. The accused person along with the seized material were brought to PS. LW7/Ch. Srinivasulu Sub-

Inspector of Police has prepared notice U/s. 41(A) Cr.P.C., and served the same on the accused person Mohd Abdul Khaleq S/o Mohd Abdul Aziz, Age 36, Occ: Business, Shop 2- 3-164 Nallagutta, (Z DOT Garments), R/o H.No.17-4-570, Yakutpura, Hyderabad under proper acknowledgment on 24-07-2018. After completion of investigation, he filed

Chargesheet.

4. On filing of Charge sheet and on perusal of material on record,this court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section under section 420 and 486 of IPC.

On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure..

5. Accused was examined Under section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure. The charges were framed against him for the offence under section 420 and 486 of Indian Penal Code 3 of 8 CC.No. 385 of 2019 were read over and explained to him in his vernacular language and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution has cited as many as (07) witnesses, out of them, it could examine (05) witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. PW1 Syed Mohd. Farooque is the

Complainant. PW2 Narahari/PC-4718 is the Circumstantial witness. PW3 P.Sai Kumar is the Investigation officer. PW4 Ramachander is the Panch witness. PW5 Ch. Srinivasulu is

Investigation officer. Ex.P1 is the complaint. ExP.2 is the signature on confession cum seizure panchanama dated 10-11-2018. Ex.P3 is the FIR. Ex.P4 is the Authorization letter given to PW1. ExP.5 is the copy of Registration of Trademark. Ex.P6 is the confession cum seizure panchanama. MO.1 is 41 T-shirts with tag of “Boss HUGO Boss.”

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

i) “Whether Accused cheated general public by selling spurious products and whether the prosecution is able to prove the offence under section 420 of

Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?” ii) “Whether Accused was selling goods with Counterfeit property and whether the prosecution is able to prove the offence under section 486 of

Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:

The alleged offence against the accused are under sections 420 and 486 of IPC.

For the sake of convenience, the sections are hereunder reproduced:- section 420 of Indian Penal Code :-

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

4 of 8 CC.No. 385 of 2019 section 486 of Indian Penal Code :-

Whoever sells, or exposes, or has in possession for sale, any goods or things with a counterfeit property mark affixed to or impressed upon the same or to or upon any case, package or other receptacle in which such goods are contained, shall, unless he proves:

That, having taken all reasonable precautions against committing an offence against this section, he had at the time of the commission of the alleged offence no reason to suspect the genuineness of the mark, and that, on demand made by or on behalf of the prosecutor, he gave all the information in his power with respect to the persons from whom he obtained such goods or things, or that otherwise he had acted innocently, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

11.PW1/Defacto-Complainant deposed that on 10-12-2018, LW2/Sai Kumar conducted the Survey at Ramgopalpet, Nallagutta area, he visited the Z-Dot Shop, he verified the garments of Hugo Boss T-shirts, which are found the counterfeit garments,

Immediately, he came to him and informed about selling of counterfeit garments in said shop. Thereafter, he went to PS Ramgopalpet and lodged Complaint in the afternoon hours. Thereafter, the Police alongwith LW2/Sai Kumar and Panchas proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted raid in said shop. The concerned police seized 41 Hugo

Boss T-Shirts from the possession of owner of the shop. Ex.P1 is complaint. Police examined and recorded his Statement.

12. PW2/PC-4718 deposed that on 10-12-2018, he along with LW3 was attending

Patrolling duty at Nallagutta Area, at about 3.00 pm, he received call from SI of Police in

Set and informed to conduct the raid at Z Dot Shop, situated at Nallagutta, as the Owner of the said shop is selling the HUGO Boss German Company shirts which are counterfeit one. Immediately, he along with LW2 proceeded to scene of offence, by that time,

LW7/Ch.Srinvasulu alongwith Panchas were present in the said shop. LW7Ch.Srinvasulu enquired with the owner of the shop, he revealed his name as Md. Abdul Khaleq.

LW7/Ch.Srinvasulu conducted the Confession cum Seizure Panchanama in presence of

LW5/Ramachander & LW6/Satyanarayana and seized 41 HUGO BOSS Counter T-shirts from the shop of Accused, thereafter, they brought Accused along with seized property to

PS. His statement was recorded by police.

13. PW3/Circumstantial witness deposed that on 10-12-2018 during afternoon, they visited Z Dot Shop situated at Nallagutta of Ramgopalet, Secunderabad and noticed that said shop was selling duplicate branded products of their company. He informed the incident to police and police conducted raid on said shop. The duplicate products were 5 of 8 CC.No. 385 of 2019 seized by police. Police examined him. PW4/panch witness did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile by prosecution.

14. PW5/investigation officer deposed that on 10-12-2018 at 1400 hrs, he received complaint from LW1, basing on that, he registered a Case in Cr.No.291/2018 for the offence U/S 420, 486 of IPC and took up investigation and submitted Original FIR to the

Hon'ble Court and all copies to concerned officers. He examined and recorded the

statement of LW1 in Part II CD. He also submitted Attested copies of Authorization letter given by M/s: VSK Global Services, Attested copy of Resolution, Trademarks Certificate of M/S: Hugo Boss. On the same day, he along with his staff viz., LW3/Prasoon PC-8750 and PW2/Narahari and Panch Witnesses viz., PW4 and LW6/R.Satyanarayana proceeded to the M/s: Z DOT Garments, situated at Nallagutta of Ramgopalpet Limits and made search and found duplicate brands of 41 Hugo boss T-shirts, he seized the same in presence of Panch witness and affixed identification slips. He also recorded confession cum Seizure panchanama of Accused in presence of Panch witnesses. He brought the seized property along with Accused to PS and served Section 41-A of Cr.PC. Notice. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet by undertaking to produce the property at the time of trial.

15. On entire careful perusal of the prosecution witnesses, the case of prosecution is that

PW2 who is working as surveyor in M/s.VSK Global services visited the shop of accused and found counterfeit products of HUGO Boss T-shirts, situated at Nallagutta,

Ramgopalpet. PW1 worked as Investigation officer at VSK Global Services. Thereafter, he stated to have lodged complaint under Ex.P1 at PS Ramgopalpet. LW7/PW5/Ch.

Srinvasulu SI of Police conducted the raid in said shop and found 41- Tshirts of counterfeit garments of HUGO Boss company. The concerned police seized the T-shirts from the possession of owner of the shop.

16. The defence rightly cross examined on the points, that Investigation officer/PW5 failed to examine Independent witnesses near scene of offence, he did not collect the documents to show PW1 is deputed by M/s. VSK Global Services to investigate spurious products or from accused did he collect any permission from GHMC or any certificate relevant to trade marks to accused for this question, the investigation officer answered “no”. PW5 also stated that he did not collect documents from VSK Global services to show that they were directly authorized to conduct raides for different products of Levis brand. He neither collected any documents from affiliated firms/corporations/companies 6 of 8 CC.No. 385 of 2019 to Levis company, he did not collect the original documents, he also did not stated about the seized T-shirts or the descriptive particulars of the same and he did not mention in form 66 and confession cum seizure panchanama. PW5 also stated that he did not calculate the seized jeans pants and shirts from the possession of accused. He also stated that he did not send to FSL for opinion from above cross examination, the defence counsel had straightly striked on the role of Investigation officer that should actually done

before filing the case.

17. It is peculiar to see that, on all above questions of PW5/Investigation officer answered in negative form stating that he neither collected any documentary proof of shop in the name and style “Z Shop”, he filed case against accused to show that he was engaged in selling or other products to show that the seized T shirts/MO.1 is where is in possession as . The stock register of shop did not produced before this court and as rightly contended the PW5 did not verify the stand of PW1 in filing present case as they have stated that they have been conducting survey and investigation case by inspecting the shops to know about the counterfeit products of HUGO boss. But, PW3 and

PW5/investigation officers not properly conducted investigation and submitted by the prosecution or put up by PW5 in Chargesheet. PW1 and PW3 are cited to be members of

VSK global services as per Ex.P1 MSVS office at Shivarampally, Hyderabad. As per the contents of Ex.P1, PW1 stated to have been authorized representative for national and international to represent them all over India and they are authorized to detect the counterfeit products and infringement, copyright trade marks of Hugo boss. They stated to have been found the alleged offence at Ramgopalpet in the name and style “Z Shop”.

Except, Ex.P4 authorization letter given by VSK global services to PW1 to investigate any copyrights and find out duplicate and original products and seized any counterfeit products.

18. Upon perusal of Ex.P19/Authorization letter issued in favor of PW1, the validity of

Authorization letter is only for 15 days and complaint under Ex.P1 is shown to have lodged on 10-12-2018 within stipulated period. However, there appears no direct agreement between Levis company Trade Mark Managment with VSK Global Services to detect in the alleged offences. The letter of authority along with documents submitted by

PW1 to police shows that M/s.United Overseas Trade Mark company was actually given power of Attroney by M/s.Levis Company Trade Mark Management GMBH & Co., to one Raju Methri of M/s. VSK Global Services to initiate, prosecute and conduct criminal 7 of 8 CC.No. 385 of 2019 prosecution before relevant forums for infringement of property rights. In respect of Hugo

Boss company Trade mark Management, one Raju methri is shown to have said

Authorization under Ex.P19. To support said document, the concerned person was not examined by prosecution. The documents under Ex.P4 had registered under Trade Mark of Levis company is also said to have been submit direct to police. Without the police and other concerned departments. PW5 did not subject the seized products of 41 T-shirts of

HUGO Boss company to FSL to know whether seized products are counterfeit products.

Hence, in the absence of the material evidence, it becomes difficult for court to hold the accused guilt for alleged offence.

19. To attract the offence under section 420 of IPC two ingredients are required that are :-

i) Cheating and ii) Dishonest inducement which should be proved by prosecution. To prove first ingredients of section 420 of IPC, the prosecution should have examined the customers of said products or shop run in the name of Z-Shop to know that counterfeit spurious products are sold at alleged shop. The investigation officer examined as PW5 did not examine any independent witnesses or he examined any customers of said shop.

Except, the PW1 and PW3. The scale of proof is required in criminal cases is “Beyond

Reasonable doubt”. The Investigation done by PW5 is not at all convincing to the court to convict the accused in present case. As such, there is no connecting evidence to say that said shop in the name and style of Z-Shop is run by Accused. The confession cum seizure panchanama recorded by PW5 under Ex.P6 is inadmissible in evidence for the reason it being hit by section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. LW5/Ramachnader is examined as

PW4 did not supported case of prosecution to prove the alleged seizure of confession of accused. The prosecution for offence under section 486 of IPC is baseless for the reason that, no FSL report was issued and seized products under MO.1 are not submitted to court. On entire careful perusal of evidence of PW1 to PW5 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO.1, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offence against accused under section 420 and 486 of IPC. Hence,the accused is entitled for acquittal.

20. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under 420, and 486 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of criminal procedure. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as per Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Marked property viz., MO.1/41 T-shirts with tag of “Boss HUGO Boss shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

8 of 8 CC.No. 385 of 2019 (Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30 th day of September, 2024). //Sd/-//

XXII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:- Syed Mohd. Farooque - Nil -

PW2 :- Narahari/PC-4718

PW3 :- P.Sai Kumar

PW4 :- Ramachander

PW5 :- Ch. Srinivasulu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 :- Complaint. - Nil -

ExP.2 :- signature on confession cum seizure panchanama dated 10-11-2018.

Ex.P3 :- FIR.

Ex.P4 :- Authorization letter given to PW1.

ExP.5 :- copy of Registration of Trademark.

Ex.P6 :- confession cum seizure panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

MO.1 is 41 T-shirts with tag of “Boss HUGO Boss.” - Nil - //Sd/-//

XXII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

9 of 8 CC.No. 385 of 2019