Smt K.Bhargavi

Judicial Magistrate of I class Spl.Mobile Court

PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool · Kurnool · Andhra Pradesh

Smt K.Bhargavi, Judicial Magistrate of I class Spl.Mobile Court, is posted at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,876 court orders on record since 2018. 33 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

1,876

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

DVC/60/2016

Padakandala Lakshmi vs S.Dorababu

21 Oct 2022

1 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS

(For Prohibition and Excise) KURNOOL.

PRESENT:-SMT K. Bhargavi Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool

Dated this 21 th Day of October, 2022

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE No.60/2016

Between:

1. Padakandala Lakshmi, 26 yrs, W/o S.Doorababu r/o H.No.87-164, B-Camp, Kurnool.

....Petitioner.

And

1. S.Doorababu, S/o S.ramaiah,

2. Venkatalaxmamma, W/o S.Ramaiah,

3. S.Srihari, S/o S.Ramaiah,

4. S.Saroja, W/o Srishari, All are r/o H.No.2-153, Ponnapuram (V), Ayyalur(M), Nandyal(T), Kurnool .

….. Respondents

This case coming on this day before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri.B.B.Babu, Sri.K.Rama Krishna, Advocates, for

Petitioner/complainant and Sri.B.Murali Mohan, Advocate for the respondent

No.1, Sri.Siva Rama Krishnaprasad, Advocate for respondent No.3 and 4 and having stood over for consideration till today, the Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is a petition fled under section 12 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) praying the court to pass the following;  Protection order under Section 18 of the Act in favour of the petitioner directing the respondent to stay away from the dependants/relatives/any other person of the aggrieved person to prohibit violence against them.

 Order under section 19 of the Act restraining respondents from alienating/disposing/encumbering the shared household, renouncing the rights in the shared household, removing himself from the shared household, Secure same level of alternate accommodation or pay rents for the same. To provide necessary residence expenses of Rs.10,000/- per month.

 Order under section 20 of the Act directing the respondent No.1 to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioner.

 Order under section 23 of the Act granting Rs.10,00,000/- towards 2 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL compensation.

 Further directing the respondent No.1 to 4 for return of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of marriage and return of 5 tulas gold and other articles which were given at the time of marriage by the petitoner and to return all the belongings of the petitioner left in the house of the respondents.

2.The brief averments of the petition is as follows:

Respondent No.1 is the husband of the petitioner. Respondent

No.2 to 4 are mother-in-law, Brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner.

The marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.1 took place on 15.07.2004 at Christian Assembly Gnanapuram, Nandyal according to

Christian rites and customs. At the time of marriage, on demand of respondents, the parents of petitioner gave dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and 5 tulas of gold ornaments to the respondents. Soon after their marriage, the petitioner joined her matrimonial at Ponnapuram, Nandyal. Respondent No.1 and the petitioner lived together happily for three months. Later the respondent No.1 along with remaining respondents started harassing the petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs to set up TV show room in

Nandyal. Respondent No.1 with the instigation of respondent No.2 and 3 used to beat the petitioner and harass her for want of additional dowry.

While so, the respondent No.3 got married to respondent No.4 where she also joined their matrimonial house. Thereafter, respondent No.4 also started harassing petitioner along with remaining respondents to bring additional dowry for setting up of TV show room. Respondent No.2 was addicted to bad vices even prior to their marriage and continued the same even after their marriage by coming home under intoxication of alcohol there by harassing the petitioner both physically and mentally. The remaining respondents supported respondent No.1 and justifed the acts of respondent No.1. All the respondents also subjected petitioner for starvation. In the year 2006, the mother of the petitioner came to Nandyal and gave Rs.1 lakh and requested not to harass the petitioner. Respondent No.1 also took all the gold ornaments of the petitioner and sold the same, when the same was 3 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL questioned by the petitioner, the remaining respondents also supported acts of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 on one day took the petitioner to

Shanthinagar and there he got issued some medicines to prevent her from becoming mother, due to which she got aborted and her health became deteriorated. Even after the said incident respondent No.1 did not stop his harassment and continued harassing the petitioner by beating her, by stating that he intends to marry sister of respondent No.4 if the petitioner dies. The relatives of respondent No.4 used to visit their house at Nandyal and torture her mentally and physically to bring additional dowry and if she is not able to bring the same, the petitioner has to get the said money by doing prostitution. In the year 2008 in the month of August, the respondent tried to kill the petitioner by pouring kerosene on her and lit her, the petitioner made huge cries and escaped. The respondent stated to the people who gathered at their house that due to mistake she got fre when she was preparing food in the kitchen. Immediately petitioner intimated about the incident to her mother and brother, due to which they came to

Nandyal along with some elders. Even after making panchayats, there is no change in the attitude of the respondents and they became more cruel and continued demanding for additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. From the year 2014, the petitioner is living in Kurnool at her mother’s house. Meanwhile, in the year 2015, the petitioner was shocked when she heard that the respondent

No.1 married another woman by name Asha. On 05.02.2016, the petitioner along with her mother, brother and Aunt by name Nagalakshmma went to

Nandyal to the respondents house and was shocked to see respondent No.1 with one lady in a room. When the petitioner questioned respondent No.1 about the said lady, respondents stated as she did not bring additional dowry or get money from prostitution, he married the said woman and also beat the petitioner along with other respondents. Respondent No.1 tried to crush her neck with his leg while remaining respondents held her hands and legs 4 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL tightly. However, the petitioner escaped and returned to Kurnool. Later, the petitioner lodged report against respondents in Kurnool III Town P.S. and a case was registered in Cr.No.68/2016 for the ofences U/Sec./498-A, 307, 494 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act and the same is pending. Therefore all the respondents have subjected the petitioner to all kinds of mental and physical harassment and committed act of Domestic Violence. Hence, this petition.

3.After hearing the counsel for petitioner, this case was taken on fle for ofences under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act against respondent Nos.1 to 4.

4. After receipt of notice the respondent No.1 fled counter denying all the allegations in the petition except those which are specifcally admitted in his counter. The respondent No.1 admitted the relationship between the petitioner and himself. However, as the respondent No.1 took baptism while he was studying 9th class after discontinuation of his studies and left his house, the other respondents did not allow him to stay in his house as such there is no domestic relationship between respondent No.1 and other respondents. Further the marriage of respondent No.4 with respondent

No.3 took place subsequent to the marriage of petitioner and respondent

No.1 and by the date of their marriage, respondent No.4 is stranger to their family. The respondent No.1 is working as private painter and earning

Rs.200/- per day. The petitioner is accustomed to lavish life and demanding respondent No.1 to provide sophisticated amenities. But the fnancial capacity of the respondent No.1 did not allow him to fulfll the luxurious desires of the petitioner. Immediately three months after their marriage, the petitioner voluntarily left the company of the respondent No.1. For a long time the where abouts of the petitioner are not known to him. Later, he came to know that the petitioner is residing in Kurnool in her relatives house. Even though he approached the petitioner to lead marital life, due to the adamant 5 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL behavior of the petitioner, she refused the same. The petitioner also ofered for divorce on the pretext that respondent No.1 has no capacity to lead matrimonial life. In spite of the panchayats made before elders, the petitioner was not convinced. As such it resulted respondent No.1 for being insulted and making him to leave Kurnool and started residing at Hyderabad.

Except leading matrimonial life for a period of three months immediately after their marriage, there is no marital relationship between the respondent

No.1 and petitioner. Respondent No.1 denied the allegations of demanding of

additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs for setting up TV show room. Further the

respondent No.1 have no knowledge about any TV mechanism or the said business, as by profession, he is a painter. The respondent No.1 further denied taking the petitioner to Shanthinagar and administering her with some drugs due to which she got aborted. Respondent No.1 further denied the allegation in the year 2008 he tried to kill the petitioner by pouring kerosene on her and further no complaint has been lodged after the alleged incident. He also contended that one Asha is stranger and he does not have any knowledge about the said Asha. Therefore, he would contend that he never subjected the petitioner to any physical and mental harassment.

Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Respondent No.2 fled counter and the same was adopted by respondents No.3 and 4. Respondent No.2 to 4 denied all the allegations made in the petition except those which are specifcally admitted by them in their counter. The respondent No.1 took baptism while he was studying 9th class after discontinuation of his studies and left the house, the other respondents did not allow him to stay in his house as such there is no domestic relationship between respondent No.1 and other respondents.

Further respondent No.3 never attended the marriage of petitioner. The respondent No.4 married respondent No.3 in the year 2008, as such the question of attending the marriage by respondent No.4 does not arise.

6 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL

Therefore, respondent No.3 and 4 were not aware of giving and taking dowry as alleged by the petitioner and respondent No.2 to 4 never demanded any dowry from the petitioner. Respondent No.2 to 4 denied the allegation that soon after the marriage of petitioner with respondent No.1, they lived in house bearing No. 2/153, where as the respondent No.2 and 3 used to live in a house bearing No.28/841, Nirvarthi Nagar, NGOs Colony, Nandyal. Even from the year 2000 onwards, there is no contact between respondent No.1 with Respondent No.2 and 3. Further the marriage of respondent No.1 took place as per his whims and fancies and being the mother of the respondent

No.1, respondent No.2 alone attended the marriage of respondent No.1 with petitioner. At any point of time respondent No.2 to 4 never lived under one roof with respondent No.1 and petitioner, so the question of they instigating respondent No.1 to beat the petitioner does not arise. Respondent No.2 to 4 denied the allegation of demanding additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. Four years after the marriage of respondent No.1 and the petitioner, the marriage of respondent No.3 with respondent No.4 took palce at Mahanandiswara

Swamy Temple, Mahanandi. Ever since from the date of their marriage, there are no talking terms between respondent No.1 and respondent No.3.

Respondent No.3 is a Law graduate and at present he is practicing advocate at Nandyal, he is no way connected with the allegation leveled against him and respondent No.4. They further denied the allegation that in the year 2008 in the month of August, they made attempt to kill the petitioner by pouring kerosene on her and that she escaped with the help of people who gathered there. No complaint was given by the petitioner on the said alleged incident. Panchayat was held by the parents of the petitioner in the presence of Muralidhar Goud and Sampath Kumar, the said Muralidhar Goud is none other than junior paternal uncle of the petitioner and he has criminal back ground. Respondent No.2 to 4 denied the allegation that no such incident took place on 05.02.2016 as alleged in the petition and it came to their 7 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL surprise that police of Kurnool III Town P.S. registered a case against them.

Respondent No.1 is residing at Hyderabad doing painting works by the date of alleged incident. Further there was a partition between the respondents and in the said partition, respondent No.1 has taken a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and house bearing Door No. 248 was allotted to respondent No.1 and while leaving Nandyal Town in the year 2009, respondent No.1 sold the said house to one Sunkanna and registered the same in his favour. Therefore as there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and Respondent No.2 to 4, the question of domestic violence does not arise. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. On behalf of the the petitioner, she got examined herself as PW1 besides examining her brothers as PW.3 and 4, one Jacob Vedanayakam as PW.5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Chief examination of PW.2 is eschewed as PW.2 did not turn up before this Court. On behalf of the respondents, the respondent no.1 got examined himself as RW.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.Perused the material on record.

9.Now the points that arise for determination are;

i. Whether there is any Domestic relationship between the

petitioner and respondents as alleged by the complainant in her complaint.

ii. Whether the petitioner sufered domestic violence in the

hands of the respondents?

iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed

for?

iv. To what relief?

10. At the outset it is the specifc case of the petitioner that soon after her marriage with respondent No.1 in the year 2004 the petitioner joined her matrimonial house. There all the respondents harassed her 8 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL physically and mentally, they demanded to bring additional dowry of

Rs.5,00,000/- for setting up of TV show room at Nanayal. Therefore, she would contend that respondents have subjected her to Domestic Violence.

Per contra, the respondents would contend that they never subjected the petitioner to any act of Domestic Violence. As the petitioner did not like to live with respondent No.1, she herself withdrawn from the society of respondent No.1 and fled this false Petition only in order to harass them.

Point No. i:

11. The respondent No.1 is husband of the petitioner, Respondent

No.2 to 4 are mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner.

The marriage of Petitioner with respondent No.1 took place on 15.07.2004 at

Christian Assembly Gnanapuram, Nandyal according to Christian rites and customs. Ex.P2/Attested copy of marriage certifcate and Ex.P3 photos along with CD also show that the petitioner married respondent No.1. Admittedly there is no dispute as to performance of marriage of petitioner with respondent No.1. Further respondent No.1 in his evidence admitted that after their marriage they lived together for a period of three months. As per section 58 of Indian Evidence Act admitted facts need not be proved.

Therefore it is manifest that there is some relationship by marriage between the petitioner and respondents as such now it is to be seen whether such relationship amounts to domestic relationship.

12. Before proceeding further it would be proper to refer Section 2(f) of the Act ‘domestic relationship’ is a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

13. It is the specifc case and evidence of the petitioner that soon 9 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL after her marriage, she joined her matrimonial house situated at

Ponnapuram, Nandyal, Kurnool District along with respondent No.1 to 3.

Thereafter, after the marriage of respondent No.4 with respondent No.3, all the respondents and the petitioner resided under the same roof at

Ponnapuram Village, Nandyal and there all the respondents subjected the petitioner to domestic violence.

14. Per contra it is the contention of the respondents that respondent

No.1 took baptism and converted into Christianity while studying 9th class and he left his house as the remaining respondents did not allow him to stay in their house. Further the marriage of respondent No.4 with respondent

No.3 took place subsequent to marriage of petitioner with respondent No.1 and by the date of marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.1, respondent No.4 is a stranger to their family. Further it is the contention of the respondent No.2 to 4 that there are no talking terms between respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 and they never resided under the same roof. As such they would contend that there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4.

15. In view of rival contentions of both the parties, now it is to be seen whether the petitioner has domestic relationship between respondent

Nos.2 to 4. In the cross-examination of RW.1 though he denied the suggestion that soon after his marriage, marriage of respondent No.3 with respondent No.4 took place, he admitted that they all including the petitioner resided at Ponnapuram Village. He denied the suggestion that respondent

No.2 to 4 received notices in this case at Ponnapuram Village house address.

However, on perusal of the record it is evident that respondent No.2 to 4 received notices in the above case in the address mentioned as house No.2- 153, Ponnapuram Village, Ayyaluru, Nandyal, Kurnool District. Though the respondent No.2 to 4 vehemently contended in their counter that at any point of time, they never lived with petitioner under one roof due to disputes 10 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL between respondent No.1 and 3. Admittedly noticeswere being served on

Respondent No.2 to 4 at the address mentioned in Ponnapuram Village.

Therefore, it is probablising the contention of the petitioner that soon after her marriage, she joined her matrimonial house along with respondent No.1 to 3 and thereafter, after the marriage of respondent No.4 with respondent

No.3 they all lived together in the same house at Ponnapuram Village.

Hence, it is manifestly proved that the petitioner resided with respondent

Nos.1 to 4 in common shared household and the relationship between them is domestic relationship. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against respondents.

Point No.2 :

16.In view of fndings recorded supra now it is to be seen whether the respondents committed any act of domestic violence against the petitioner. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to extract Sec.3 of

Domestic Violence Act :

Section 3 of the Act defnes domestic violence ‘as any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent if it harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse, or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security, or (c) has the efect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b), or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person. Explanation I explains what is physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse. Explanation II further says that for the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes ‘domestic violence’ under the section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.

17. It is the specifc case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 11 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL looked after her well only for a period of three months after their marriage, thereafter respondent No.1 along with respondent No.2 and 3 started harassing her both physically and mentally and after the marriage of respondent No.4 with respondent No.3, respondent No.4 also committed domestic violence against petitioner. Per contra it is the contention of the respondents that they never committed any act of domestic violence towards the petitioner.

18. In view of rival contention of both the parties, now it is to be seen whether the petitioner is subjected to any act of domestic violence as contended by her. It is the specifc case and evidence of PW.1 that at the time of marriage of petitioner with respondent No.1 on demand of respondent No.1 to 3, parents of the petitioner gave dowry of an amount of

Rs.5 lakhs and 5 tulas of gold. Per contra, it is the contention of the respondents that they never demanded any dowry from the petitioner.

Respondents in their counter denied receiving of amount of Rs.5 lakhs and 5 tulas of gold ornaments towards dowry on their demand. Coming to the chief examination of RW.1, he did not depose anything denying receiving of dowry during his marriage. However, on perusal of evidence of the petitioner, she nowhere reveals in whose presence the said dowry was given and also the place where the said dowry was given to the respondents. Except the oral self serving testimony of the petitioner, there is no other documentary evidence to show that her parents purchased 5 tulas of gold during that relevant period. PW.3 and 4 who are the brothers of the petitioner deposed on the same lines that at the time of marriage of PW.1 their parents gave dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and 5 tulas of gold on the demand of respondents. It is the evidence of PW.5 he came to know that respondent No.1 agreed for dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and 5 tulas of gold from parents of the petitioner through respondent No.1. However he deposed that he does not know whether the said dowry was given by parents of petitioner and the same was 12 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL received by the respondent No.1. Further as per his evidence, he did not attend the marriage, as such the evidence of PW.5 is no way helpful to prove the contention of the petitioner with regard to receiving of dowry of respondents. The petitioner did not depose anything about the specifc place, time and in whose presence the alleged dowry was given to respondent Nos.

1 to 3. Further the petitioner did not fle any photographs to show anything as to receiving of dowry by the respondents Nos.1 to 3. Therefore in absence of any documentary evidence and any independent evidence, it is not safe to conclude that on demand of respondent No.1 to 3, parents of petitioner gave

Rs.5 lakhs cash and 5 tulas of gold ornaments as dowry. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that parents of Pw.1 gave dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and 5 tulas of gold at the time of marriage on the demand of respondents is not sustainable.

19. It is the specifc case and evidence of PW.1 that she along with respondent No.1 lived happily for a period of three months after their marriage and thereafter respondents started harassing her demanding

additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs for setting up of TV Show room at Nandyal.

Respondent No.4 who was married to respondent No.3 also started harassing petitioner to bring additional dowry as stated supra. Per contra, the respondents denied they demanding additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs from the petitioner. PW.1, 3 and 4 in their evidence they categorically deposed that all the respondents harassed petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs to establish TV show room in Nandyal and on their demand their family members gathered an amount of Rs.1 lakh and the same was given to respondent No.1 by their mother. Though the counsel for the respondents cross-examined PW.1, PW.3 and 4, they with stood the cross-examination of the counsel for respondents and nothing has been elicited to discredit the trustworthiness of their evidence to disprove the above fact. At this juncture, the evidence of PW.5 plays a crucial role. PW.5 is one Jacob 13 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL

Vedanayakam. As per the evidence of PW.5, he got acquaintance with PW.1 through respondent No.1 and from his evidence it reveals that respondent

No.1 is his friend, he was invited for the marriage of petitioner with respondent No.1 but the same was not attended by him. At this juncture, it would be relevant to extract the cross-examination of PW.5 “ further respondent No.1 stated to him that though he demanded Rs.5 lakhs for setting up TV Show room at Nandyal, her parents agreed to give an amount of Rs.1 lakh only. “

20.Though PW.5 was cross-examined at length nothing has been elicited to discredit the trustworthiness of his evidence and further it is not the contention of the respondent No.1 that PW.5 is not his friend and there are any disputes between them to depose against the respondent No.1.

Therefore, from the evidence of PW.5, it is sufce to show that it is supporting the evidence of PW.1, 3 and 4 with regard to demanding of

additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. Therefore, it is manifestly proved that

respondents harassed PW.1 demanding additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs for setting up of TV Show room at Nandyal.

21.In view of fndings recorded supra now it is to be seen whether the parents of PW.1 gave any additional dowry to the respondent No.1 as demanded by him. The evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and 4 no where reveals in what form i.e., whether in form of cash, cheque or D.D., the mother of the petitioner gave Rs.1 lakh to respondent No.1 except stating that their mother gave Rs.1 lakh to respondent No.1. Most importantly the mother of petitioner was not examined to prove that she gave Rs.1 lakh to the respondent No.1. Therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence, to prove that the mother of petitioner gave Rs.1 lakh to respondent No.1, it is not safe to come to a conclusion that the mother of the petitioner gave Rs.1 lakh to respondent No.1. Though it is proved that the respondents harrassed petitioner to bring additional dowry, the evidence on record does not 14 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL manifestly prove that the parents of the petitioner gave any additional dowry to the respondents.

22. It is the specifc case and evidence of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 took the petitioner to Shanthinagar and there he got administered some medicine to the petitioner, due to which she got aborted and her health became deteriorated. Per contra, respondent No.1 denied the allegation made by the petitioner with regard to above said fact. However, in his cross-examination he admitted the fact that the petitioner was taken by him to Shanthinagar which is near Iyiza of Jogulamba Gadwal District of

Telangana State. He denied the suggestion that the petitioner was administered with some country medicine for which she got aborted and resulted serious ill-health to the petitioner.

23. To prove the above said fact, the petitioner in addition to her oral evidence she also relied upon Ex.P6 and P7. Ex.P6 is the medical reports in the name of PW.1. Ex.P7 is O.P. ticket, dt.12.07.2006 in the name of PW.1. Admittedly as the respondent No.1 admitted taking the petitioner to Shanthinagar and did not assign any reasons for their visit to

Shanthinagar, the burden of proof shifts on to him to disprove the above fact. The counsel for respondents except posing suggestions, he could not elicit anything to disprove the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 with regard to the above fact. The evidence of PW.3 and 4 also shows that PW.1 sufered ill- health soon after she got administered with country poison by respondent

No.1 at Shanthinagar. Further on perusal of Ex.P6 and P7, it reveals that

Ex.P6 is list of medical reports containing Urine examination report, Urine analysis, Clinical Pathology report of routine Haemotology, Clinical

Pathology report of Urine analysis, routine Biochemical investigations. Ex.P7 is out Patient ticket standing in the name of PW.1. Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are not disputed by the counsel for respondents that they do not belong to the petitioner. Further in the cross examination of the petitioner, the counsel for 15 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL respondents also posed a suggestion stating that respondent No.1 paid medical bills incurred by the petitioner under Ex.P6 and P7 but the same was denied by the petitioner. Therefore, from the lines of cross examination by the counsel for respondent No.1 he is impliedly admitting that the petitioner sufered ill health during the relevant period. On perusal of Ex.P7, in the disease column, it is stated that Nephrotic Syndrome. This Court on careful examination of various medical thesis through Internet, it reveals that the usage of herbal compound can result in Renal Injury. Though it is the evidence of PW.1 that due to administration of country medicine she got aborted, there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the same.

Therefore, the oral evidence of the Pws.1 to 4 coupled with Ex.P6 and P7 manifestly proved that PW.1 got administered with some country medicine at Shanthinagar by respondent No.1 and there after she sufered severe ill- health which constitutes physical abuse.

24.It is the specifc case and evidence of petitioner that on 05.02.2016, petitioner along with her mother, brother and her aunt by name

Nalakshmamma went to the house of the respondents in the early morning at about 04.00 a.m., there the petitioner was shocked to see respondent

No.1 with one lady by name Asha and on enquiry, she came to know that respondent No.1 married one Asha. Except the oral self serving testimony of the PW.1, PW.3 and 4, admittedly there is no evidence on record to prove that respondent No.1 married one Asha. It is also the evidence of PW.1 that the respondent No.1 tried to crush her neck with his leg and respondent No.2 to 4 caught hold of her hands and legs tightly, on the same day i.e., on 05.02.2016, during her visit to the house of the respondents. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint against respondents in Kurnool III Town P.S. and the same was registered as Cr.No.68/2016 for the ofence U/Sec.498-A, 307, 494 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and the same is pending. PW.1 reiterated the contents of her petition in her evidence, PW.3 and 4 also deposed on the 16 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL same lines as that of PW.1 with regard to the above said incident.

25.Coming to the evidence of respondent No.1, he did not deny the registration of case in Cr.No.68/2016 against them on complaint of the petitioner. Though the counsel for respondents cross-examined PW.1, PW.3 and 4 with regard to the above said incident, nothing has been elicited to discredit trustworthiness of their evidence. Therefore, it is probablizing the contention of the petitioner with regard to the occurrence of incident as contended by her.

26.Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner has proved that respondents subjected the petitioner to physical and emotional abuse, as such they committed act of Domestic Violence against her.

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

Point No.3:

27. It is the specifc case and evidence of PW.1 that respondent No.1 took all the gold ornaments of the petitioner and sold the same, when she questioned the same, all the respondents i.e., respondent No.2 to 4 supported respondent No.1 instead of scolding him. Per contra, respondents denied the same. Except the oral self serving testimony of PW.1, PW.3 and 4, there is no evidence on record to prove the said fact. As the petitioner failed to provide specifc date on which respondent No.1 took away her gold ornaments and where it was sold out it cannot be held that respondent No.1 took away her gold ornaments .

28. It is the specifc case and evidence of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is painter by profession and earning an amount of

Rs.25,000/- per month, having movable and immovable properties and getting an income of Rs.2 lakhs. Respondent No.1 in his counter admitted that he is a painter by profession. However, he pleaded that he is earning 17 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL only Rs.200/- per day and denied that he owns movable and immovable properties and earning Rs.2 lakhs.

29. As per the evidence of PW.1, it reveals that after her marriage, she completed degree in open university and she denied the suggestion that she is working as Hindi Teacher in Nandyal and earning an amount of

Rs.8,000/- per month. Though the counsel for respondents posed a suggestion that presently she is working as Junior Assistant on contract basis in MRO Ofce, Kurnool and getting Rs.14000/- salary per month, admittedly he did not fle any documentary evidence in support of his contention.

Further it is admitted by petitioner that her parents are having Ac.2.00 cents of agricultural land in their native Village and earning Rs.50,000/- per year.

At this juncture it would be relevant to state that even if the petitioner is having earning capacity, the respondent being the husband of the petitioner is not absolved from his legal liability to maintain her.

30.It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is having bank accounts in several banks and many transactions are done through his bank accounts and therefore, the petitioner would contend that the respondent No.1 in addition to his work as painter, he is also running some other businesses. Respondent No.1 in his cross-examination admitted that he is having bank accounts in Axis Bank at Kurnool and SBI at Nandyal and he deposed its numbers as 909010037831038 and 33154854088. He further admitted that he is having one Postal account at Nandyal. Admittedly he did not assign any reason for holding many bank accounts in his name.

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is having bank accounts in several banks and many transactions are done through his bank accounts is evident from his transactions in his bank accounts.

31.It is further contention of petitioner that respondent No.1 owns

Tata Indica car and the same is evident from Ex.P4. Admittedly respondent 18 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL

No.1 is not disputing the same, he categorically admitted that the above said car belongs to him. However his evidence is that it was sold away by him about two years back, but the RC is still in his name. Therefore, in view of admission of respondent No.1, it is manifestly proved that the respondent

No.1 owns a car.

32. As per the contention of the petitioner, respondent No.1 is having movable and immovable properties and in that regard it is relevant to the refer the evidence of respondent No.1 wherein in his cross examination he admitted that he is having a share in house situated at Ponnapuram

Village. Further respondent No.2 to 4 in their counter categorically avered that there was a partition between the respondents and in the said partition, respondent No.1 had taken a sum of Rs.2 lakh in cash and a house bearing

Door No.248 was allotted to respondent No.1. Admittedly respondent No.1 did not deny the same. Therefore, it manifestly proved the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1 is having movable and immovable properties at his village

33. Further the counsel for respondent No.1 did not assign any reason how a person earning Rs.200/- per day by doing painting works can own a car and operate several bank accounts for no reason. Therefore, all these circumstances and evidence is probablizing the contention of the petitioner that in addition to doing painting works by the respondent No.1, he also does other works. As per the evidence of PW.1, respondent No.1 willfully neglected the petitioner and her children without paying any maintenance and she has been depending upon their mother and brother to eke out her livelihood, the same is evident from the evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and 4. RW.1 in his cross-examination also clearly admitted that he is not paying any maintenance or interim maintenance to the petitioner or to his children ever since from the date of fling of this petition. He also admitted the fact that their both children are residing with the petitioner. More 19 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL surprisingly, he deposed that he does not know about the studies of his son and daughter. This Court is of the view that it is very unfortunate how a father does not know what his children are studying. Therefore it is sufce to show that respondent No.1 has willfully neglected to pay maintenance to the petitioner and his two children. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion it is proved that the petitioner is entitled for the relief of Protection Order,

Residence Order, Monetary Relief and Compensation Order. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

However she is not entitled to other reliefs.

Point No.4:

34.In view of fndings recorded in Point Nos.1 to 3, the petitioner is entitled for following reliefs.

IN THE RESULT, the Domestic Violence Case fled by PW-1 is allowed in part, granting the following reliefs:

(i) Protection Order u/s.18 of the Act, prohibiting the Respondents from causing violence to PW1 and her relatives or any person who gives assistance to PW1 from domestic violence;

(ii)Residence Order u/s.19 of the Act, directing Respondent No.1 to secure same level of alternate accommodation to PW1 or pay rent of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) per month for separate residence of PW1.

(iii) Monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act granting maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) per month to PW1 from Respondent No.1, from the date of fling of complaint before the court.

(iv) Respondent No. 1 to 4 are directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) to PW-1, within 3 months from the date of this order.

(v) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees ffteen thousands) as monthly maintenance and

Rs.5000/-(Rupees fve thousand) as monthly rent in the account of PW1, commencing from November, 2020, on or before 10th of every succeeding month. PW1 is directed to furnish her bank account particulars to Respondent No.1 on intimation of the 20 D.V.C.No.60 of 2016SPCL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL same to this court.

(vi) So far as the other reliefs claimed by PW-1, are concerned, the same are dismissed.

(vii) Furnish a copy of this order to the complainant-PW-1 under

Section 24 of the Act. Communicate a copy of the order to the concerned police free of cost.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by

me this the 21st day of October, 2022.

Sd/- K. Bhargavi

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class For Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Complainant: For Respondents:

PW-1: P.Laxmi RW-1: S.Dorababu PW-2: P.Srinivasulu (Eschewed) PW-3: P.Vankatesh PW-4: P.Venkta Ramana PW-5: Jocob Vedanayakam

Exhibits Marked

For Complainant:

Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.P2: Attested copy of marriage certifcate. Ex.P3: Photograph with C.D. Ex.P4: Computerized copy of form No.24 of B.Register for vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 21 BE 8392. Ex.P5: Computerized copy of statement of account. Ex.P6: Medical reports in the name of PW.1 Ex.P7: Outpatient ticket, dt.12.07.2006 in the name of PW.1.

For Respondents:

-NIL -

Sd/- K. Bhargavi

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, or Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

// TRUE COPY//

Spl. JMFC(P&E), KNL

CC/437/2016 Convicted

III town PS, Kurnool vs G. narayana

19 Oct 2022

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-1-

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS (for Prohibition & Excise), KURNOOL.

PRESENT:-SMT. K. BHARGAVI Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool.

Dated this 19th Day of October, 2022

C.C. NO. 437/2016

BETWEEN:

State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool III Town Police Station.

…Complainant.

And

1. G.Narayana, s/o late G.Naganna, aged 67 yrs, President, Kurnool District IV Class Employees, Co.Operative House Building society, R/o H.No.80-11-65, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool Town.

2. Y.Jaya Raju, s/o Y.Guruvaiah, aged about 62 yrs, H.No.46/1/13, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool . (As per orders in Cr L M P No.2276/2017 on the fle Judicial

Magistrate of frst class (special Mobile court), Kurnool under

sec 319 Cr P C the accused No.2 was added) .…. Accused.

-oo0oo-

This case is coming before me on 22.09.2022 for hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State and Sri K.Venu Gopal Reddy, Advocate for accused No.1 and accused No.2 and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool III Town Police

Station, initially fled charge sheet against the accused No.1 alone in Crime No.84/2012 for the ofence under section 420 IPC as follows.

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-2-

2.At the outset it is relevant to mention here that a private complaint by PW1 was fled before Hon’ble I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool against accused No.1

by name G. Narayana. The Complaint was forwarded under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR and for investigation. On Concluding investigation the police fled charge sheet against the sole accused before Hon’ble I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. In turn Hon’ble

IAJFCM took cognizance of ofence against the sole accused.

Then the case was transferred to Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of

First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool as per orders of

Hon’ble District Judge, Kurnool in dis. No. 2118 dated

21.09.2016 for disposal. In the said court after recording the evidence of PW1 the prosecution moved Cr.L.M.P. 2276/2017 under Section 319 Cr.P.C to add one Y.Jayaraju and G.Venkata

Ramana as accused to face the trial. Hon’ble JMFC(Special

Mobile Court), Kurnool allowed the said application and issued summonses to above named persons to face the trial. Aggrieved by the orders in the above Cr.L.M.P G. Venkata Ramana preferred revision in Cr.R.P.No. 58/2017 before Hon’ble Special

Judge for trial of cases under SC and ST (POA) Act cum VI

Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The revision was allowed

whereby the order of issuance of summons to additional accused

G.Venkata Ramana was set asided. Thus, now the case is against

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-3- accused No.1/ G.Narayana and newly added accused No.2/Y.Jaya

Raju and they faced the trial for the charge framed against them.

3.The brief case of prosecution as set out in the charge sheet is as follows:

Accused No.1 G.Narayana was president of Kurnool District

IV Class Employees Co-operative House Building Society. PW.1 is a typist then working at Junior Civil Judge court, Yemmiganur

Town. PW.2 is Ex-President of Kurnool District IV Class

Employees Co-operative House Building Society (herein after referred to as ‘Class IV Employees Society’). PW.3 and 4 are the Investigating Oficers. According to allotment list of Class IV

Employees Society Plot No.191-A was allotted to C.H.Maddilety who is father of PW.1 herein. On the death of C.H.Maddilety

PW.1 submitted death certifcate and legal heir certifcate of his father to Class IV Employees Society and in turn the society transferred the Plot referred above in the name of Pw.1 on 01.01.2001. The accused No.1 himself issued proceedings and confrmed the allotment of Plot in the name of PW.1 by making endorsement on non judicial stamp paper on 07.06.2008. The accused No.1 with malafde intention took back the allotment certifcate from PW.1 by deceiving him stating that it was necessary for registration and submitted to Sri K.Venu Gopal

Reddy, advocate, Kurnool. PW.1 in turn approached Sri K. Venu

Gopal Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool and enquired him about allotment certifcate. He informed PW.1 that Accused No.1 took

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-4- back the same. Thereafter the accused No.1 and 2 and one

G.Venkata Ramana colluded together and got registered Plot

No.191-A in the name of Accused No.2 through sale deed dated 07.02.2012. Then within ten days the accused No.1 issued no objection certifcate and got registered the said plot to G.Venkata

Ramana through accused No.2 under sale deed dated 16.02.2012. The accused No.1 and 2 fraudulently registered the plot which was allotted to father of PW.1 to get wrongful loss to

PW.1. On that Pw.1 fled a private complaint before Hon’ble

IAJFCM, Kurnool and it was forwarded to SHO of III Town PS,

Kurnool for registration of FIR. PW.3, on receipt of complaint registered the FIR in Crime Number 84/2012 and investigated into the matter. During the investigation it was revealed that

Sri.B.Srinivasa Reddy, District Co-operative Audit Oficer,

Kurnool submitted a report which confrmed that the accused

No.1 registered plots to nine members when ban by Divisional

Co-operative Oficer, Kurnool was in force. The accused colluded together and got created sale deeds referred to supra and thereby cheated PW.1. During the investigation PW.3 examined

PWs.1 and 2 and recorded their statements. He verifed the documents produced by PWs.1 and 2. Pw.4 the SI of Police of III

Town PS, Kurnool took up the investigation from PW.3 and verifed the investigation carried out by PW.3 and found that it was on correct lines. On 04.09.2015 he arrested accused No.1 and released him on bail on taking suficient solvencies.

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-5-

LW.5/S.Nagendra successor of PW.4 fled charge sheet against the accused No.1 that the accused No.1 fraudulently got registered plot No.191-A allotted to PW.1 to others and there by cheated PW.1 as such committed ofence punishable under section 420 IPC. Hence the charge sheet.

4.Initially the case was taken on fle for the ofence under section 420 IPC against the accused No.1 and later on as per the orders in Cr.L.M.P. 2276/2017 under Section 319 Cr.P.C one Y.Jayaraju (accused No.2) was summoned to face the trial along with accused No.1. The order summoning one G.Venkata

Ramana as additional accused through the same Cr.L.M.P was set asided as per the orders in Cr.R.P.No. 58/2017 by Hon’ble

Special Judge for trial of cases under SC and ST (POA) Act cum

VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

5.On appearance of accused No.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207

Cr.P.C. Initially accused No.1 alone was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the commission of the ofence.

A charge under section 420 IPC against the Accused No.1 was been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After impleading Accused No.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C he was examined and charge under Section 420 IPC was framed and the

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-6- charge framed was explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P22 were marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and accused No.2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. putting forth the incriminating material that appears against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 and accused No.2 denied their guilt. During cross examination of

PW.2, Ex.D1 to D8 are marked.

7.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

8.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the ofence U/sec. 420 ?”

POINT:

9.As per the case of the prosecution, the father of PW.1 was allotted Plot 191-A being a member of Kurnool District IV

Class Employees Co-operative House Building Society and after his death the said plot was allotted to PW.1. While so, accused

No.1 in collusion with accused No.2 with fraudulent and dishonest intention registered the said plot in favour of accused

No.2 under guise of Lok Adalath award under Ex.P10. Accused

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-7-

No.2 immediately sold the above said plot to one G.Venkata

Ramana under Ex.P12 thereby cheated PW.1.

10.Learned A.P.P. submitted her arguments contending that the evidence of PW.1 to 4 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 manifestly proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the accused accused No.1 and accused No.2 are laible to be convicted.

11.Per contra, learned counsel for accused submitted his written arguments contending that PW.1 is not well aware of his father’s membership in the said society and further the allotment of the plot in the name of his father by the society. He would further contend that PW.1 did not fle any nominee register details of his deceased father and no document was fled by PW.1 to show that his father was member of the society. He would further contend that every senior member of the society would be allotted two plots as per the resolution passed by the society.

Accused No.2 is one of the senior members of the society, as such he was allotted two plots. Therefore, he would contend that accused No.1 did not commit any ofence by registering the plot

No. 191-A to accused No.2. Further he would contend that PW.4 did not verify any documents pertaining to PW.1 or his father and the same was admitted by PW.4 in his evidence. Therefore, accused No.1 being president of society executed Ex.P10 registered sale deed in favour of accused No.2 who is senior member of the society and mere execution of sale deed to

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-8- member of the society will not constitute an ofence U/Sec.420

IPC. Further he would contend that no oficial records of the above society was fled before this Court to show that accused

No.1 cheated PW.1. Further none of the oficers, Board of

Directors or members of the association were examined to prove the same. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid lacunas he would contend that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the ofence U/Sec.420 IPC and the accused are entitled for beneft of doubt.

12. Before adverting further it would be relevant to extract the provision under section 420 IPC.

Section 420 IPC is read as follows: 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 is said to commit an ofence under section 420 of IPC.

13. In view of rival contentions of both the parties, now it is the be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the ofence U/Sec.420 IPC.

14. It is the specifc case of the prosecution that the father of the PW.1 by name Maddileti is member of Kurnool District IV

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-9-

Class Employees Co-operative House Building Society. Per contra, it is the contention of the counsel for accused No.1 and 2 that no documents are fled before this Court to prove that the father of PW.1 was member of the above said society.

15.To prove the above said fact, PW.1 in his evidence, deposed that his father worked as Process Server in District

Court, Kurnool and in the year 1993, his father by name

C.Maddileti was allotted a house plot bearing No. 191-A by the said society. Further in his evidence, he deposed that he does not know when his father joined in the above said society and obtained plot as per the DIP register. By taking this piece of evidence of PW.1, the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 would contend that PW.1 himself is not aware of the fact that his father being the member of the Kurnool District IV Class

Employees Co-operative House Building Society. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, he deposed that he worked as president of IV

Class Employees Association from June 2002 to 2005. He further deposed that PW.1 came to him and requested to allot plot

No.191-A which was allotted to his father. In addition to oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the prosecution also relied up on the

Ex.P13 to P15, Ex.P13 is certifed copy of enquiry report submitted by Joint Registrar, District Co-operative Oficer,

Kurnool, Ex.P14 is the Attested copy of Audit report submitted by one B.Srinivasa Reddy, District Co-operative Audit oficer,

Kurnool, Ex.P15 is attested copy of Award passed by Deputy

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-10- registrar of Co-operative services, Kurnool. On perusal of Ex.P14, it reveals that on enquiry the District Co-operative Audit Oficer submitted the report and in the said report, he gave a categorical fnding that plot No. 191-A was allotted to one C.H.Maddileti. On perusal of Ex.P15, it provides that father of PW.1 was a member in the society with G.No.160 and plot NO.191-A was allotted to him. Further the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 in the cross-examination of PW.1 and 2 did not pose any suggestion to

PW.1 and PW.2 that father of PW.1 was not a member in the above society. Therefore, it is proved that the father of PW.1 by name C.H. Maddileti was member of Govt.IV Class employees

Society, Kurnool.

16. In view of the fndings recorded supra that

C.H.Maddilety was member of Class IV Employees Association,

Kurnool, now it is to be seen whether plot No.191-A was allotted to C.H.Maddilety, father of PW.1 in DIP drawn in the year 1993.

It is the specifc case of the prosecution that in the year 1993 through DIP drawn the father of PW.1 was allotted with plot

No.191-A being the member of the above said society. In order to prove the same, PW.1 in his evidence deposed that in the year 1993, his father by name Maddileti was allotted a house plot bearing No.191-A by Kurnool District IV Class Employees Co- operative House Building Society at IV Class Employees colony,

Ganesh Nagar, Kurnool. PW2 in his evidence deposed that plot

No.191-A was allotted to one Maddileti who is father of PW.1.

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-11-

Further it is the evidence of PW.1 that he addressed a letter to

Co-operative society about the fraud committed by the accused.

Later, an award was passed under Ex.P15 stating that the said plot belonged to PW.1. In addition to oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the prosecution also relied upon Ex.P2, Exs.P14 to 16. Ex.P2 is a Photostat copy of list of persons showing the allotment of plots. Admittedly as Ex.P2 is a Photostat copy, it cannot be looked into and cannot be appreciated in evidence. Though Ex.P2 is a photostat copy there is suficient evidence to prove that Plot

No.191-A was allotted to C.H.Maddileti father of PW.1. Ex.P15 is attested copy of Award passed by Deputy Registrar of Co- operative societies, Kurnool. The recitals in Ex.P15 go to show that he gave categorical fnding that plot No.191-A with

G.No.160 was allotted to C.H.Maddileti in the DIP drawn on 21.11.1993 and the president Sri.G.Balanarasimhlu gave allotment certifcate in the name of PW.1. Further Ex.P14 attested copy of audit report submitted by District Co-operative

Audit Oficer provides that accused No.2 was inducted as member in the society on 27.10.2011 and registered sale deed was executed on his name taking advantage of Lok Adalath award for plot No.191-A which was originally allotted in the name of father of PW.1 in the DIP on 21.11.1993. Further as per

Ex.P16 allotment list Plot No. 191-A at G.No.160 was allotted to

C.H.Maddilety S/o Sunkanna. Though the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 cross examined PW.1 and 2 at length,

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-12- nothing could be elicited to prove that plot 191-A was not allotted to father of PW.1 during his lifetime. Therefore it is proved beyond doubt that Plot No. 191-A was allotted to father of

PW.1 in the DIP drawn on 21.11.1993.

17. In view of fndings recorded above that Plot No.191-A was allotted to C.H.Maddileti who is father of PW.1, now it is to be seen whether accused No.2 was allotted with plot No. 610-A and the same was sold by him to some others as contended by prosecution. As per the evidence of PW.2, accused No.2 is also member of society since 1982 and he was allotted separate plot

No. 610-A by his predecessors. He further categorically deposed that he registered plot No.610-A to accused No.2 on 19.10.2004 under Ex.P17. Immediately on the next day of Ex.17, accused

No.2 sold the said plot to another person. In order to prove the same, in addition to oral evidence of PW.2, the prosecution relied upon Ex.P17. Ex.P17 is certifed copy of Registered Sale Deed, dt.19.10.2004 showing that PW.2 registered the plot No.610-A in favour of accused No.2. Further it is not the contention of the counsel for accused No.1 and 2 that accused No.2 was not allotted plot No.610-A by the above said society but his contention is that accused No.2 being the senior member in the association is entitled for allotment of two plots in his name as such accused No.1 registered Ex.P10 in respect of disputed plot to accused No.2. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.2 coupled with Ex.P17, it is manifestly proved that accused No.2 got

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-13- registered plot No.610-A on 19.10.2004 in his favour by Govt.IV

Class employees Society, Kurnool.

18. In view of fndings recorded supra, now it is to be see whether after the death of father of PW.1, plot No.191-A was allotted to him. It is the specifc case of prosecution that initially plot No.191-A was allotted to father of PW.1 and after his demise, being the legal heir of C.Maddileti, PW.1 was allotted with plot No.191-A. PW.1 in his evidence reiterated the averments of his complaint stating after the demise of his father in the year 1996, the above said plot was allotted to him by PW.2 in the year 2001. He also relied upon Ex.P3. Ex.P3 is Photostat copy of allotment Certifcate in respect of plot No.191-A in favour of PW.1. Admittedly Ex.P3 is a Photostat copy, as it is a Photostat copy, the same cannot appreciated in evidence. Though Ex.P3 is a photostat copy there is suficient evidence on record to prove that Plot No.191-A was allotted to PW.1 after the death of his father. It is the evidence of PW.2 that plot 191-A was allotted to

Maddileti and after resuming charge as president of Govt.IV

Class employees Society, Kurnool, PW.1 came to him and requested him to allot plot which was allotted to his father by showing succession certifcate. After verifying the relevant documents, he allotted plot No.191-A to PW.1. Further as per

Ex.P13 to P15, aggrieved by the acts of accused No.1 and 2,

PW.1 submitted complaint before District Deputy Registrar of

Co-operative societies, Kurnool and an Award was passed

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-14- stating the father of PW.1 was allotted with plot No.191-A with

G.No.160 and PW.2 gave allotment certifcate to PW.1. Though the learned counsel for accused cross examined PW.1 and 2 at length, nothing has been elicited to discredit the trustworthiness of their evidence. Therefore, from the oral evidence of PW.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.P13 to Ex.P15, it is manifestly proved that after the death of father of PW.1, plot No.191-A was allotted to him by PW.2.

19. It is the specifc case of prosecution that accused

No.1 and 2 cheated PW.1 with dishonest intention, thereby causing wrongful loss to him by registering plot No.191-A to accused No.2 by accused No.1, who in turn sold the same under

Ex.P12 to one G.Venkata Ramana. Per contra, it is the contention of the counsel for accused No.1 and 2 that accused

No.2 being senior member of the above said association, was allotted two plot i.e., plot No.610-A by PW.2, plot No.191-A by accused No.1. Accused No.1 being the then president of above said association executed Ex.P10 in pursuance of Ex.P9 Lok

Adlath Award and he committed no fault on his part.

20. In order to prove the same, PW.1 in his evidence, deposed that in the year 2011, accused No.1 got admitted accused No.2 in the society and allotted Plot No.191-A to accused No.2. Thereafter, accused No.1 and 2 colluded with each other by fling a petition before Lok Adalath. The accused No.1 agreed before Lok Adalath to provide plot to accused No.2,

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-15- accordingly Lok Adalath Award was passed. After passing the

Lok Adalath Award, accused No.1 registered plot in the name of accused No.2. Within one week after registration, accused No.2 sold the said plot to one G.Venkata Ramana through registered document. It is evident that accused No.1 through accused No.2 was already a member got admitted him as a new member in the year 2011 under Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 and resorted to fling Pre litigation case using DLSA, Kurnool for committing their acts. On knowing the same, PW.1 addressed a letter to Co-operative society and after due enquiry, an award was passed stating the above said plot belonged to PW.1. PW.2 in his evidence deposed that after his tenure, accused No.1 became president of Govt.IV

Class employees Society, Kurnool and he came to know that accused No.1 allotted Plot No.191-A to accused No.2 with a malafde intention. He further deposed that as per the rules of

Govt.IV Class employees Society, Kurnool, only one plot has to be allotted to each member of the said society. accused No.2 was already allotted separate plot No.610-A and the same was registered by him in favour of accused No.2 on 19.10.2004 and on the next day accused No.2 sold the same to some others. In support of the oral evidence of PW.1 and 2, prosecution also relied upon Ex.P6 to Ex.P12. Ex.P6 is certifed copy of plot allotment certifcate in respect of plot No.191-A issued in favour of accused No.2, by accused No.1. Ex.P7 is certifcated copy of petition fled by accused No.2 as Pre litigation Case before

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-16-

District Legal Services Authority, Kurnool. Ex.P8 is certifed copy of terms of compromise fled on behalf of the accused No.1 and 2 in the above PLC No.1606/2012. Ex.P9 is certifed copy of Lok

Adalath Award, dt.05.02.2011. Ex.P10 is certifed copy of registered sale deed, dt.07.02.2012 executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.2 in respect of plot No.191-A. Ex.P11 is certifed copy of afidavit of accused No.2. Ex.P12 is certifed copy of registered sale deed, dt.16.02.2012 executed by accused

No.2 in favor of one G.Venkata Ramana in respect of plot

No.191-A.

21. In the preceding paras it has been already held that accused No.2 got plot No. 610-A under Ex.P17. As it is the contention of the counsel for accused that accused No.2 is eligible for allotting of two plots being senior member, the burden of proof is on the accused No.2 to prove that the society shall allot two plots to senior members. However, except posing suggestion to PW.2 that accused No.2 is eligible for two plots, no single piece of paper is fled before this Court in support of their contention. Coming to the Ex.P13, enquiry report submitted by

District Co-operative oficer, Ex.P14 is Audit report, Ex.15 is

Award copy of District co-operative society, Kurnool, it manifestly go to show that each member of above society is eligible for allotment of only one plot. It appears that in order to overcome the same, accused No.1 and 2 fled Ex.P7 Pre

Litigation Case before Hon'ble District Legal Services Society,

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-17-

Kurnool and obtained Ex.P9 award in favour of accused No.2 and under the guise of award again Plot No.191-A was sold to accused No.2. As per the recitals in Ex.P14, B.Srinivasa Reddy in his Audit report gave several categorical fndings. The relevant para from Ex.P14 is extracted here under “Permanent Lok Adalats are established in all

Districts with a view to provide speedy and inexpensive justice to the needy people. However, these Adalaths can only entertain cases when both the parties to the litigation agree for amicable settlement with free will and came to compromise in the matter in the presence of members of the Lok

Adalath.

Sec.61 of AP Cooperative societies Act, 1964 provides an efective mechanism for settlement of disputes between the society and its members.

accused No.2 and one C.Ramudu were admitted by accused No.1 on 27.02.2011 and 03.05.2012 respectively without the consent of the General body and more particularly when so many members were without any plot. Due to the decision of accused No.1, for settlement before Lok Adalat, accused No.2 and one Sri. C.Ramudu got pre-Litigation Awards

No.1606/2011, dt.05.02.2011 and 1607/2011, dt.05.02.2012 respectively and on 07.02.2012 itself accused No.2 got registered Plot No.191-A and 445-B respectively in their favour.”

22.The Audit oficer further gave categorical fndings that accused No.1 colluded with accused No.2 and C.Ramudu thereby causing irreparable loss to the interests of genuine members. He

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-18- also categorically held that had accused No.1 informed to

Hon'ble Lok Adalath that there was a separate provision of

settlement of disputes under Sec.61 of the AP Cooperative

Societies Act, 1964, the same would not have been happened. He further in his report held that his enquiry reveals that accused

No.1 failed to protect the interests of the society by admitting members of his own choices and agreeing settlement before Lok

Adalath with ulterior motive. Therefore, it makes clear that accused No.1 allotted plots to accused No.2 and some others in suppression of original allotment. Therefore, from the above oral and documentary evidence it makes clear that accused No.1 and accused No.2 in connivance of their further intention to grab the suit Plot No. 191-A while there was a ban of registration of the plots without intimation to the general body got admitted accused No.2 again as member in the society. The same is evident from Ex.P18 i.e., attested copy of entry of admission of accused No.2 and Ex.P19 i.e., attested copy of entries in admission register pertaining to serial No. 396 showing name of accused No.2 who paid Rs.15/- for shares and 50 paise for admission charge, serial No. 1541A showing name of accused

No.2 who paid Rs.300/- for shares and Rs.6310/- for admission charge. Thereafter accused No.1 allotted Plot No.191 A to accused No.2 in suppression of allotment to the father of PW1 and executed Ex.P10 registered sale deed. Ex.P13 to P15 clearly establish that accused No.1 misused his oficial position as

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-19- president of the society and committed several irregularities in registering the plots in the name of non members and alloting again to members to whom plots has already been allotted and registered. Thereafter, immediately within a span of fve days again accused No.2 sold the same to on G. Venkata Ramana under Ex.P12. This apparently shows that fling of PLC, obtaining award, conceding for compromise before lok a dalat in deviation of provisions of Co-operative societies Act by accused No.1 there is active collusion between accused No.1 and 2 to grab Plot

No.191-A.

23.Therefore, it clearly proved that accused No.1 and 2 with dishonest and fraudulent intention cheated PW.1 thereby causing wrongful loss to him by getting registration of plot

No.191-A in favour of accused No.2 by accused No.1.

24. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused that no oficial records of the above society was fled before this Court to show that accused No.1 cheated PW.1 and Further none of the oficers, Board of Directors or members of the association were examined to prove the same. It would be relevant to mention here that the Ex.P1, P6 to P22 relied by the prosecution manifestly proved its case, further PW.2 who is Ex President of the Association was examined and he supported the case of prosecution on all material particulars. So, there is ample evidence on record to prove the case of prosecution as such the contention of counsel for accused No.1 and 2 is negated.

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-20-

25. Further the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 relied upon Ex.D1 to D8 which got marked through PW.2. Ex.D1 is mee- seva copy of registered plot No.200A to one B. Ramaiah.

Ex.D2 is mee- seva copy of registered plot No.105A in the name of wife of PW.2. Ex.D3 is mee- seva copy of registered plot

No.448A to one Khaja Basha. Ex.D4 is mee- seva copy of registered plot No.110B. Ex.D5 is mee- seva copy of registered plot No.50B. Ex.D6 is mee- seva copy of registered plot

No.389A. Ex.D7 is mee- seva copy of registered plot No.55A registered in the name of one sreenivasulu to an extent of four feet. Ex.D8 is mee- seva copy of registered plot No.55 registered in the name of one sreenivasulu. By relying upon above exhibits, he would contend that PW.2 also registered plots twice to diferent persons. The present case is not for the prosecution of PW.2 for alleged misdeeds committed by him as president of Association. So, the acts if any committed by him are not relevant to the case on hand and court is only concerned with proof of fact whether plot No.191-A was allotted to

C.H.Maddilety and after his death it was re transferred to PW.1 and the accused No.1 and 2 by suppressing earlier allotment alienated Plot No.191-A. Further it is not the case of prosecution that PW.2 made any registrations twice to the same person.

Therefore, the above exhibits are of no aid to prove the contention of counsel for accused No.1 and 2.

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-21-

26.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of view that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the ofence U/Sec.420 IPC.

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused No.1 and 2.

27. IN THE RESULT, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty for the ofences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and hence they are convicted of the same under Section 248(2)

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of

October, 2022.

Sd/- K.Bhargavi

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

The accused No.1 and 2 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed upon them, for which they stated that, they are old aged and sufering from old age ailments. In view of nature of the ofence and the manner in which they committed the ofence, this Court feels that, it is not ft case to take reasonable view in imposing the sentence.

Therefore, it is not ft case to invoke the provisions of probation of ofenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C.,

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-22- they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each. The remand period of accused No.1 and 2 if any undergone shall be set of against the sentence of imprisonment as per Section 428 Cr.P.C. The Accused No.1 and 2 are informed of their right of appeal against the judgment of this Court.

Sd/-Smt K.Bhargavi

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined for)

Prosecution Defence

PW1: C.NarasimhuluNIL PW2: G.Bala Narasimhulu PW3: P.Ananda Rao PW4: G.Chandra Babu

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution: Ex.P1: complaint Ex.P2: List of persons of IV Class employees to whom the plots were allotted Ex.P3: Plot No.191-A allotment certifcate to PW.1 Ex.P4: Agreement issued by the accused in the year 2008 Ex.P5: No objection certifcate with regard to plot No.191- A Ex.P6: Allotment letter issued to one Jayaraju by the accused Ex.P7: Pre litigation petition fled by Jayaraju in Lok Adalath Ex.P8: Terms and condition petition in between accused and Jayaraju Ex.P9: Lok Adalath award copy Ex.P10: Registered document executed by the accused in favour of Jayaraju Ex.P11: Afidavit fled before Lok Adalath by accused

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-23-

Ex.P12: Registered document executed by Jayaraju infavour of G.Venkata Ramana Ex.P13:Enquiry report by I Ramadevi, District Co- operative oficer Ex.P14:Auditor report issued by one Srinivasa Reddy Ex.P15: Award copy of co-operative tribunal Ex.P16: Allotment of plots to diferent benefcial (Photostat copy) Ex.P17:Certifed copy registered document in favour of Jayaraju by PW.2. Ex.P18:Attested copy of entry of admission of Y.Jayaraju in the society in the year 1982 Ex.P19: Attested copy of entry of admission of Y.Jarayaju in the society in the year 2011 Ex.P20:Paper publication in Eenadu, Dt.23.09.2012. Ex.P21:Paper publication in Eenadu, Dt.30.09.2012 Ex.P22:FIR in Cr.No.84/2012.

Defence: Ex.D1: Mee-seva copy of registered plot No.200A to one B. Ramaiah. Ex.D2: Mee-seva copy of registered plot No.105A in the name of wife of PW.2. Ex.D3: Mee-seva copy of registered plot No.448A to one Khaja Basha. Ex.D4: Mee-seva copy of registered plot No.110B. Ex.D5: Mee-seva copy of registered plot No.50B. Ex.D6: Mee-seva copy of registered plot No.389A. Ex.D7: Mee-seva copy of registered plot No.55A registered in the name of one sreenivasulu to an extent of four feet. Ex.D8: Mee-seva copy of registered plot No.55 registered in the name of one sreenivasulu

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

//True copy //

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-24- C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-25-

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS

FOR PROH.& EXCISE, KURNOOL.

CALENDAR CASE No. 437/2016

1. Date of Ofence : prior to 03.04.2012

2. Date of Complaint or report : 03.04.2012 ( based on Court endorsement)

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 04.09.2015

4. Date of release on bail : 04.09.2015 (station bail)

5. Date of commencement of trial: 12.05.2022

6. Date of close of trial : 14.07.2022

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 19.10.2022

8. Explanation of delay if any: --

COMPLAINANT: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool III Town Police station in Cr.No. 84/2012.

1.G.Narayana, s/o late G.Naganna Accused

2. Y.Jaya Raju, s/o Y.Guruvaiah

Section of Law: Under Section 420 IPC

Finding of Court : Accused No.1 and accused No.2 are found guilty.

Sentence/ Order : IN THE RESULT, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty for the ofences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and hence they are convicted of the same under

Section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

The accused No.1 and 2 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed upon them, for

C.C.No.437 of 2016 SPL. JMFC (P&E), KURNOOL-26- which they stated that, they are old aged and sufering from old age ailments. In view of nature of the ofence and the manner in which they committed the ofence, this Court feels that, it is not ft case to take reasonable view in imposing the sentence.

Therefore, it is not ft case to invoke the provisions of probation of ofenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C.,

Accordingly, the accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fne of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each for the ofence u/s.420 IPC, in default of payment of fne amount they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each. The remand period of accused No.1 and 2 if any undergone shall be set of against the sentence of imprisonment as per Section 428 Cr.P.C. The Accused No.1 and 2 are informed of their right of appeal against the judgment of this Court.

Sd/-Smt K.Bhargavi

SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROH. & EXCISE,

KURNOOL.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

//True copy //

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

OS/40/2011

G.Madanna vs Darga Badesaheb and another

23 Apr 2019

OS No.40-2011 -1- JCJ Court,Pkd

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA.

PRESENT :Smt.K.Bhargavi,

Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda.

Tuesday, the 23rd day of April, 2019

Original Suit No.40/2011

Between:

G. Madanna… Plaintiff

and

1. Darga Badesaheb

2. Harijana Pedda Narasanna (died)...Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 01.04.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri A. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P.

Badrinarayana, Advocate for defendant No.1, and the suit against defendant

No.2 was abated, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed for cancellation of registered sale deed, dated 29.05.2018, executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant in respect of the suit schedule property and for declaration of same as null and void with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant, his men, friends and relatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2. The brief averments of the neat copy of plaint are as follows :- Originally suit schedule property is ancestral property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that his paternal grand-father by name

Harijana Chinna Naganna had younger brother by name Harijana Kaneppa and they got divided their ancestral property of Ac.11.28 cents of land in

Sy.No.36 of Gonegandla village. Said Harijana Chinna Naganna had 4 sons namely Pedda Madanna @ Roganna, Narasimhulu, Pedda Narasanna (2nd

OS No.40-2011 -2- JCJ Court,Pkd

defendant) and Chinna Narasanna. After the death of Harijana Chinna

Naganna, his 4 sons got divided land in S.No. 36 and in the said partition each son of Naganna got Rs.1.47 cents of land in suit survey number. As such, the plaintiff’s father i.e., 2nd respondent got Ac.1.47 cents in Sy.No.36 towards his share. On recognizing his possession and title, the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed on his name. For last five years, the 2nd defendant addicted to alcohol and gambling and in the last one year he suffered from paralysis. Therefore, as he was unable to cultivate the property, the plaintiff has been cultivating the same. The 1st defendant came to the suit schedule property in the last week of December 2010 and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from it. The plaintiff resisted his attempts. The father of plaintiff studied up to 7th class and is able to sign his signature. In the sale deed, his thumb impression was obtained. The plaintiff came to know that when 2nd defendant was in drunken state, he was taken to Sub Registrar office, Kodumur and there 1st defendant managed and obtained the sale deed from 2nd defendant. Thus, the sale deed was obtained when 2nd defendant was not in a position to execute the document and it was obtained by playing fraud on 2nd defendant. Further, the pattadar pass book is not annexed with sale deed. This itself shows that 1st defendant played fraud on 2nd defendant and obtained sale deed. The plaintiff got ½ share in the suit schedule property and it is the ancestral property of him. Since the sale deed was executed without his knowledge and consent the plaintiff got issued legal notice to 1st defendant on 03.01.2011, but the 1st defendant having received the same, did not issue any reply. On 31.03.2011 at about 10 AM, the 1st defendant came to the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff, but the plaintiff could resist his highhanded acts.

While leaving the suit schedule property, the 1st defendant proclaimed that

OS No.40-2011 -3- JCJ Court,Pkd

he would dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, therefore, having no option, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 separately filed their written statements. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant who is father of plaintiff died. As there are no other legal heirs of 2nd defendant except the plaintiff, the same is recorded.

4. The averments of written statement of 1 st defendant is as follows:- The 1st defendant denied allegations in the plaint and specifically pleaded that the suit schedule property is not ancestral property of the defendant No.2 and the plaintiff but it is self acquired property of 2nd defendant. He further pleaded that there is no cause of action to file the suit. 1st defendant purchased the suit schedule property from 2nd defendant under an agreement of sale, dated 25.04.2004 and obtained delivery of said property. Later on, 2nd defendant executed registered sale deed on 29.05.2008 in pursuance of said agreement of sale. The revenue authorities on recognizing the continuous possession and enjoyment of 1st defendant, issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his name. The 1st defendant deposited pattadar pass book in Bank and availed loan. He denied the suit schedule property being ancestral property of grand-father of plaintiff. He pleaded that 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and he never played fraud on 2nd defendant to obtain sale deed.

Therefore, there is no cause of action and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. The averments of written statement of deceased 2 nd defendant in brief are as follows:- He admitted pleadings in para 3 and 4 of plaint and pleaded that originally the suit schedule property is his

OS No.40-2011 -4- JCJ Court,Pkd

ancestral property and in the partition among himself and his brothers, he got Ac.1.47 cents. The Tahsildar, Gonegandla Mandal recognized his possession over the suit property, and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his name. He addicted to vices since six years and recently he was attacked with paralysis and unable to cultivate the suit schedule property.

Then onwards, his son has been cultivating the suit property. He studied up to 7th class and he can read and write in Telugu. The 1st defendant asked him to sign as attestor at Sub Registrar office, Gonegandla. On his request, he went to Gonegandla in intoxication state and 1st defendant taking advantage of the same, obtained his thumb impression on sale deed. He never sold the suit schedule property to 1st defendant. Later on, he came to know about the transaction only after filing this suit. Therefore, he sought for cancellation of sale deed stands in the name of 1st defendant.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the registered sale deed, dated 29.05.2008 is nul and void and liable to be cancelled?

2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant?

4. To what relief?

7. To prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1.

Besides examining, one H. Narasanna as PW2. The plaintiff got marked

Ex.A1 to A7 to support his case. Ex.A1 is certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of 1st defendant executed by deceased defendant, dated

OS No.40-2011 -5- JCJ Court,Pkd

29.05.2008, Ex.A2 is original title deed book issued by MRO, Gonegandla in favour of deceased defendant, Ex.A3 is true copy of No.3 Adangal extract for the current fasili 1420 issued by Tahsildar, Gonegandla in the name of deceased defendant, dated 20.09.2010, Ex.A4 is office copy of legal notice,

dated 03.01.2011, issued to 1st defendant, Ex.A5 is original postal receipt,

dated 06.01.2011, Ex.A6 is original postal acknowledgement card, dated

11.01.2011, and Ex.A7 is original family members certificate issued by the

Tahsildar, Gonegandla mandal through mee-seva, dated 11.07.2017.

8. To prove the case of 1st defendant, the 1st defendant himself examined as DW1, besides examining, one of the attestor of Ex.B1 by name

P. Mareppa and D. Chinna Bade Sab as DW2 and DW3 respectively. The 1st defendant got marked Ex.B1 to B5. Ex.B1 is registered sale deed, dated 29.05.2008, Ex.B2 is R.S.R for Gonegandal village issued by Deputy Tahildar,

Gonegandla, Ex.B3 is encumbrance certificate, dated 26.04.2011, Ex.B4 mee-seva copy of adangal/pahani for fasli 1427, dated 30.11.2017, Ex.B5 is mee-seva copy of ROR 1-B Namuna, dated 30.11.2017, and Ex.B6 is the attested copy of pattadar pass book of DW1.

9. Heard both sides and perused the record.

10. Issue Nos.1 to 3:- Since all the issues are interconnected to avoid repetition in appreciation of evidence, the above issues are taken up together for discussion.

11. The undisputed case of both parties is that the plaintiff is the son of deceased 2nd defendant and the suit schedule property is situated in

Sy.No.36 with an extent of Ac.1.47 cents out of Ac.11.28 cents at

OS No.40-2011 -6- JCJ Court,Pkd

Gonegandla village limits. Further, there is no dispute regarding the identity of location of suit schedule property.

12. It is the specific case of the plaintiff is that originally the suit schedule property is ancestral of the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that about 30 years back, his paternal grand-father by name Harijana Chinna Naganna and his younger brother by name Harijana Kaneppa got divided their ancestral property of Ac.11.28 cents of land in Sy.No.36 of Gonegandla village. The said Harijana Chinna Naganna had 4 sons namely Pedda Madanna @

Roganna, Narasimhulu, Pedda Narasanna (2nd defendant) and Chinna

Narasanna. After the death of Harijana Chinna Naganna, his 4 sons got divided property fell to the share of Chinna Naganna in suit survey number.

As such, the plaintiff’s father i.e., 2nd defendant got Ac.1.47 cents in

Sy.No.36 towards his share. On recognizing his possession and title, the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his name.

For last five years, the 2nd defendant addicted to alcohol and gambling and in the last one year he suffered from attack of paralysis. Therefore, as he was unable to cultivate the property, the plaintiff has been cultivating the same.

The 1st defendant came to the suit schedule property in the last week of

December 2010 and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property. The plaintiff resists his attempts. The father of plaintiff studied up to 7th class and is able to sign his signature. In the sale deed, his thumb impression was obtained, the plaintiff came to know that when 2nd defendant was in drunken state, he was taken to Sub Registrar office, Kodumur and there 1st defendant managed and obtained the sale deed from 2nd defendant.

Thus, the sale deed was obtained when 2nd defendant was not in a position to execute the document and it was obtained by playing fraud on 2nd defendant. Further, the pattadar pass book is not annexed with sale deed.

OS No.40-2011 -7- JCJ Court,Pkd

This itself shows that 1st defendant played fraud on 2nd defendant and obtained sale deed. The plaintiff got ½ share in the suit schedule property and it is the ancestral property of him. Since the sale deed was executed without his knowledge and consent by playing fraud the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 1st defendant on 03.01.2011. The 1st defendant having received the same, did not issue any reply. On 31.03.2011 at about 10 AM, the 1st defendant came to the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff, but the plaintiff could resist his highhanded acts.

13. The deceased 2nd defendant who is father of plaintiff filed written statement sailing with plaintiff. He pleaded that 1st defendant took him to Sub Registrar office, Kodumur to sign as attestor in some sale deeds and while he was intoxication state, he obtained his thumb impression in sale deeds and he never sold property to 1st defendant under Ex.B1.

14. Per contra, the 1st defendant in his written statement categorically pleaded that the suit schedule property is self acquired property of 2nd defendant and he sold the same to 1st defendant under an agreement of sale dated 25.04.2004, and later, he executed registered document dated 29.05.2008. Recognizing his possession, the revenue authorities have issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his name. The plaintiff created false story to grab the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property under

Ex.B1, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

15. In view of rival contentions of both parties, it is clear that the 1st defendant denied obtaining Ex.B1 by playing fraud on 2nd defendant. He further denied the suit schedule property being ancestral property of plaintiff. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case as

OS No.40-2011 -8- JCJ Court,Pkd

plaintiff pleaded for cancellation of registered sale deed executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant on 29.05.2008, the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove that Ex.B1 was obtained by playing fraud on 2nd defendant. Further, as plaintiff sought for permanent injunction, he has to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property on the date of filing of suit.

16. To prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1, besides examining one H. Narasanna, third party to the suit as

PW2. PW1 and PW2 in chief examination deposed that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the plaintiff and 1st defendant by playing fraud on 2nd defendant obtained registered sale deed. To prove the case of 1st defendant, the 1st defendant himself examined as DW1, besides examining, one of the attestor of Ex.B1 as DW2 and one D. Chinna Bade Sab as DW3. DW1 to DW3 reiterated that 1st defendant purchased the suit schedule property from 2nd defendant and he is in possession of the same.

17. It is specific case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is his ancestral property and his paternal grand-mother by name

Harijana Chinna Naganna and Kaneppa got partitioned Ac.11.28 cents in

Sy.No.36 of Gonegandla village for which, Chinna Naganna got Ac.5.88 cents. Said Chinna Naganna had four sons namely Pedda Madanna @

Roganna, Narasimhulu, Pedda Narasanna (2nd defendant) and Chinna

Narasanna. In the partition among the sons of Harijana Chinna Naganna, the suit schedule property fell to share of 2nd defendant and 1st defendant by playing fraud on 2nd defendant obtained Ex.B1. Thus, from the pleadings of plaintiff it is clear that according to him, the suit schedule property is his

OS No.40-2011 -9- JCJ Court,Pkd

ancestral property, dut the 1st defendant denied the suit schedule property being ancestral property of plaintiff.

18. In view of above, now it has to be seen whether the suit schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiff or it is self acquired property of his father i.e., 2nd defendant. The plaintiff and 2nd defendant in their pleadings categorically pleaded that the suit schedule property is their ancestral property. PW1 and PW2 also in their evidence they reiterated that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the plaintiff. In the cross examination of DW1, he categorically admitted that 2nd defendant and his brother got their share from their father in suit schedule property survey number to an extent of Ac.1.47 cents each. DW2 who is one of the attestor of Ex.B1 sale deed, in the cross examination he categorically admitted that

Chinna Naganna who is grand-father of plaintiff has one brother and Chinna

Naganna had four sons namely Pedda Madanna @ Roganna, Narasimhulu,

Pedda Narasanna (2nd defendant) and Chinna Narasanna. He further admitted that Chinna Naganna and Kaneppa purchased the property from

Muslim people. The share of Pedda Narasanna got divided among his sons and each son got Ac.1.50 cents out of Ac.5.88 cents. He further deposed that the plaintiff is only son of Pedda Narasanna. Therefore, the admission given by DW1 and DW2 in their cross examination strengthen the contention of plaintiff that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiff.

19. Coming to the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff Ex.A2 is pattadar pass book stands in his father's name in which in column 5 acquisition is shown by way of inheritance. Even in Adangal marked as Ex.A3 issued by Tahsildar, Gonegandla, source of title is shown as ancestral property. In the same survey number it is shown that sons of

OS No.40-2011 -10- JCJ Court,Pkd

Chinna Naganna also got land. Therefore, from the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff it is clear that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the defendant No.2 and the plaintiff.

20. The 1st defendant would contend that the suit schedule property is not ancestral property of 2nd defendant, but it was property of one Akal Sab from whom 2nd defendant purchased. Admittedly, the defendant did not file any document nor adduced any evidence to show that the suit schedule property originally belongs to one Akal Sab from whom 2nd defendant allegedly purchased the same. It came on record that 1st defendant also purchased Ac.1.47 cents in Sy.no.36 of Gonegandla village fell to the share of junior paternal uncle of plaintiff which is shown as eastern boundary in suit schedule property. Had really, the suit schedule property is self acquired property of 2nd defendant, there would not be share of paternal uncle of plaintiff as eastern boundary of suit schedule property.

The learned counsel for 1st defendant could contend that as per RSR, land in

Sy.No.36 is in the name of Akal Sab and Bade Sab and 2nd defendant purchased the said property from said muslim community people as such the suit schedule property is self acquired property of 2nd defendant. This court perused Ex.B2 which is copy of RSR pertaining to Gonegandla village. In

Ex.B2, it is shown that the land in Sy. No.33 stands in the name of one Akal

Sab, Bade Sab and others and in column No.16 in respect of Sy.Nos.34 to 45, in place of name of pattadar 'dots' are shown. It is relevant to mention here that resurvey and settlement register was prepared in the year 1916 and at that time for certain lands in pattadar column dots are shown. It appears that while surveying the lands and preparing RSR, as concerned pattadars could not come forward to get their names mutated in revenue records due to several reasons 'dots' are shown in resurvey and settlement

OS No.40-2011 -11- JCJ Court,Pkd

register as against the survey number in respect of which the name of pattadar could not be ascertained. Therefore, merely because of dots are shown beneath the name of Akal Sab and Bade Sab in Ex.B2, it does not mean that all the land in Sy.No.34 to 45 are belongs to Akal Sab and Bade

Sab. Since, the land shown in RSR with dots are popularly known as 'doted lands' (CHUKKALA BHUMULU) whose title can be ascertained on enquiry, it cannot be said that those dots are indicating same pattadar whose name is shown in Sy.No.33. Therefore, the contention of 1st defendant that originally the suit schedule property belongs to Akal Sab, Bade Sab and other and from them 2nd defendant purchased the same is devoid of merits.

21. With the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the admissions given by

DW1 and DW2 in the cross examination and documentary evidence produced by both parties, it is manifestly proved that originally an extent of Ac.11.28 cents in S No. 36 is ancestral of plaintiff and the grand-father of plaintiff

Harijana Chinna Naganna and his brother Kaneppa got partitioned said extent in which the grand-father of plaintiff got Ac.5.58 cents. Further, it is proved that the sons of Harijana Chinna Naganna namely Pedda Madanna @

Roganna, Narasimhulu, Pedda Narasanna (2nd defendant) and Chinna

Narasanna got partitioned the said Ac.5.58 cents in which 2nd defendant got

Ac.1.47 cents. It is also proved that the 1st defendant purchased the share of junior paternal uncle of plaintiff under a registered sale deed in the same survey number.

22. As it is proved that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiff, now it has to be seen whether Ex.B1 sale deed is obtained by 1st defendant by playing fraud on 2nd defendant and whether the sale deed is void as of hole or to extent of share of plaintiff or whether the

OS No.40-2011 -12- JCJ Court,Pkd

sale is made by 2nd defendant as Kartha of joint family for the benefit of joint family.

23. It is undisputed fact that the plaintiff and 1st defendant are

Hindus by religion and they governed by Hindu Succession Act for succession of co-persanary property. Since, the suit schedule property being ancestral property, the plaintiff got right in suit schedule property by birth.

Admittedly, the suit schedule property was sold to 1st defendant by 2nd defendant without obtaining signature of plaintiff as executant in the same.

Therefore, now it is to be seen whether the sale deed was obtained by 2nd defendant by playing fraud on 2nd defendant as contended by the plaintiff.

24. It is the specific case of plaintiff that the 2nd defendant studied up to 7th class and he can read and write Telugu, and 2nd defendant addicted to vices and he pleaded that while 2nd defendant was under influence of alcohol, sale deed was obtained by 1st defendant by obtaining his thumb impression. The 2nd defendant in his pleadings pleaded that his thumb impression was obtained at Sub Registrar office, Gonegandla on the pretext that he was going to attest the document. In the plaintiff and 2nd defendant, pleaded that the sale deed was obtained by playing fraud on 2nd defendant. Admittedly, the plaintiff was in not present at the time of execution of sale deed, therefore, he is not competent witness to say that 2nd defendant executed sale deed under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, his evidence is not relevant to prove that 2nd defendant executed sale deed under influence of 1st defendant. PW2 who is third party to the suit though in his chief examination categorically stated that sale deed was obtained by addiction of alcohol to 2nd defendant whereas in his cross examination he pleads ignorance and deposed that he does not know whether 2nd defendant

OS No.40-2011 -13- JCJ Court,Pkd

obtained sale deed or not. On the other hand, he deposed that 1st defendant was in possession of property for last six years. Except self serving oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, there is no evidence available on record to show that on the date of Ex.B1, the 2nd defendant consumed alcohol and executed

Ex.B1 under the influence of alcohol.

25. To prove due execution of document, the 1st defendant himself examined as DW1 in which he categorically deposed that 2nd defendant on receiving sale consideration executed Ex.B2 in the presence of two attestors namely Mareppa and Ganjaiah. One of the attestor of Ex.B1 was examined as DW2. In his evidence he categorically deposed that on 29.05.2008, the 2nd defendant on receiving sale consideration executed

Ex.B1 selling suit schedule property to 1st defendant and got registered document at Sub Registrar office, Kodumur. Admittedly, he also deposed that the suit schedule property was delivered to 1st defendant on the date of sale deed itself. In the cross examination he is consist that 2nd defendant signed as attestor. This court perused Ex.B1 sale deed dated 29.05.2008 which provides that 2nd defendant sold suit schedule property to the plaintiff which is attested by DW2 and Ganjaiah. There is also certification on the back of Ex.B1 confirming the execution of document by 2nd defendant before

Sub Registrar, Kodumur. Form under Sec. 32 (A) of Registration Act, annexed to the sale deed further provides that 2nd defendant executed Ex.B1 in favour of 1st defendant. Therefore, the evidence of DW2 and contents of

Ex.B1 proved that 2nd defendant received sale consideration and executed

Ex.B1. It is further contention of plaintiff that had the 2nd defendant executed sale deed, he would have annexed pattadar pass book to Ex.B1 and also 1st defendant would have obtained pass book by cancelling the pass book in the name of 2nd defendant. The contention of plaintiff is not

OS No.40-2011 -14- JCJ Court,Pkd

sustainable on the ground that requirement of annexing pattadar pass book at the time of registration may not be in force on the date of Ex.B1. On the other hand, it is for the registration who has to ascertain requirement of passbook. Merely, on the ground that pass book is not annexed, it cannot be said that 1st defendant obtained Ex.B1 by playing fraud on 2nd defendant.

Further, the pleadings of 2nd defendant goes to show that 1st defendant took him to Sub Registrar office, Gongegandla but not to Sub Registrar office,

Kodumur. It appears that the plaintiff and 2nd defendant colluded together and after lapse of four years they though of a plan again to take away the property and filed this suit taking plea that 1st defendant obtained Ex.B1 by playing fraud on 2nd defendant.

26. Since in the above paras, it has been held that Ex.B1 was not obtained by playing fraud on 2nd defendant now it is to be seen whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of sale deed, dated 29.05.2008 or whether it was executed to meet the necessities of joint family. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here that the plaintiff being co-personar is entitled a share in suit schedule property. Upon perusal of Ex.B1, it is clear that 2nd defendant sold the suit schedule property to 1st defendant to meet his family necessities. He also executed an agreement of sale in the year 2004 in respect of suit schedule property in favour of 1st defendant. PW1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that since the date of his marriage, he has been residing in Yemmiganur and not in Ganjenahalli village. He further admitted that his parents were residing with him till their death at Yemmiganur. Further, in the cause title of plaint it shows that the plaintiff and 2nd defendant were residing in one and the same address. Since the parents of the plaintiff and the plaintiff were residing to gether tii the death of parents of the plaintiff at Yemmiganure the plaintiff having

OS No.40-2011 -15- JCJ Court,Pkd

knowledge about Ex.B1 transaction in the year 2008 itself can not be ruled out Therefore, it is clear that plaintiff and 2nd defendant who are co- persenors were residing under one roof as joint family members and 2nd defendant being Kartha of family.

27. It is further relevant to mention here that in a case of Sushil

Kumar and another vs. Ram Prakash and others reported in AIR

1988 SC 576, it is held that Kartha or manging member of family not only has power to manage but also the power to alienate the joint family property for the family necessities or for the benefit of estate. Such alienation to bind the interest of all undivided members of family where they are adults or minors. Therefore, from the ratio laid down in the above judgment, it is manifest that alienation made by the Kartha of joint family for family necessities is binding on all undivided family members of joint family. In the case of hand, the plaintiff and 2nd defendant on the date of Ex.B1 were residing jointly and the 2nd defendant was Kartha of joint family. As per contents of sale deed it is clear that the 2nd defendant executed Ex.B1 in favour of 1st defendant for the benefit of joint family necessities. It is not the case of plaintiff or 2nd defendant that the sale was not made for joint family necessities. Thus, the evidence on record and contents of Ex.B1 proved that sale of suit schedule property under Ex.B1 is made to meet the joint family necessities of 2nd defendant and the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff who has undivided interest in the suit property, is bound by the sale made by his father in favour of 1st defendant. Thus, in view of above said discussion, it is clear that sale under Ex.B1 was made by the 2nd defendant as Kartha of joint family to meet the family necessities, is valid and binding on the plaintiff.

Therefore, Ex.B1 is not void document as such it cannot be cancelled.

OS No.40-2011 -16- JCJ Court,Pkd

28. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit. When he was cultivating the same, the 1st defendant tried to dispossess him on 31.01.2011, as such he filed the suit. To prove the possession of plaintiff, he filed No.3 Adangal stands in the name of his father. On the other hand, the 1st defendant to prove his possession and enjoyment, has filed Adangal fasli to show that he is in possession of Ac.1.47 cents in suit schedule property.

He also filed ROR extract to show that pattadar pass book is issued in his name. In the cross examination of PW1, he categorically deposed that 1st defendant took the suit property on lease from his father and he is paying the rents to him till the date of registration sale deed. After registration, 1st defendant claiming ownership over the schedule property and stopped payment of rent. He pleads ignorance regarding 1st defendant being in possession of suit schedule property since 2004 on which date he obtained sale deed. DW2 is an independent witness also deposed that for the last six years 1st defendant has been cultivating the suit property and he also dug borewell in it. He further deposed that he objected 2nd defendant in digging bore well. A suggestion given by PW2 in the cross examination makes it clear that 1st defendant is in possession of suit schedule property from the date of agreement and continued to be in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property even after obtaining Ex.B1 sale deed. Therefore, the admissions given by PW1 and PW2 it is clear that the plaintiff is out of possession of property from the date of filing of the suit. It appears that only to overcome regarding possession of defendant over suit schedule property, the plaintiff invented story of alleged lease between his father and 1st defendant.

29. Thus, in view of above discussion, it is proved that Ex.B1 sale deed was executed by 2nd defendant to meet his joint family necessities

OS No.40-2011 -17- JCJ Court,Pkd

as such it is binding on the plaintiff who is member of joint family consisting of himself and his father. Further, the plaintiff failed to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property on the date of filing of this suit as such he is not entitled for permanent injunction. Accordingly, issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of 1st defendant and against the plaintiff.

30. Issue No.4:- In view of issues 1 to 3 answered in favour of 1st defendant, this suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 23rd day of April, 2019.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge,

Pattikonda.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff :For Defendanta:

PW.1 : G. Madanna DW.1: D. Badesaheb

PW.2: Harijana NarasannaDW.2: P. Mareppa

DW.3: D. Chinna Badesaheb

Exhibits marked for

For plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered sale deed in favour of 1st defendant executed by deceased defendant, dated 29.05.2008.

Ex.A2: Original title deed book issued by MRO, Gonegandla in favour of deceased defendant.

Ex.A3: True copy of No.3 Adangal extract for the current fasili 1420 issued by Tahsildar, Gonegandla in the name of deceased defendant, dated 20.09.2010.

Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice, dated 03.01.2011, issued to 1st defendant.

Ex.A5: Original postal receipt, dated 06.01.2011.

OS No.40-2011 -18- JCJ Court,Pkd

Ex.A6: Original postal acknowledgement card, dated 11.01.2011.

Ex.A7: Original family members certificate issued by the Tahsildar,

Gonegandla mandal through mee-seva, dated 11.07.2017.

For defendants:

Ex.B1: Registered sale deed, dated 29.05.2008.

Ex.B2: R.S.R for Gonegandal village issued by Deputy Tahildar, Gonegandla.

Ex.B3: Encumbrance certificate, dated 26.04.2011.

Ex.B4: Mee-seva copy of adangal/pahani for fasli 1427, dated 30.11.2017.

Ex.B5 Mee-seva copy of ROR 1-B Namuna, dated 30.11.2017.

Ex.B6: Attested copy of pattadar pass book of DW1.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge,

Pattikonda.

CC/346/2021 Convicted

SHO of Orvakal PS vs S.Kiran Kumar, S/o Late S.Yesaiah

08 Aug 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPECIAL

MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL

Present:-Smt.K.Bhargavi Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Proh. and Excise) Kurnool. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

Dated the 8th day of August, 2022.

C.C.No.346/2021

State Represented by Inspector of Police, Kodumur Circle. ..… Complainant -Vs-

Saggala Kiran Kumar @ Ravi Kumar, aged 34 years, s/o.late S.Yesaiah & S.Seshamma native of Kadumur Village, Midthuru Mandal, Kurnool District.

Now c/o.Boya Lokalu, s/o.late B.Venkanna, H.No.46/196-C, Budhwarapet, Kurnool Town. Near Shivalayam, Ashok Nagar, Kurnool Town and District, A.P. ..…. Accused

This case is coming on 28-7-2022 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and Sri.T.Chandra

Sekhar, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Kodumur Circle, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.346/2020 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66(D) of I.T.Act, 2000-2008 of Orvakal Police Station.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- i. PW-1 is the defacto complainant by name Seelam Venkateswarlu.

LW-2-Seelam Venkata Swamy is brother of PW-1. They both are residents of Sakunala Village of Orvakal Mandal. PW-3 is Tahsildar of

Orvakal Mandal. PW-4 is VRO of Sakunala Village, Orvakal Mandal. PW-2 is V.R.A. of Sakunala Village, Orvakal Mandal. PW-5 and 6 are residents of Sakunala Village and Kurnool Town. PW-7 is resident Karnataka State.

PW-8 is Panchayatdar of Panchanama dt:2-11-2020. PWs-9 to 11 are

Investigating Officers. The accused Saggala Kiran Kumar @ Ravi Kumar is native of Kadamur Village, Midthur Mandal. The younger brother of PW-1 2 by name Seelam Venkataiah, aged 39 years, died on 7-9-2020 by committing suicide by consuming pesticide poison due to overwhelming in debts and the same was reported and registered as case in Crime

No.327/2020 for the offence under section 174 Cr.P.C. of Orvakal P.S.

While so on 5-10-2020 at about 6-30 P.M., PW-1 received a phone call to his cell phone number 9704548757 from the cell phone number of accused i.e. 7411070179, the accused introduced himself as Intelligence

DSP, informing PW-1 that an amount of Rs.7,40,000/- has been sanctioned towards YSR Bheema for the death of PW-1’s brother Seelam

Venkataiah and with his deceitful words induced PW-1 to pay an amount of Rs.16,432/- to cell number 9663522338 which belongs to PW-7 through phone pay app towars challan amount, by pretending that the sanctioned amount would be deposited immediately into their account.

Believing the deceitful words of the accused, PW-1 went to PW-6 as his phone has no phone pay application and requested PW-6 to sent an amount of Rs.16,432/- from his cell phone as stated by the accused. PW- 1 gave cash of Rs.16,432/- to PW-6 on the same day. On the next day, the accused switched off his cell phone number 7411070179 when PW-1 tried to make contact. On enquiry PW-1 came to know that on 5-10-2020 the accused contacted PW-3 as Intelligence DSP and has to provide the phone number of PW-1 who are relatives of the deceased Seelam

Venkataiah of Sakunala Village, on the pretext of enquiry over sanction of Government Scheme for the farmers who committed suicide. Later

PW-3 gave phone number of PW-4 who is V.R.O. of Sakunala Village.

The accused then contacted PW-4, in turn she gave phone number of PW- 2 to the accused, PW-2 in turn gave number of PW-5, who in turn gave number of PW-1. PW-1 came to know that he got cheated in the hands of the accused with his deceitful words, he went to Orvakal Police Station on 7-10-2020 and gave report.

ii. Based on Ex.P1, PW-9 registered the case in Crime No.346/2020 for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 66(D) of I.T.Act of 3 Orvakal P.S. and started investigation. PW-10 took up further investigation, during the course of his investigation, he examined PWs-1 to 7, LW-2-Seelam Venkata Swamy and recorded their statements and handed over the C.D. file to PW-11 as per the orders of the

Superintendent of Police, Kurnool., vide Memo in C.No.201/Cr-I/DCRB-

KNL/2020 dt:9-10-2020 and during the course of investigation on credible information he arrested the accused near Lingamdinne cross road,

Gonegandla Mandal, on Kurnool-Bellary road, at the outskirts of Kodumur

Village and Mandal and recovered one touch phone of OPPO company having two SIMS and a memory card belongs to Airtel, one of them is

Airtel 4G 128 K SIM No.899100090 4317504675U i.e. Cell No.8867273313 and second Airtel 4G 128 K SIM No.8991000 904316654842U i.e. Cell

No.96183486111, one Memory card ADATA 16 Micro SD and one

Micromax’s key pad phone, having one SIM Airtel 4G 128

K.No.899145090097874225670 H-3 SIM i.e. Cell No.7411070179 and an amount of Rs.20,000/- pertains to Crime No.152/2020 of Gonegandla P.S.

and Rs.5,100/- pertains to Crime No.346/2020 of Orvakal P.S from the possession of the accused in the presence of mediators LWs-9 by name

R.Naveed Patel and PW-8. Later the accused was forwarded before this

Court for judicial remand.

iii. During the course of investigation the accused confessed about his involvement pertaining to this case and also about his involvement in similar type of cheating cases through online vide Crime No.506/2020 u/s.420 IPC and Section 66(D) of I.T.Act of Nandyal II Town P.S., Crime

No.185/2020 u/s.420 IPC and Section 66(D) of I.T.Act of Bethamcherla

P.S., Crime No.346/2020 u/s.420 IPC and Section 66(D) of I.T.Act of

Orvakal P.S., Crime No.281/2020 u/s.420 IPC and Section 66(D) of I.T.Act of Yemmiganur P.S. and Crime No.111/2020 u/s.420 IPC of Kowdipalli

P.S. of T.S. PW-11 filed requisition to issue P.T. warrants against the accused, on 5-11-2020 vide Dis.No.671, the accused was produced

before this Court on 6-11-2020 through Blue Jeans APP on execution of

4 P.T. warrant and remanded to judicial custody. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420

IPC and Section 66(D) of I.T.Act.

4.Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The accused denied having committed any offence. Thereafter, charge under Section under Section 420 IPC and Section 66(D) of I.T.Act, have been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of prosecution, PWs-1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P5 and MO-1 were got marked.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and further stated that he did not commit any offence and he was implicated in a false case.

7.The accused reported no defense evidence.

8.Heard arguments of learned A.P.P. for the prosecution and the learned counsel for accused.

9. Now the point for determination is follows:

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused

beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 420 IPC

and Section 66(D) of I .T.Act ?

POINT :-

10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 5-10-2020 the accused with his deceitful words induced PW-1 by stating that he is working as intelligence DSP and to deposit an amount of Rs.16,432/- through phone pay app as challan amount to get benefit of Rs.7,40,000/- towards YSR 5 Bheema for the death of brother of PW-1 by name Seelam Venkataiah and thereby cheated PW-1.

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted her arguments contending that the evidence of PWs-1 to 11 coupled with Exs.P1 to P5 and MO-1 proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as such the accused is liable to be convicted.

12.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that initially the F.I.R. was registered on some unknown person as such the accused is falsely implicated in this case later by the police. Further he would contend that all the Panchayatdars were not cited as witnesses in this case and Jeep number is also not mentioned.

Further the prosecution solely relied upon the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt as such the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

13. Before adverting further, it would be relevant to refer Section 420 of IPC.

420. 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.

66(D) of I.T.Act:-

Punishment for cheating by personation by using

computer resource. -Whoever, by means for any communication device or computer resource cheats by personating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three 6 years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

In order to prove that the accused has committed an offence under section 420 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that

(i) The accused with dishonest intention induced PW-1 to deposit

Rs.16,432/- into phone pay account of PW-6 stating that PW-1 would get sanctioned an amount of Rs.7,40,000/- towards YSR Bheema for the death of brother of PW-1 by name Seelam Venkataiah.

(ii) The accused committed the above offence by using his phone number 7411070179 by stating that he is an intelligence DSP.

If the prosecution is able to prove the above ingredients, then the accused is liable to be convicted.

14. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 5-10-2020 the accused with his deceitful words induced PW-1 to deposit an amount of

Rs.16,432/- through phone pay app as challan amount to get benefit of

Rs.7,40,000/- towards YSR Bheema for the death of brother of PW-1 by name Seelam Venkataiah and thereby cheated the PW-1.

15. To substantiate its case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of

PWs-1 to 7. It is further specific case of the prosecution that on 5-10-2020 the accused made a phone call to PW-3 introducing himself as

Intelligence DSP and asked about the details of the deceased Seelam

Venkataiah, on that PW-3 gave phone number of PW-4, the accused later obtained the details of PW-2, through PW-2 the accused obtained the phone number of PW-5 , who gave phone number of PW-1.

16.Now it is to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove that

PW-1 received a phone call from the accused from cell phone number 7411070179 on 5-10-2020.

17.As per the evidence of PW-3 on 5-10-2020 he received phone call from unknown person, intimated that he is working as DSP in Intelligence

Department and also intimated that one Venkataiah, Sakunala Village, died and asked for the details of deceased for getting the sanction from the Government authorities for YSR Raithu Bandu. He does not remember phone number of the said person who made phone called to him. It resembled in true caller of his phone as Intelligence DSP. that he replied to said person over phone and he does not have idea about the details of deceased and again the number of VRO by name Sireesha Kumari/LW-

4. Later he came to know that the accused made phone call to Sireesha

Kumari/LW-4 and collected the details of relatives of deceased. He also came to know that the accused got credited Rs.16,432/- through phone pay from the brother of deceased by name Venkateswarlu–PW-1, by falsely stating to him that he would get Raithu Bandhu amount only if he credit the above amount for challan in the account of accused. Few days later, PW-1 came to know that he got cheated in the hands of the accused when Raithu Bandhu amount as stated by the accused, was not credited in to his account.

18.On further perusal of the evidence of PW-4, she deposed that on 5- 10-2020 she received phone call from 7411070179 which resembled as

DSP Intelligence true caller. The said person told her that PW-3 gave her phone number to him, enquired her that on 7-9-2021, one Venkataiah of

Sakunala Village of Orvakal Mandal, died by committing suicide and asked for the details of deceased. He stated to her that in order to grant YSR Bheema to relatives of deceased, the particulars of deceased necessary. She replied by stating that she do not have idea about the details but she would collect them later. The accused stated that it is very urgent and asked for the number of VRA by name Boya Mallesh

Naidu/PW2. She gave number of PW-2 to accused 9182030798. Later she came to know that PW-2 gave the number of LW-6-Ananda. LW-6- 8 Ananda gave phone number of PW-1. Few days later, she came to know that the accused falsely stated to PW-1 that Rs.7,40,000/- has been granted under YSR Bheema for relatives of deceased. The accused further stated to him that they had to pay Rs.16,432/- as challan in order to get the entire amount sanctioned. PW-1 paid Rs.16,432/- through phone pay to accused. Inspite of paying the above said amount, PW-1 did not get YSR Bheema as stated by the accused Later PW-1 discovered that he got cheated in hands of accused and he approached the police and lodged report against accused.

19.The evidence of PW-2 is that on one day at evening in

October,2020, he received a phone call who informed that he is DSP of

Intelligence and asked the phone number of one Seelam Venkataiah’s relatives as YSR Bheema amount was allotted on the death of Seelam

Venkataiah. He gave the phone number of LW-6-Anand to said person.

Later he came to know that the said person received amount from the relatives of late Seelam Venkataiah. Later, family members of late

Seelam Venkataiah gave police report.

20.The evidence of PW-5 is that on 5-10-2020 he received phone call from one person who introduced as DSP Intelligence Department, enquired that one Venkataiah died in their village is his relative or not, he also enquired about the phone numbers of relatives of deceased. He gave phone number of PW-1 that he received phone call from 7411070179. Then he gave phone number of PW-1 which is 9704548757.

He came to know that PW-1 was cheated in the hands of accused by getting Rs.16,432/- credited to account number of accused through phone pay for challan in order to get sanction of YSR Bheema for deceased. On coming to know that PW-1 was cheated in the hands of accused, they went to Police Station, lodged report against the accused.

Therefore, from the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses, it manifest that they received phone call from the cell phone number 9 7411070179 who introduced himself as Intelligence DSP and obtained the details of relatives of the deceased.

21.It is the evidence of PW-1 that on 5-10-2020 an unknown person made phone call to him to his cell phone number 9704548757 from cell phone number 7411070179 introducing himself as Intelligence DSP.

Though the learned counsel for the accused cross examined PWs-1 to 5, nothing has been elicited to discredit the trustworthiness of their evidence with regard to receiving of phone call from the cell phone number 7411070179 who introduced himself as Intelligence DSP.

Therefore, it is manifestly proved that PW1 received a phone call from cell phone number 7411070179 on the given date.

22.Now it is to be seen whether the said cell phone number belongs to the accused or not and whether the said number was used by the accused to commit the offence. Admittedly on perusal of the evidence of the above witnesses, the learned counsel for the accused did not pose any suggestion denying that the said cell phone number does not belongs to the accused. Further on perusal of the evidence of PW-7, wherein he deposed that he received a phone call from phone number 7411070179 who booked Car from Shivamoga to Hospet. Further as per his evidence he met the accused on 5-10-2020 who hired his car from

Shivmoga to Hospet. PW-7 has clearly identified the accused as the person who hired his car and traveled with him on the given date.

Therefore, as there is no denial by the counsel for the accused that the said cell phone number does not belongs to him, it can be inferred that the said cell phone number belongs to the accused and as per the evidence of PW-7 it is manifestly proved that the accused used the cell phone number 7411070179 by the date of commission of the offence.

23.Now it is to be seen whether the accused through his cell phone number 7411070179 induced PW-1 with his deceitful words stating that 10 they would get an amount of Rs.7,40,000/- as YSR Bheema for the death of brother of PW-1 by name Seelam Venkataiah, if they would deposit an amount of Rs.16,432/- as challan amount. In order to prove the same, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW-1, PW-6,PW-7. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1, wherein he deposed that on 5-10-2020 he received a phone call from cell phone number 7411070179, who introduced himself as Intelligence DSP and informed that YSR Bheema for

Rs.7,41,000/- was sanctioned to his deceased brother and the said amount would be deposited into the account of PW-1 if he pays

Rs.16,432/-. On believing the words of the accused, he informed the same to his brother and as he does not have phone pay app facility in his phone he got deposited an amount of Rs.16,432/- through phone pay app from the cell phone number of PW-6, who is friend of his brother. On the next day when he tried to contact cell phone number 7411070179 , the same was switched off and on enquiry he came to know that one person made a phone call to PW-3 introducing himself as

Intelligence DSP and obtained the details of his cell phone number, on that PW-3 gave cell phone number of PW-4, who later gave cell phone number of PW-2 and who in turn gave cell phone number of PW-5.

24.It is the evidence of PW-6 that on 5-10-2020 at about 7-00 P.M. PW- 1 came to him and requested him to send some amount through phonepay app to the number which is written in some paper. PW-1 gave some cash to him and he paid the said amount through his phone pay app to the number given by PW-1. PW-6 deposed that his phone number is 9494737244 and he sent the amount through phone pay app to phone number 9963522338, which reflected with one name as Akash DB and the said transaction was successful. The prosecution got marked Exs.P2 and P3 through PW-6. Ex.P2 is computerised copy of phone pay transaction along with C.D. Ex.P3 is Section 65B certificate. It is the evidence of PW-7 that he runs Car Rental service name and style as 11 Anugraha Travels, Shimoga, Karnataka state. On 05-10-2020 at about 4- 15 P.M., he received a phone call from phone number 7411070179 belonging to Accused who took his phone number from Google APP for travelling purpose. The accused enquired him about booking of car from

Shimoga to Hospet, he told the price as Rs.4,600/-. The accused introduced himself as Manager of Oppo company and also stated that his

ATM limit is closed for that day and so his friend would transfer the amount from his account. He enquired phone pay number for which he gave his phone pay number bearing No.9663522338. At about 7-03 P.M.

on the same day, he received Rs.16,432/- from the phone number i.e.9494737244. Later, he called the said person and intimated about the receiving of amount. He instructed him to come to Durga Lodge, BH

Road, Shimoga. He went to said place and from there he boarded his car started from Shimoga. At Durga Lodge, he paid Rs.16,432/- to accused by cash. They reached Hospet at 12-30 A.M. and the accused paid him hire amount of Rs.4,600/- plus Rs.200/-. Later, he returned to Shimoga.

During the journey, the accused continuously spoke in his phone by stating that he is Government official, by looking his appearance, he found suspicious. He identified the accused as the person whom he travelled from Shimoga to Hospet on that day and to whom he gave cash of Rs.16,432/-. Later as the cell phone number of accused was switched off and on coming to know that he got cheated in the hands of accused

PW-1 immediately went to the police station and reported the same. The evidence of PW9 is that on 7-10-2020 at 5-00 PM while he was present in

P.S., PW-1 along with his Brother LW.2/Venkata Swamy came to him and

PW1 preferred Ex.P1, based on it he registered a case in Cr.No.346/2020 for the offence u/s.420 IPC and 66 D IT Act and issued FIR.

25.It is the evidence of PW-11 that as per the instructions of the

Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, vide C.No.201/CR-1/DCRB/2020 dt:9- 10-2020, on 5-11-2021 he received C.D. file vide Cr.No.346/2020 u/s.420

IPC and Sec.66 D of I.T.Act, of Orvakal P.S. from the C.I. of Police, Kurnool 12 Rural Circle. On perusal of C.D. file, the accused was arrested on 2-11- 2020 at 12-15 P.M., pertaining to Gonegangla P.S. in Cr.No.152/2020 u/s.420 IPC and Sec.66 D of IT Act. During confession, he voluntarily admitted five cases pertaining to Cr.No.506/2020 of Nandyal II Town P.S.,

Cr.No.185/2020 of Bethamcherla P.S., Cr.No.281/2020 of Yemmiganur

Rural P.S., Cr.No.111/2020 of Kowdipalli P.S. of Telangana State and

Cr.No.346/2020 of Orvakal P.S in the presence of PW8 and LW-9/

R.Naveed Patel. As per the per the confession he seized two cell phones (opp company and Micromax company), three sim cards, one memory card and Rs.20,000/- pertaining to Gonegandla P.S. and Rs.5,100/-(M.O.1) in this case in the presence of mediators. It is pertinent to note that confession before police officer is in admissible in evidence as it is hit under section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act unless it leads to discovery of any material object. In the instant case Pw-8 who is one of the mediators of Ex.P4 Panchanamma supported the case of prosecution with regard to above panchanamma. Further under Ex-P4, PW-11 recovered M.O.1 from the possession of accused.

26.Therefore, on perusal of the evidence of above witnesses cumulatively coupled with Exs.P2 and P3, it manifestly goes to show that the accused has received an amount of Rs.16,432/- from the cell phone number of PW-6 through phone pay app to the cell phone number of

PW-7. Further though the counsel for the accused cross examined the above prosecution witnesses, nothing has been elicited to discredit the trustworthiness of their evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has manifestly proved that the accused deceived PW-1 with his deceitful words and got credited an amount of Rs.16,432/- into the account of PW- 7 through the phone pay app and in turn collected the said amount from PW-7.

27.Now it is to be seen whether the accused had dishonest intention from the inception of commission of offence. On perusal of the evidence 13 of PWs-1 to 7, it clearly goes to show that the accused with dishonest intention made phone calls to PWs-2 to 5 for obtaining the details of the deceased brother of PW-1. Further, induced PW-1 with his deceitful words that they would get sanction of YSR Bheema amount and got an amount of Rs.16,432/- credited into the cell phone number of PW-7, the accused in turn collected the same from PW-7, it clearly establishes that the accused has dishonest intention from the beginning i.e. inception. Further it is also manifestly proved that the accused cheated PW1 introducing himself as intelligence DSP (the said fact is proved from the evidence of

PWs-1 to 5) through his cell phone number by making communication through the said phone number.

28.Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has manifestly proved that the accused committed the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 66(D) of IT Act. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

29. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 66(D) of IT Act and hence he is convicted of the same under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court on this the 8th day of August, 2022.

Sd/-.Smt.K.Bhargavi

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool. FAC Judl.Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him, for which he stated that, he has two children he has to look after them. In view of nature of the offence and the manner in which the incident took place, this Court feels that, it is not fit case to take reasonable view in imposing the sentence. Therefore, it is not fit case to invoke the provisions of probation of offenders Act or Section 360

Cr.P.C., but it is a fit case to take reasonable view in imposing the sentence. The accused is already in judicial custody since 6-11-2020 to 14 till date. Taking the period of his detention during investigation stage and trial stage, the following sentence order is passed

Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR NINE MONTHS AND THREE DAYS and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) for the offence u/s.420 IPC, in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 Days. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR NINE

MONTHS AND THREE DAYS, and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) for the offence u/s.66(D) of I.T.Act, in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period of accused i.e. from 6-11-2020 to 8-8-2022 shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment as per Section 428 Cr.P.C. MO-1 shall be returned to PW-1 after expiry of appeal time. The Accused is informed of his right of appeal against the judgment of this Court.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court on this the 8th day of August, 2022.

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool. FAC Judl.Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

Prosecution:Defence:

PW1 : S.Venkateswarlu None PW2 : B.Mallesh Naidu PW3 : R.Siva Ramudu PW4 : M.Sireesha Kumari PW5 : S.Anand PW6 : A.Vijaya Reddy PW7 : D.B.Akarsh PW8 : B.Rangamuni PW9: D.Venkateswara Rao PW10:M.Sreenatha Reddy PW11:D.Parthasarathi Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution:Defence:

Ex.P1:Report None Ex.P2 is computerised copy of phone pay transaction along with C.D. Ex.P3 is Section 65B certificate. Ex.P4:Attested copy of seizure panchanama. Ex.P5:F.I.R.

MO-1: F.D. of Rs.5,100/-

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool. FAC Judl.Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, (SPECIAL MOBILE COURT),

KURNOOL.

C.C.No.346/2021

1.Date of offence05-10-2020

2.Date of complaint07-10-2020

3.Date of apprehension of the accused 06-11-2020

4.Date of release on bail

5.Date of commencement of trial03-08-2021

6.Date of close of trial11-07-2022

7.Date of Judgment 08-08-2022 ComplainantInspector of Police, Kodumur Circle, Crime No.346/2020 of Orvakal P.S. Saggala Kiran Kumar @ Ravi Kumar, aged 34 years, Accuseds/o.late S.Yesaiah & S.Seshamma, native of Kadumur Village, Midthuru Mandal, Kurnool District. Now c/o.Boya Lokalu, s/o.late B.Venkanna, H.No.46/196-C, Budhwarapet, Kurnool Town.Near Shivalayam, Ashok Nagar, Kurnool Town and Dist. OffenceCheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource. Section of LawUnder Section 420 IPC and Section 66(D) of IT Act. FindingAccused is found guilty

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 66(D) of IT Act and hence he is convicted of the same under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him, for which he stated that, he has two children he has to look after them. In view of nature of the offence and the manner in which the incident took place, this Court feels that, it is not fit case to take reasonable view in imposing the sentence. Therefore, it is not fit case to invoke the provisions of probation of offenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C., but it is a fit case to take reasonable view in imposing the sentence. The accused is already in judicial custody since 6-11-2020 to till date. Taking the period of his detention during investigation stage and trial stage, the following sentence order is passed. Sentence or order Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR NINE MONTHS AND THREE DAYS and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) for the offence u/s.420 IPC, in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 Days. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR NINE MONTHS AND THREE DAYS, and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) for the offence u/s.66(D) of I.T.Act, in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period of accused i.e. from 6-11- 2020 to 8-8-2022 shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment as per Section 428 Cr.P.C. MO-1 shall be returned to PW-1 after expiry of appeal time. The Accused is informed of his right of appeal against the judgment of this Court.

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool. FAC Judl.Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.