Sri K.Bala chander

1 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT SULTHANABAD.

PRESENT:- Sri K. Balachander,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Peddapalli. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad.

Friday, the 4th day of January, 2019

C.C.No.31 OF 2014 BETWEEN:

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Sulthanabad PS …

PROSECUTION

AND

A1Bayya Rayakotu, S/o. Chinna Mallaiah, 65 years, Golla, A2Bayya Komuraiah, S/o. Rayakotu, 35 years, Golla, A3Bayya Thirupathi, S/o. Rayakotu, 28 years, Golla, A4Bayya Rayamallamma, W/o. Rayakotu, 58 years, Golla, A5Bayya Padma, W/o. Komuraiah, 30 years, Golla, A1 to A5 are R/o. Kandunooripalli, H/o. Sugulampalli village A6 Salendra Mallesham, S/o. Nambaiah, 45 years, Golla, r/o. Peddakalvala village of Peddapalli Mandal. …

ACCUSED

This case coming up before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the State and Sri B.Bhoomaiah, Counsel for the accused and after having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Sulthanabad PS, laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.305/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 326, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

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

The accused No.1 and PW1 are own brothers and there were quarrels raised between them on the dispute of property. On 30.12.2013 at 11.30am, the accused No.1’s calf (dude) ate paddy grains of PW1 at his paddy court

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019 2 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014 at Kandunooripalli village, observing the same, the PW1 asked the accused

No.1 to take care of calf not to allow it to go on other lands. Keeping the same in mind and due to previous enmity regarding family issues and on property and the disputes, the accused No.1 came in front of his house, abused him and beat his younger son Bayya Srinivas with hands and after that, on the same day at evening hours keeping previous disputes in mind regarding property issues, the accused No.1 invited the accused No.6 who is son-in-law of the accused No.1 and the accused No.2 to 5, who are family members of the accused No.1, all of together i.e., accused No.1 to 6 went to the house of PW1, beat him and his sons i.e., Pws.2 to 4, 8 with sticks, resulting which, they sustained bleeding injuries to their various body parts.

Hence, the charge.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under

Section 326, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them U/s.207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., by explaining charges framed for the offence

U/s.326, 324 r/w 34 of IPC, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 10, got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P10 and M.O.No.1 and 2.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019 3 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned counsel for accused.

7.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.326, 324 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:

8.Whereas PW1, who is complainant and injured and PW2, who is the son of PW1 and injured, they categorically deposed in one voice that the accused are their relatives. They further deposed in one voice that about 4 or 5 years back, on one day, when they were in their house at about 10 or 11.00 a.m., the cattle of accused entered in to their field and grazing paddy crop and PW4 asked the accused No.1 as to why they cattle was left in their field, then, the accused No.2 and 3 beat the PW4 and on the same day in the evening hours the accused No.1 to 6 came to their house and beat the Pws.1 to 5, 8 and also beat the wife of PW1 with sticks, due to which, they sustained injuries. They further deposed that on the next day, they lodged report to the police under Ex.P1 and the police referred the Pws.1 to 4 and 8 to Government Hospital, Sulthanabad. They also deposed that at the time of alleged incident, Pws.5 and 6 were present and witnessed the incident.

M.O.1 and 2 are the sticks which are used by the accused and police recorded their statements.

9.In their cross examination, Pws.1 and 2 categorically deposed and admitted in one voice that the accused No.1 is own brother of PW1. They categorically admitted that there are previous land disputes between them and the accused No.1 for the last 4 or 5 years and they have not lodged

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019 4 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014 report to the police on that day when the cattle (dudde) of accused entered into their field and grazed their paddy crop. They further deposed that Ex.P1 is scribed by son-in-law of PW1 and police recorded their statements on the date of lodging report. Then, the remaining questions put by counsel for defence on suggestion basis, for which, they denied.

10.Whereas PW3, who is another son of PW1 and injured, he categorically deposed that the accused are their relatives. He further deposed that about 5 years back, on one day at about 11.00 a.m., PW4 Srinivas informed him that the accused came to there house and abused PWs.1 and 2 and on the same day at about 5.00 pm., when he was in their house along with PWs.1, 2, 4 and 8, all accused came to their house and beat them with sticks, due to which, they all sustained injuries and he sustained injury on his right rib and at the time of alleged incident, PWs.5 and 6 were present and witnessed the incident. He further deposed that on the same day they lodged report to the police and the police referred them to the Government Hospital,

Sulthanabad for treatment. He also deposed that he can identify the sticks which are used by the accused in the commission of offence. M.O.1 and 2 are the said sticks and the police recorded his statement.

11.In the cross examination, PW3 categorically deposed and admitted in that the accused No.1 is own brother of his father/PW1. He further deposed that they have not lodged any report immediately after the alleged incident when the accused abused PWs.1 and 2 and PW8 present in their house at 11.00 a.m., He further deposed that on 30.12.2013 in the morning hours he,

PWs.2, 4, 8 beat the daughters and son-in-law of A1 and A2. He further admitted that the son-in-law of A1 namely Rajaiah lodged report before the

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019 5 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014

Sulthanabad P.S and a criminal case was registered vide Cr.No.304/2013 for the offence U/s.341, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and the same criminal case is pending before the Hon’ble Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli vide S.C.No.

240/2015. Then, the remaining questions put by counsel for defence on suggestion basis, for which, he denied.

12.Whereas PW4, who is another son of PW1 and injured, he categorically deposed that the accused are their relatives. He further deposed that about 5 years back, on one day at about 11.00 a.m., when he was in their house, the cattle of accused came to their house and grazed the paddy heap, then, he asked the accused No.2 to 4 to take back the cattle (Duda), then, they pushed him. He further deposed that on the same day, at about 6.00 or 7.00p.m., when he was in their house along with PWs.1 to 3, 8, by that time, all the accused came to their house and beat them with sticks, due to which, they all sustained injuries and at the time of alleged incident, Pws.5 and 6 were present and witnessed the incident and on the next day morning they lodged report to the police, then, the police referred them to the

Government Hospital, for treatment. He also deposed that he can identify the sticks which were used by the accused in the commission of offence.

M.O.1 and 2 are the said sticks and the police recorded his statement.

13.In the cross examination, PW4 categorically deposed and admitted in that the accused No.1 is own brother of his father/PW1. He further deposed that he does not know whether there are previous disputes between them and accused regarding land disputes. He also deposed that they have not lodged any report immediately after the alleged incident when the accused

No.2 to 4 pushed away him. He further deposed that on 30.12.2013 in the

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019 6 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014 morning hours he, PWs.2, 3, 8 beat the daughters and son-in-law of A1 and

A2. He further admitted that the son-in-law of A1 namely Rajaiah lodged report before the Sulthanabad P.S and a criminal case was registered vide

Cr.No.304/2013 for the offence U/s.341, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and the same criminal case is pending before the Hon’ble Assistant Sessions Judge,

Peddapalli vide S.C.No. 240/2015. Then, the remaining questions put by counsel for defence on suggestion basis, for which, he denied.

14.Whereas PW8, who is another son of PW1 and injured, he categorically deposed that the accused are their relatives. He further deposed that about 5 years back, when he was in their house, at about 11.00 a.m., when the cattle of accused came to their paddy heap and grazed, as such, his brother

PW4 sent the said cattle and when PW3 asked the accused as to why they released the said cattle grazing the paddy heap, then, A2 and A3 tried to beat the PW4. He further deposed that in the evening time, all the accused at about 5.30 p.m. came to their hose and beat him and Pws.1 to 4 with sticks, due to which, they received injuries and thereafter, they went to police station and lodged report to the police and the police recorded his statement in the hospital.

15.In the cross examination, PW8 categorically deposed and admitted in that there are previous land disputes between them and accused. He further deposed that they have not lodged any report to the police immediately after the incident when the A2 and A3 tried to beat the PW4 when he asked them as to why they released the cattle in to their paddy heap for grazing. Then, the remaining questions put by counsel for defence on suggestion basis, for which, he denied.

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019 7 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014

16.Whereas PW5, who is the eyewitness to the incident, he categorically deposed that he does not know anything about the facts of this case and police never examined him and not recorded his statement. Then, he was declared as hostile by the prosecution.

17.Whereas PW6, who is another eyewitness to the incident, he categorically deposed that about 4 or 5 years back, on one day, in the evening hours about 6.00 pm., while he was proceeding to his home from his agriculture field, when he reached the near house of PW2, he noticed mob, then, he went there and noticed that PW2 was lying with injuries, then, at the request of sister of PW2, he shifted the PW2 to the Government hospital Sulthanbad for treatment. He further deposed that the police did not record his statement. He did not support the case of the prosecution.

18. Whereas PW7, who is the Medical Officer, treated the Pws.2 and 4, he categorically deposed that on 30.12.2013 Pws.2 and 4 came to hospital for treatment, accordingly, he gave treatment to them and found injuries as mentioned in the medical certificates under Ex.P4 and P5.

19.In his cross-examination, PW7 categorically admitted that there is every possibility to sustain above said injuries if a person fell down on the road while he was running.

20. Whereas PW9, who is the Medical Officer, treated the Pws.1, 3 and 8, she categorically deposed that on 31.12.2013 he received requisition from

SHO, PS Sulthanabad to examine the Pws.1, 3 and 8, accordingly, she gave

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019 8 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014 treatment to them and found injuries as mentioned in the medical certificates under Ex.P6 to P8.

21.In her cross-examination, PW9 categorically admitted that it is not mentioned in the medical certificates about the weapon with which the injuries were inflected. She further admitted that there is every possibility to sustain above said injuries if a person fell down on the hard surface.

22. Whereas PW10, who is the Investigation Officer, he categorically deposed that on 30.12.2013 he received report from PW1, basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.305/2013 for the offence U/s.324 r/w 34 of IPC and issued F.I.R under Ex.P9 and recorded the statement of Pws.1, 2 4 and 8, later, he visited the scene of offence, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LWs.9, and 10 under Ex.P10 and seized the sticks under M.Os.1 and 2 and also recorded the statements of

PWs.5, 6 and LW8. He further deposed that later, he arrested the accused and produced before this court for judicial custody and after collecting the medical certificates of PWs.1 to 4 and 8 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

23.In his cross-examination, PW10 categorically admitted that he did not refer the PWs.1 to 4, 8 to the hospital for treatment. He further admitted that the accused filed a criminal case against the Pws.1 to 4 and 8 for the offence U/s.307 of IPC and the same is pending before the Hon’ble Assistant

Sessions Judge, Peddapalli vide SC.No.240/2015. He further admitted that

on the same day after registering the case, they send the F.I.R to the Court.

He further deposed that PW1 had not stated to him that the accused beat

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019 9 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014 the wife of PW1 with sticks and the PW2 had not stated to him that the accused beat the mother of PW2 with sticks. He also categorically admitted that there are previous land disputes between the accused and PW1. Then, the remaining questions put by counsel for defence on suggestion basis, for which, he denied.

24.As could be seen the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 and 8, it reveals that about five years back, on one day when they were presented at their house at about 10.00 or 11.00 am, cattle of the accused entered into their fields and grazing paddy crop and the son of PW1 while questioned the accused, then, the accused persons beat the PW4 and on the same day in the evening hours, accused No.1 to 6 came to their house and beat the PWs.1, 2 and

PW8 and also wife of PW1 with stick, due to which, they sustained injuries and on the next day of the incident, they went to police station and lodged a report to the police under Ex.P1 and the police referred them to Govt.

hospital, Sulthanabad for treatment. M.O.No.1 and 2 are the sticks, which are used by the accused. When, they were categorically admitted in their cross-examination that in between them, there were previous disputes and the accused persons also filed the case against them, which is pending

before the Hon’ble Asst. Sessions Judge, Peddapalli vide S.C.No.240/2015. It

clearly established that they were filed a counter blast case against each other. As per their evidence, it is clearly established that they are the interested witnesses to the case of the prosecution. They further categorically admitted that PW5 and PW6 are the eye witnesses to this incident.

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019 10 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014

25.As could be seen the evidence of PW5, it is clearly established that he know the Pws.1 to 4 and 8 and also accused, he does not know anything about the facts of this case, police did not examine him. Then, he was declared as hostile by the prosecution. Whereas PW6, who is another eye witness to the incident, he categorically admitted and deposed that he know the Pws.1 to 5 and 8, LW8 and accused, about 4 or 5 years back on one day in the evening hours, while he was proceeding to his home from his fields, while he reached near the house of PW2, he was noticed mob, then, he went there and noticed that PW2 is lying with injuries, then, at the request of sister of PW2, he was shifted the PW2 to the Government hospital,

Sulthanabad for treatment. Then, he was declared as hostile by the prosecution. As per their evidence, it is clearly established that they were not witnessed the incident. PW6 came to the scene after the alleged incident, by observing the mob when PW2 was lying with injures, except that, he was not deposed anything to say that the accused persons are beat them with sticks. And the evidence of Pws.5 and 6 did not support the version of Pws.1 to 4 and 8. Then, they were declared as hostile by the prosecution.

26.Whereas Pws.7 and 9, those are the doctors, they categorically deposed that they were treated the injured persons i.e., Pws.1 to 4 and 8 and issued Ex.P4 to P8, and they were opined their opinion that the nature of injuries are in simple and grievous. In their cross-examination, they categorically admitted in one voice that if any person fell down on the road or on the hard surface, there is every possibility to sustain the injuries as mentioned in Ex.P4 to P8. However, Pws.1 to 4 and 8 deposed that the injuries under Ex.P4 to P8 are received with M.O.No.1 and 2, but, except the

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019 11 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014 interested witnesses, none of the independent witnesses had supported to the version of Pws.1 to 4 and 8, even official witnesses i. e., Pws.7 and 9 too did not support the version of Pes.1 to 4 and 8 and they were doubtfully deposed, on one hand supported the case of the prosecution and doubtfully they were deposed that if any person fell down on hard surface or on the road, there is every possibility to sustain the injuries as mentioned under

Ex.P4 to P8. If so, none of the witnesses deposed specific over tacts of each accused.

27.As could be seen the evidence of PW10, who is the Investigation

Officer, it reveals that on 30.12.2013 he received report from PW1, basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.305/2013 for the offence U/s.324 r/w 34 of IPC and issued F.I.R under Ex.P9 and recorded the statement of Pws.1, 2 4 and 8, later, he visited the scene of offence, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LWs.9, and 10 under Ex.P10 and seized the sticks under M.O.No.1 and 2 and also recorded the statements of

PWs.5, 6 and LW8. He further deposed that later, he arrested the accused and produced before this court for judicial custody and after collecting the medical certificates of PWs.1 to 4 and 8 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

28.As the Pws.1 to 4 and 8, they categorically deposed that on presenting of Ex.P1, the PW10 was referred them to hospital for treatment. Whereas, in the cross-examination of PW10, he categorically admitted that he did not refer the PWs.1 to 4 and 8 to the hospital for treatment. The evidence of

PW10 categorically established that the accused persons had filed a criminal case against the Pws.1 to 4 and 8 and the same is pending before the

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019 12 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014

Hon’ble Asst. Sessions Judge, Peddapalli vide S.C.No.240/2015. Further

PW10 had not deposed about the specific over tacts of the each accused persons with M.O.No.1 and 2. And the version of Pws.1 to 4 and 8 is not corroborated with the version of PW10 as well as Pws.5 and 6.

29.As discussed above supra, the prosecution is not proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.326, 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

30.In the result, the accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence

U/s.326, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after appeal time is over.

M.O.No.1 and 2 shall destroy after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, after corrections, pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 4 th day of January, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1B.Muthyalu, who is the complainant and injured

PW2B.Odelu, who is the son of the PW1 and injured

PW3B.Gattaiah, who is the son of the PW1 and injured

PW4B.Srinivas, who is the son of the PW1 and injured

PW5A.Venkatesh, who is the eye witness to the incident

PW6K.Veeeraswamy, who is the eye witness to the incident

PW7Dr.M.Vijayachandramouli, who is the Medical Officer

PW8B.Thirupathi, who is the son of the PW1 and injured

PW9Dr.K.Soumya, who is the Medical Officer

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019 13 of 12 C.C.No.31 OF 2014

PW10 S.Ramakrishna, Investigation Officer

FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the Complaint given by PW1

Ex.P2 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5

Ex.P3 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6

Ex.P4 is the Medical certificate

Ex.P5 is the Medical certificate

Ex.P6 is the Medical certificate

Ex.P7 is the Medical certificate

Ex.P8 is the Medical certificate

Ex.P9 is the First Information Report

Ex.P10 is the Crime details form

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS :- M.O.No.1 and 2 are Sticks

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad

K. Balachander JFCM., Peddapalli FAC: JFCM, Sulthanabad DOJ : 04.01.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRTATE OF FIRST

CLASS :AT: SULTANABAD

Present: Sri. K.Pardhasaradhi Rao,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sulthanabad.

CC.No.185 of 2017

Between:-

1) Nagishetti Sagar Address - Hanuman Basthi , Bellampalli …Petitioner. A N D

1) Guntipalli Ramulu Address - Gangaram

...Respondents.

:: DOCKET ORDER date 04.01.2019 ::

Accused called present, copies furnished to him and examined u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. and the accused admitted the substance of prosecution case for the offence u/s. 337 IPC. I found the admission of accused true and voluntary one. Accordingly the accused found guilty and convicted u/s. 252 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s. 337 IPC. The accused is heard the quantum of sentence and submitted there are no person to look after his family members. Keeping in view of the submissions of I am of the view that it is not the fit case to extend the provisions of P.O.Act however the accused can be shown some lenient view since the offence u/s. 337 IPC punishable with imprisonment or with fine or with both. As there are no other person to look after his family members, he can be punished with fine only. In the result the accused is found guilty u/s 252 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s. 337 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer SI for 2 months. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months Total fine of Rs. 500/-.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Sulthanabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRTATE OF FIRST

CLASS :AT: SULTANABAD

Present: Sri. K.Pardhasaradhi Rao,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sulthanabad.

CC.No.242 of 2018

Between:-

1) Chenchu Thirupathi Address - R/o Thogarai village …Petitioner. A N D

1) Gotikar Srinivas Address - R/o H.No. 19-07-125/126, swathanthra Chowk, godavarikhani

...Respondents.

:: DOCKET ORDER date 04.01.2019 ::

Accused is present, he is examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C. and the accused admitted the substance of prosecution case for the offence U/s.338, In the result the accused is found guilty under Sec.252 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.338 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer SI for 2 months and for the offence in default to suffer SI for 2 months.Total fine Rs.1000/-. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months. Accused is present, he is examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C. and the accused admitted the substance of prosecutioncase for the offence U/s.338,and 196 of MV Act. In the result the accused is found guilty under Sec.252 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.338 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer SI for 2 months Total fine Rs.1000/-. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Sulthanabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRTATE OF FIRLST

CLASS :AT: SULTANABAD

Present: Sri. K.Pardhasaradhi Rao,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sulthanabad.

STC.No. 64 of 2018

Between:-

1) MA Faheem, HC1759, P.S. Sririmapoor Address - r/o P. S. Srirampoor Advocate- APP …Petitioner

AND

1) Raavi Srinivas Address - R/o Pothkapalli of Odela Mandal but now at Kalva Srirampoor

...Respondent.

:: DOCKET ORDER ::

Accused is present, he is examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C. and the accused admitted the substance of prosecution case for the offence U/s.273 IPC. In the result the accused is found guilty under Sec.252 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.273 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/-

Heard the accused on question of sentence, he stated that he is poor person and he is sole bread winner of his family, and if he is sent to jail, his entire family will suffer. having regard to the submissions made by the accused and nature of offence against him sending him to jail would no purpose and if he sentenced to pay fine that would meet the end of justice.

In default to suffer SI for 6 months and for the offence U/s.273 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Sulthanabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRTATE OF FIRST

CLASS :AT: SULTANABAD

Present: Sri. K.Pardhasaradhi Rao,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sulthanabad.

STC 58 of 2018

Between:-

1) SI of Police, PS. Pothkapalli Address - SHO PS POTHKAPALLI …Petitioner. A N D

1) Md.Hazi Pasha Address - Pothkapalli village Sulthanabad

...Respondents.

:: DOCKET ORDER date 04.01.2019 ::

A1 and A2 are present. Copies of documents furnished. They are examined u/s 251 of Cr.P.C. by stating the accusation for the said offence u/s. 11 of the prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 accordingly convict them for the offence under section 252 Cr.P.C.Accordingly the A1 and A2 are convicted u/s 252 Cr.P.c. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each of the accused for offence u/s.11 of the prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week each. Total fine imposed is Rs. 1000/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Sulthanabad.