Sri K.Ch. Srinivas

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, FOR

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KADAPA.

Present: Sri K. CHAKRADHARA SRINIVAS, M.A.B.L.,

Judicial Magistrate of first Class for Special Mobile Court

Dated, this the 23rd day of April, 2012.

C.C.No. 65 of 2011

State; represented by Sub inspector of police, Pendlimarri police station . . . . Complainant

Vs.

1. Vennapusa Gangi reddy, S/o Venkata reddy, age 45 years.

2. Vennapusa Siva reddy, S/o Gangi reddy, age 25 years.

3. Vennapusa Gangi reddy, S/o Gangi reddy, 21 years. All are of Mittameedapalli. .... .Accused

This case is coming on 18.4.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant public prosecutor for the state and of Sri

P.V.Ramana reddy, Advocate for the accused no. 1 to 3, after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub inspector of police, Pendlimarry police station has filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 3 in Cr.No. 13/2009 for the offence punishable

U/ss. 447, 506, 427 r/w 34 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- That the defacto complainant namely Sri S.Sanjeeva reddy got 1-41 cents of land in S.No.

411/7 in Thippireddipalli area and the land is his ancestral property and located abutting Cuddapah Pulivendula main road, the land is in his possession and enjoyment and he has raised sunflower. The defacto complainant has alleged that

Accused no. 1 to 7 trespassed into the land damaged the sunflower crop and dug and laid the pipe line to the distance of 60” still they are planning to laid.

Meanwhile this information came to their notice and went to the land and objected they revolted on them and threatened. They were having sickles and sticks and incident took place on 26-1-2009. In this connection the revenue officials visited the scene perused records furnished opinion that there is no 2 recorded evidence on rastha in S.No. 411/7 or well in 411/6 i.e, village plan etc.

the pipe line 60” was closed in the land of Sri Sanjeeva reddy. Regarding the tresspass, intimidation, mischief there is evidence of presence of A1,A2 and A4 only. The remaining A3,A5,A6 and A7 not at all participated in the offence. No evidence forth coming. Hence the charge sheet against the accused .

3. On perusal of records, the case was taken on file U/Secs. 447, 506, 427 r/w 34 IPC against the accused no.1 to 3. On appearance of the accused no.1 to 3

before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to them as

contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C.,

4. The accused no.1 to 3 were examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence

U/Secs. 447, 506, 427 IPC. The contents of examination read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the offense and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 . Prosecution side evidence was closed. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined and Ex.D1 was marked.

6. The accused no.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the evidence of prosecution as false and reported that they have no defense evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard arguments from both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is; “whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offense punishable

U/Secs. 447, 506, 427 IPC?

9. POINT:

In this case Pw1 namely Sri Y.V.Chenna reddy has deposed that he knows Lw1 Sri Sanjeeva reddy Lw2 and he does not know anything about this case and has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

3

10.Pw2 namely Sri L.Prabhakar reddy who is working as Tahsildar has deposed that in the month of March on the request of Sub inspector of police,

Pendlimarry police station, he has sent one surveyor Sri Khaja Hussain for identification of water pipe line, in which the survey number the water pipe line existed. On 15-6-2009 he has disputed surveyor Sri P.Khaja Husain and as per the survey report there is no rastha in Sy.no. 411/2007 there is no entry about rastha and well. The disputed land belongs to Sri S.Sanjeeva reddy. Police recorded his statement.

In the cross examination Pw2 has deposed that he worked as incharge

Tahsildar from 6-6-2009 to 29-6-2009. Pw2 further deposed that the Sub inspector of police, Pendlimarry police station submitted a requisition to Tahsildar Sri Subba narasaiah. Pw2 admitted that as per the survey report Sy.no. 411/7 rastha was closed with mud with pipe line. Pw2 further admitted that he has not visited the place of offence. Pw2 further admitted that he received the surveyor report and forwarded to the Sub inspector of police, Pendlimarry police station. Pw2 further denied that he has sent false report to Sub inspector of police at the instance of defacto complainant.

11.Pw3 namely Sri Y.Chenna reddy has deposed that he knows all the accused and he does not know anything about this case. Police not recorded his statement and has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

12.Pw4 namely Sri P.Pulla reddy has deposed that he does not know anything about his case. Police not recorded his statement and has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

13.Pw5 namely Sri P.Khaja Hussain has deposed that on 13-6-2009 on the request of police he has gone to Sy.no. 411 of Thippireddipalli revenue

village one Gangi reddy who is A1 putting pipe lines and then he has

verified the land accused is putting pipe lines in Sy.no. 411/7 and as per

his report, he has submitted his report to Tahsildar.

4

In the cross examination Pw5 has deposed that he has not received any requisition from police. Pw5 further stated that requisition received by

Tahsildar on his instructions he has gone to the place of offence for

inspection. Pw5 further stated that he has not received any written orders from the Tahsildar. Pw5 further deposed that he surveyed Sy.no. 411/6 in which a well situated and 411/7 there is a rastha and pipe lines ae put by the side of rastha.

Pw5 further stated that as per FMB records there is no rastha or well as per his records. Himself and Village Revenue officer gone to the place of offence for inspection along with the village servants. He conducted and identified identification of land in which digging for putting pipe lines. Pw5 further stated that the rastha leads to well about 160 metres approximately and he was not mentioned the boundaries with regard to the disputed site and he prepared report on the basis of his office record. Pw5 further stated that his sketch contains all the parituclars which is submitted to Mandal Revenue officer / Tahsildar.

14.Pw6 namely Sri V.Srinivasulu, Village revenue officer has deposed that on 13-6-2009 himself and Pw5 were gone to the Sy.no. 411/7 Lw1

Sri Sanjeeva reddy has filed an application that the accused putting pipe

lines in the land belongs to him, on that application himself and Pw5

gone to the Sy.no. 411/7 and inspected the land. There is a pipe lines in

the land of Lw1 Sri Sanjeeva reddy about 100 feet pipe lines were laid in

the land of complainant. Lw2 Sri Sanjeeva reddy which is in the Sy.no. 411/7 which is belongs to Lw1 Sri sanjeeva reddy and Pw5 has surveyed the land.

In the cross examination Pw6 has deposed that Mandal revenue officer /

Tahsildar not given any written directions to himself for inspecting the disputed land. Pw6 admitted that himself and surveyor gone to the disputed land which is belongs to Sri Sanjeeva reddy (Lw.1). Pw6 further deposed that he know how much land having by Lw1 Sri Sanjeeva reddy and Lw1 having land in Sy.no. 411/7, 411/6 in three bits of land. Pw6 further deposed that Pw5 surveyed the land in 5

Sy.no. 411/6, 411/7. Pw6 admitted that he has not verified the complaint. Pw6 admitted that there is a rastha but it was not in the FMB records. Pw6 further admitted that pipe lines are laid by the side of rastha, Rastha is situated in the ridge of field pipe lines. Pipe lines are kept by the side of gattu, gattu is called as rastha. Pw6 denied that he has not gone to the place of offence and false report prepared by Pw5 on his instructions.

15.Pw7 namely Sri S. Subba rao has deposed that he does not know A1 to A3 and he did not witnessed this incident and he does not know anything about this case and has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Pw7 denied Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by Pendlimarry police.

16.Pw8 namely Sri S.Sanjeeva reddy defacto complainant has deposed that he having agricultural land in Sy.no. 411/7 to an extent of Ac.1-41 cents at

Thippireddipalli village. Pw8 further deposed that on 26-1-2009 at about 7 A.M his villagers informed that accused digging in his fields for putting pipe line, at that time his fields having sunflower crops. Then he has questioned the high handed activity of Accused no.1 to 3 requesting to stop for putting pipe line through his fields. Accused no. 1 to 3 abused him and they are tried to beat him, and they are having sickles and sticks and due to fear he returned from his fields.

Pw8 further deposed that he gone to Pendlimarry police station and submitted report against Accused no.1 to 3. Ex.P7 is his report. Pw1 identified A1 to A3 present before the court.

In the cross examination Pw8 has deposed that Sri M.Subba reddy intimated to him about digging in his fields. Pw8 admitted that immediately after the offence he has given a complaint against the accused no.1 to 3 but police not taken any action due to which he has approached to the

Superintendent of police and submitted Ex.P7 on which police filed the present case. Pw8 admitted that accused is having land at about 100 yards from

his land. Pw8 further admitted that Mandal Revenue officer and other

6 authorities not removed the pipe lines which are laid in his land. Pw8 admitted that Mandal Revenue officer advised him as per the completion of the case as per the directions of the Hon'ble court removed the pipes which are laid in his land. Pw8 further admitted that neighbouring land lords not witnessed this offence as they are not present at the time of this offence. Pw8 denied that the accused not put pipes through his land and accused not having any land at the place of offence.

17.Pw9 Sri P.Eswara reddy, Sub inspector of police who is the investigating officer in this case has deposed about the chronological events of investigation and has deposed that he has received one endorsed complaint from the Superintendent of police, Kadapa. It is Ex.P7 and basing on the same he has registered a case in Cr.No. 13/2009 U/ss 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC . Ex.P8 is the original FIR submitted to the Hon'ble court and thereafter he has visited the scene and drawn rough sketch. It is Ex.P9 and has recorded the statements of Pw8,

Pw2, Pw5, Pw6, Lw7 and on 2-3-2009 he has sent a requisition to Mandal revenue officer, Pendlimarry for surveying the disputed land and for his report. As per his investigation the accused put pipes in the lands of defacto complainant and on 18-8-2009 he has arrested the accused no.1 to 3 and sent them for remand. Pw9 further deposed on 10-4-2012 Ex.P10 is the letter addressed by Sri L.Prabhakar reddy, incharge Tahsildar, Pendlimarry dt. 15-6-2009 to Pw9. Ex.P11 is the plan prepared by mandal surveyor received by him along with Ex.P10. Ex.P12 is the

V.R.O report. After receipt of above records he has filed charge sheet. As per his investigation accused put pipe lines in the land of Pw8.

In the cross examination Pw9 has deposed that except Ex.P7 Pw8 not filed any complaint before him. Pw9 denied that in Ex.P9 rough sketch the lands of

Sri Sanjeeva reddy not mentioned. Witness voluntarily stated that Sri S.Pulla reddy is the son of Pw8. Pw9 admitted that pipe lines are laid in the cot away.

Pw9 further admitted that Ex.P12 not contains who are laid pipe lines not 7 mentioned in Ex.P12. Pw9 denied that Pw8 not having any land at the place of offence. Pw9 admitted that he was not filed any records to show that Sri

S.Pulla reddy is the son of Sri S.Sanjeva reddy (Pw8). Pw9 has denied the suggestion that accused has not committed any offence.

On considering the evidence of Pw8 is corroborated with the evidence of investigating officer Pw9. On considering the circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the pipes are laid in the land of Pw8 which is in the name of his son which is also supported with the evidence of Pw5, Pw6. The accused are committed the offence punishable U/ss 427, 447, 506 IPC. The accused are required some deterrence for not to commit this type of offences against the villagers in the society.

18. On considering the above evidence of the prosecution, above facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that the accused no.1 to 3 has committed the offense punishable u/ss. 447, 506, 427 IPC and the prosecution has clearly proved their case against the accused no.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. In the result, accused no.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable u/ss. 447, 506, 427 IPC and accordingly, they are convicted U/Sec.

255(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, , typed by him directly on computer

system , corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rdday of April, 2012.

Sd/- K.Ch.Srinivas.,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.

The accused no.1 to 3 are questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on them. They have pleaded mercy of this Court and stated that they are the sole bread earner to their family they are working as daily wage agricultural coolies and suffering from ill health and if they are sentenced to imprisonment their families shall suffer a lot as they got small children and 8 old aged parents and prayed to take a lenient view .

On considering the entire circumstances, the accused no.1 to 3 shall pay a fine of Rs.150/- ( Rupees One hundred and fifty only) for each offence.

Total Rs.450/- each. in default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks. Total fine amount paid is Rs.1350/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, directly typed by him on computer

system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2012.

Sd/- K.Ch.Srinivas.,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for Prosecution: Defence: Nil. PW.1: Sri Y.V.Chenna reddy Pw2: Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy Pw3: Sri Y.Chenna reddy Pw4: Sri P.Pulla reddy Pw5: Sri P.Khaja Hussain Pw6: Sri V.Srinivasulu Pw7: Sri S.Subba rao Pw8: Sri S.Sanjeeva reddy Pw9: Sri P.Eswara reddy, S.I of police.

Exhibits marked for prosecution:-

Ex.P1: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw1. Ex.P2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw3. Ex.P3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw4. Ex.P4: Not marked any documents (by mistake ) Ex.P.5: Not marked any documents (by mistake ) Ex.P6: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw7. Ex.P7: Report dt. 26-1-2009. Ex.P8: F.I.R. Ex.P9: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P10: Letter dt. 15-6-2009 addresed by Sri L.Prabhakar reddy incharge Tahsildar, Pendlimarry P.S. Ex.P11: Plan prepared by Mandal surveyor received by pw9 along with Ex.P10. Ex.P12: Village Revenue officer report. Exhibits marked for Defence:

Ex.D1: Part of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5

Material objects:- Nil

Sd/- K.Ch.Srinivas.,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, FOR SPECIAL

MOBILE COURT, KADAPA.

Present: Sri K. CHAKRADHARA SRINIVAS, M.A.B.L.,

Judicial Magistrate of first Class for Special Mobile Court

Dated, this the 23rd day of April, 2012.

C.C.No. 147 of 2011

State; represented by Sub inspector of police, Mahila police station, Kadapa . . . . Complainant

Vs.

1. Mr.Sreeramula Venkatesh, age 25 years, S/o Venkataiah

2. Mrs.Sreeramula Ramakka, age 42 years, W/o Venkataiah

3. Mr. Sreeramula Venkataiah, age 50 years, S/o Moogaiah

4. Mr.Sreeramula Venkata ramana, 28 years, S/o Venkataiah

5. Mr.Sreeramula Venkataiah, age 22 years, S/o Venkataiah

6. Mrs.Balani Kumari, W/o Sreeramula Venkatesh, 20 years. All are of D.No. 5/76, Dandu ST colony, Kadapa city except A6 who is n/o Komarolu village and mandal, Giddalur of Prakasham district. .... .Accused

This case is coming on 18.4.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant public prosecutor for the state and of

Smt.Y.Hymavathi, Advocate for the accused no. 1 to 6, after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub inspector of police, Mahila police station, Kadapa has filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 6 in Cr.No. 24/2011 for the offence punishable U/ss. 498-A, 494 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- That the defacto complainant namely Mrs.Sreeraula Madhavi who is the first wife of A1 is resident of D.No. 5/76, Dandu S.T colony, Kadapa city. The defacto complainant and A1 are the close friends to each other an they lived together which leads to their marriage on 19-8-2011 at Sreerama nagar, near Central prison, Kadapa city by getting the wishes of either side parents i.e, A2 and A3 and other relatives on behalf of A1 while Lws 2 and 3 namely Smt.J.Venkatamma and Sri J.Venkatesh and other relatives on behalf of defacto complainant. During the marriage Lws 2 and 3 are presented two tolas of gold ornaments and silver anklets to the 2 accused no.2 and 3 before Lws 4 to 6 and others under dowry of A1. The defacto complainant lived in a joint family at Dandu ST colony in a house with her husband and A2 to A5 for about four years. During the above period A2 to A5 are used to harass her in each and every small issue while attending homely works etc. They used to instigate A1 to beat the defacto complainant. On hearing them, A1 used to beat her indiscriminately. A1 sold away the two tolas of gold ornaments which was presented by Lws 2 and 3 during the marriage under dowry for his bad vices. About one year ago, defacto complainant gave birth to female.

Since then on the instigation of A2 to A5, her husband used to beat her and they all used to say that they wanted to perform second marriage to A1 if she did'nt bring additional dowry of cash from her parents. The defacto complainant has informed the said demand to her parents, in turn Lws 2 and 3 have presented

Rs.20,000/- as additional dowry to A1 to A5.

While so, on 4-5-2011 A1 left his house by leaving the defacto complainant and her daughter to their fate and went away without telling his where abouts.

The defacto complainant and her parents searched forA1 here and there but could not trace him. Fortunately on one day when the defacto complainant telephoned to the phone of A1, he informed that he performed second marriage with A6 and he will not come to her since he is not likes She also caused inquiries for A2 to A5 and learnt they personally attended the second marriage of her husband A1 at Kommarolu village and mandal of Prakasham district. Hence the charge sheet.

3. On perusal of records, the case was taken on file U/Secs. 498-A, 494 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act against the accused no.1 to 6. On appearance of the accused no.1 to 6 before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C.,

4. The accused no.1 to 6 were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence

U/Secs. 498-A, 494 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act. The contents of examination read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied 3 the offense and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 Prosecution side evidence was closed. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked.

6. The accused no.1 to 6 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the evidence of prosecution as false and reported that they have no defense evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard arguments from both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is; “whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offense punishable

U/Secs. 498-A, 494 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act?

9. POINT:

In this case Pw1 namely Smt.S.Madhavi who is the defacto complainant herein this case has deposed about the performance of marriage of her with accused no.1 about six years back i.e on 19-8-2006 at Srirama nagar, Kadapa and her parents given two tolas of gold , one silver leg chain set as dowry and thereafter A1 toA5 harassed her for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. A1 is having drinking habit, womanizer and used to harass and beat her. Then her parents paid Rs.10,000/- additional dowry in two times. A1 stated to her that he is having no interest on her. On 4-5-2011 A1 beat her and kept her in the house. A1 intimated that she is having no interest on her and he married to another girl A6

as 2nd wife. The marriage between A6 and A1 performed by A2 toA5. A1 to A6

harassed her for additional dowry both on physically and mentally without giving divorce to her and without her consent.

In the cross examination Pw1 has denied the suggestion that she was not got written Ex.p1 and Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement and she was not stated that her 4 mother given Rs.20,000/- as additional dowry to A1. Pw1 was recalled as per the orders in Crl.M.P. No. 819/2012 dt. 18-4-2012 and has deposed in further cross examination that she has admitted that she filed this case at the advise of elders. Accused never harassed her and they are not demanded dowry and she suspected due to advise of her parents the relationship between A1 and A6 . Her husband not married to A6 and due to misunderstandings in between herself and

A1 elders got filed this case. In the cross examination by Asst.public prosecutor Pw1 has denied the suggestion that she was deposing false evidence due to compromise with the accused.

10.Pw2 namely Smt.D.Bujjamma has deposed that the marriage between A1 and Pw1 performed about six years and the parents of Pw1 given two tolas of gold and silver leg chains and later accused harassed Pw1 for additional dowry. This disputes intimated by Pw1. Later A1 married another girl A6 as 2nd wife without giving any divorce to Pw1 without the knowledge of Pw1.

In the cross examination Pw2 has admitted that she was not filed any documentary proof in relating to second marriage between A1 and A6.

11.Pw3 namely Smt.J.Venkatamma has deposed that at the time of marriage of Pw1 two tolas of gold ornaments, ear studs, Mattis and ring and silver leg chains given to the accused no. 1 to 5 and later A1 to A5 harassed Pw1 for additional dowry. Later she has given Rs.10,000/- one time and another time of Rs.10,000/- given to A1 and due to the harassment Pw1 attempted to commit suicide. When she telephonic ally questioned why accused no.1 performed another marriage with A6 and later Pw1 has submitted a complaint against A1 to

A6.

In the cross examination Pw3 has denied the suggestion that about a attempted for suicide by Pw1 not stated to the police and additional dowry payment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- given to A1 and beaten Pw1 not stated to the police.

5

12.Pw4 namely Sri D.Raja has deposed that the marriage between Pw1 and A1 performed about six years back and at the time of marriage Pw3 and her husband given two tolas of gold ornaments and silver leg chains presented at the time of marriage. A1 having all bad habits i.e, alcohol drinking and womanisation and all other bad habits and accused no.1 to 5 demanded additional dowry for

Rs.20,000/- two times Rs.10,000/- and Rs,.10,000/- given to the A1 and A1 beaten Pw1 several times and abused her and demanded additional dowry and that he is having no interest on Pw1 and hence he married A6 as second wife and later Pw1 has filed a police complaint.

In the cross examination Pw4 has denied the suggestion that accused never demanded any additional dowry at any point of time and that he was not stated to the police in his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement that the accused beaten Pw1 several times.

13.Pw5 namely Smt.B.Anjamma has deposed that she does not know

Pws 1 to 4. She does not know this accused no.1 to 5 and she does not know this accused. Her daughter does not married this accused no.1. Presently her daughter is residing with her in her house and has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

14.Pw6 namely Smt.P.Salamma has deposed that she does not know both the parties in this case and she does not know anything about this case.

Police not recorded her statement and has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

15.Pw7 namely Smt.Z.Vimala, Sub inspector of police, Women police station, Kadapa has deposed about the chronological events of investigation and has deposed that on 21-5-2011 at about 2.00 PM, Pw1 came to police station and submitted a report Ex.P1 and basing on the same she has registered a case in

Cr.No. 24/2011 U/ss 498(A), 494 IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act and on the same day she has visited the house of Pw2 at Dandu and she has 6 recorded the statements of Lw3 Sri J.Venkatesh, Lw4 Sri J.Ramakka, Pw4 and

Pw2. On the next day i.e, on 22-5-2011 at Dandu village she has arested A1 toa5 and sent them for judicial remand. On 25-7-2011 at 3-00 P.M she has arrested A6 and send for judicial remand. On 21-7-2011 she has recorded the statement of Lw7 Sri B.Pedda Kondaiah, Pw5, Pw6 and on completion of her investigation she has filed the charge sheet against the accused.

In the cross examination Pw7 has admitted that in FIR Ex.P4, 8th column reasons for delay was not mentioned. Pw7 has denied the suggestion the searching of husband not mentioned on Ex.P1.

16.On considering the evidence of prosecution that Pw1 has deposed in further cross examination that she has admitted that she filed this case at the advise of elders. Accused no.1 to 6 never harassed her and they are not demanded dowry and she suspected due to advise of her parents the relationship between A1 and A6. Her husband not married to A6 and due to misunderstandings in between herself and A1 elders got filed this case. Naturally benefit of doubt entitled by the accused. That the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17. Basing on the above said discussion, it is crystal clear that A1 to A6 were not committed the above said offence punishable U/secs. 498-A, 494 r/w 34

IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act.

18. On considering the above evidence of the prosecution, above facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that the accused no.1 to 6 have not committed the offense punishable u/ss. 498-A, 494 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry prohibition Act and the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. In the result, accused no.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/ss. 498-A, 494 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused 7 shall stands canceled after the appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rdday of April, 2012.

Sd/- K.Ch.Srinivas.,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: Smt.S.Madhavi- Nil - Pw2: Smt.D.Bujjamma Pw3: Smt.J.Venkatamma Pw4: Sri D.Raja Pw5: Smt.B.Anjamma Pw6: Smt.P.Salamma Pw7: Smt.Z.Vimala, Inspector of police.

Exhibits marked for prosecution:-

Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.P2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5. Ex.P3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw6. Ex.P4: F.I.R.

Exhibits marked for Defence: Nil.

Material objects:- Nil

Sd/- K.Ch.Srinivas.,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

FOR SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KADAPA.

Present: Sri K. CHAKRADHARA SRINIVAS, M.A.B.L.,

Judicial Magistrate of first Class for Special Mobile Court

Dated, this the 20th day of April, 2012.

C.C.No. 19 of 2012

M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Limited,represented by authorised person Sri K.Sreekanth Naidu, s/o Reddappa Naidu . . . . Complainant

Vs.

M.Ramesh Babu s/oNarayana Swamy, Age 31 years, Business, D.No.42/3, Chinnachowk, Kadapa . . . .Accused.

This case is coming on 19.4.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Jagadeeswar Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri C.S.Riyazuddin, Advocate for the accused, after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The complainant in this case filed complaint u/sec.138 r/w.142 of

Negotiable Instrument Act is filed against the accused.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The accused herein obtained a loan for the purchase of S.M.E and executed an agreement on 26.3.2009 agreement No.NRTFCD200078E. As per the agreement, the accused has to discharge the loan amount with in 36 monthly installments payable at the rate of Rs.8889/- per month installment. Inspite of demands by the complainant the accused in order to pay the installments, he has given three cheques bearing

Nos.048473, 048474, 035268 towards the monthly installments of

Rs.8889/- +Rs.8889/-+ Rs.8889/- dt.15.2.2011, 15.3.2011, 15.5.2011 drawn on I.D.B.I Bank, Kadapa. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 30.6.2011 and the same was informed to the 2 complainant on 30.6.2011. The original cheques 048473, 048474, 035268, and the same was returned as insufficient funds in the account of accused on 30.6.2011 and the same was informed to the complainant on 30.6.2011.bank return memo of endorsement herewith filed.

Subsequently on 2.7.2011 the complainant got issued a lawyer's notice required u/s.138 r/w.142 of N.I.Act, requesting the accused to repay the amount of Rs.8889/-+8889/-+8889/- =26667/- and it was further communicated therein that the failure of the payment of the cheque amount will make him constrained to invoke the penal provisions u/s.138 r/w.sec.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused received the lawyer's notice on 6.7.2011 of the notices are herewith filed. The complaint towards the said cheque. Hence the complainant has no alternative remedy except to initiate the present proceedings

before the Hon'ble Court u/s.138 r/w.142 of N.I.Act. Hence the

complaint U/s.138 r/w.142 of Negotiable instruments Act.

c) On perusal of records, the case was taken on file U/Sec.138 r/w.Sec.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence

U/Sec. 138 r/w Sec.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The contents of examination read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of complainant, the complainant has examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. On behalf of the accused DW1 was examined and no documents are marked. Then

Complainant side evidence was closed. The accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the evidence of complainant and 3 reported time for defense evidence.

6. Heard arguments from both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is; “Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable U/Sec. 138 r/w.142 of N.I Act?”

8.POINT:

In this case the complainant himself examined as Pw1 namely

K.Sreekanth Naidu, has filed his chief examination affidavit and has deposed that The accused herein obtained a loan for the purchase of

S.M.E and executed an agreement on 26.3.2009 agreement

No.NRTFCD200078E. As per the agreement, the accused has to discharge the loan amount with in 36 monthly installments payable at the rate of Rs.8889/- per month installment. Inspite of demands by the complainant the accused in order to pay the installments, he has given three cheques bearing Nos.048473, 048474, 035268 towards the monthly installments of Rs.8889/- +Rs.8889/-+ Rs.8889/- dt.15.2.2011, 15.3.2011, 15.5.2011 drawn on I.D.B.I Bank, Kadapa.

The complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 30.6.2011 and the same was informed to the complainant on 30.6.2011. The original cheques 048473, 048474, 035268, and the same was returned as insufficient funds in the account of accused on 30.6.2011 and the same was informed to the complainant on 30.6.2011.bank return memo of endorsement herewith filed. Subsequently on 2.7.2011 the complainant got issued a lawyer's notice required u/s.138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, requesting the accused to repay the amount of Rs.8889/-+8889/-+8889/- =26667/-, sentence him to imprisonment besides imposing fine for double the cheque 4 amount and also award compensation to him out of the fine amount in terms of Sec. 357 Cr.P.C in the interest of justice.

In the cross examination Pw1 has admitted that Ex.P1 to P.3 got filled by him. Accused given Ex.P1 to P.3 cheque as a security for the loan taken by him under an agreement and the writing on Ex.P1 to

P.3 and signature are different inks used different pens and Ex.P1to P.3 filled by him. Pw1 has denied the suggestion that the accused not committed any offence and he filed false case for extracting money.

Pw1 was recalled as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.822/2012 dt. 19-4- 2012 and has deposed that the amount covered under Ex.P1 to P.3 pay to cheque column got filled with his company rubber stamp. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that Ex.P.1 to P.3 got filled with different pens. Pw1 further stated that Ex.P.1 to P.3 got filled by

his company staff. Pw1 further stated that the amount under

Ex.P.1 to P.3 got received by his company and there is no

legally enforceable debt under Ex.P.1 to P.3.

9.On the other hand on behalf of the accused himself examined as Dw1 namely M.Ramesh Babu has deposed that Ex.P1 to

P.3 got filled by the complainant company. On considering my chief examination affidavit the case may be dismiss complaint. As there is no legally enforceable debt and he paid entire amount under Exs.p1 to P3 to the complainant company.

In the cross examination Dw1 has denied the suggestion that he was deposing false evidence for escaping criminal liability.

10.As per the evidence of Pw1 has deposed that he admitted that Ex.P.1 to P.3 got filled with his company rubber stamp. Pw1 further admitted that Ex.P.1 to P.3 got filled with different pens. Pw1 further stated that Ex.P.1 to P.3 got filled by his company staff and 5 that there is no legally enforceable debt against the accused as deposed by him in his evidence.

11.Hence, on considering the evidence of Pw1 that, there is no incriminating material against the accused and complainant is failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

12. On considering the above discussion I am of the considered view that the complainant is failed to prove his case against accused for the offence punishable u/s. Negotiable Instrument of N.I. Act.

13. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec. 138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the personal assistant, typed by him directly on the

computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20thday of April, 2012,

Sd/- K.Ch.Srinivas.,

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Complainant: Defence:

PW.1 : K.Sreekanth Naidu D.W.1: M.Ramesh Babu

Exhibits marked for Complainant:

Ex.P.1: cheque bearing No,.48473 dt.15.2.2011 Ex.P.2: cheque bearing No.48474 dt.15.3.2011 Ex.P.3: cheque bearing No.48474 dt.15.5.2011 Ex.P.4: Cheque return memo Ex.P.5: Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.6: Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.7: statement of cheques deposited on 23.6.2011 Ex.P.8: authorization given to this complainant. Exhibits marked for Defense: NIL.

Material objects:- Nil

Sd/- K.Ch.Srinivas.,

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

FOR SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KADAPA.

Present: Sri K. CHAKRADHARA SRINIVAS, M.A.B.L.,

Judicial Magistrate of first Class for Special Mobile Court

Dated, this the 20th day of April, 2012.

C.C.No. 19 of 2012

M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Limited,represented by authorised person Sri K.Sreekanth Naidu, s/o Reddappa Naidu . . . . Complainant

Vs.

M.Ramesh Babu s/oNarayana Swamy, Age 31 years, Business, D.No.42/3, Chinnachowk, Kadapa . . . .Accused.

This case is coming on 19.4.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Jagadeeswar Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri C.S.Riyazuddin, Advocate for the accused, after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The complainant in this case filed complaint u/sec.138 r/w.142 of

Negotiable Instrument Act is filed against the accused.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The accused herein obtained a loan for the purchase of S.M.E and executed an agreement on 26.3.2009 agreement No.NRTFCD200078E. As per the agreement, the accused has to discharge the loan amount with in 36 monthly installments payable at the rate of Rs.8889/- per month installment. Inspite of demands by the complainant the accused in order to pay the installments, he has given three cheques bearing

Nos.048473, 048474, 035268 towards the monthly installments of

Rs.8889/- +Rs.8889/-+ Rs.8889/- dt.15.2.2011, 15.3.2011, 15.5.2011 drawn on I.D.B.I Bank, Kadapa. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 30.6.2011 and the same was informed to the 2 complainant on 30.6.2011. The original cheques 048473, 048474, 035268, and the same was returned as insufficient funds in the account of accused on 30.6.2011 and the same was informed to the complainant on 30.6.2011.bank return memo of endorsement herewith filed.

Subsequently on 2.7.2011 the complainant got issued a lawyer's notice required u/s.138 r/w.142 of N.I.Act, requesting the accused to repay the amount of Rs.8889/-+8889/-+8889/- =26667/- and it was further communicated therein that the failure of the payment of the cheque amount will make him constrained to invoke the penal provisions u/s.138 r/w.sec.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused received the lawyer's notice on 6.7.2011 of the notices are herewith filed. The complaint towards the said cheque. Hence the complainant has no alternative remedy except to initiate the present proceedings

before the Hon'ble Court u/s.138 r/w.142 of N.I.Act. Hence the

complaint U/s.138 r/w.142 of Negotiable instruments Act.

c) On perusal of records, the case was taken on file U/Sec.138 r/w.Sec.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence

U/Sec. 138 r/w Sec.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The contents of examination read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of complainant, the complainant has examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. On behalf of the accused DW1 was examined and no documents are marked. Then

Complainant side evidence was closed. The accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the evidence of complainant and 3 reported time for defense evidence.

6. Heard arguments from both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is; “Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable U/Sec. 138 r/w.142 of N.I Act?”

8.POINT:

In this case the complainant himself examined as Pw1 namely

K.Sreekanth Naidu, has filed his chief examination affidavit and has deposed that The accused herein obtained a loan for the purchase of

S.M.E and executed an agreement on 26.3.2009 agreement

No.NRTFCD200078E. As per the agreement, the accused has to discharge the loan amount with in 36 monthly installments payable at the rate of Rs.8889/- per month installment. Inspite of demands by the complainant the accused in order to pay the installments, he has given three cheques bearing Nos.048473, 048474, 035268 towards the monthly installments of Rs.8889/- +Rs.8889/-+ Rs.8889/- dt.15.2.2011, 15.3.2011, 15.5.2011 drawn on I.D.B.I Bank, Kadapa.

The complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 30.6.2011 and the same was informed to the complainant on 30.6.2011. The original cheques 048473, 048474, 035268, and the same was returned as insufficient funds in the account of accused on 30.6.2011 and the same was informed to the complainant on 30.6.2011.bank return memo of endorsement herewith filed. Subsequently on 2.7.2011 the complainant got issued a lawyer's notice required u/s.138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, requesting the accused to repay the amount of Rs.8889/-+8889/-+8889/- =26667/-, sentence him to imprisonment besides imposing fine for double the cheque 4 amount and also award compensation to him out of the fine amount in terms of Sec. 357 Cr.P.C in the interest of justice.

In the cross examination Pw1 has admitted that Ex.P1 to P.3 got filled by him. Accused given Ex.P1 to P.3 cheque as a security for the loan taken by him under an agreement and the writing on Ex.P1 to

P.3 and signature are different inks used different pens and Ex.P1to P.3 filled by him. Pw1 has denied the suggestion that the accused not committed any offence and he filed false case for extracting money.

Pw1 was recalled as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.822/2012 dt. 19-4- 2012 and has deposed that the amount covered under Ex.P1 to P.3 pay to cheque column got filled with his company rubber stamp. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that Ex.P.1 to P.3 got filled with different pens. Pw1 further stated that Ex.P.1 to P.3 got filled by

his company staff. Pw1 further stated that the amount under

Ex.P.1 to P.3 got received by his company and there is no

legally enforceable debt under Ex.P.1 to P.3.

9.On the other hand on behalf of the accused himself examined as Dw1 namely M.Ramesh Babu has deposed that Ex.P1 to

P.3 got filled by the complainant company. On considering my chief examination affidavit the case may be dismiss complaint. As there is no legally enforceable debt and he paid entire amount under Exs.p1 to P3 to the complainant company.

In the cross examination Dw1 has denied the suggestion that he was deposing false evidence for escaping criminal liability.

10.As per the evidence of Pw1 has deposed that he admitted that Ex.P.1 to P.3 got filled with his company rubber stamp. Pw1 further admitted that Ex.P.1 to P.3 got filled with different pens. Pw1 further stated that Ex.P.1 to P.3 got filled by his company staff and 5 that there is no legally enforceable debt against the accused as deposed by him in his evidence.

11.Hence, on considering the evidence of Pw1 that, there is no incriminating material against the accused and complainant is failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

12. On considering the above discussion I am of the considered view that the complainant is failed to prove his case against accused for the offence punishable u/s. Negotiable Instrument of N.I. Act.

13. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec. 138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the personal assistant, typed by him directly on the

computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20thday of April, 2012,

Sd/- K.Ch.Srinivas.,

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Complainant: Defence:

PW.1 : K.Sreekanth Naidu D.W.1: M.Ramesh Babu

Exhibits marked for Complainant:

Ex.P.1: cheque bearing No,.48473 dt.15.2.2011 Ex.P.2: cheque bearing No.48474 dt.15.3.2011 Ex.P.3: cheque bearing No.48474 dt.15.5.2011 Ex.P.4: Cheque return memo Ex.P.5: Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.6: Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.7: statement of cheques deposited on 23.6.2011 Ex.P.8: authorization given to this complainant. Exhibits marked for Defense: NIL.

Material objects:- Nil

Sd/- K.Ch.Srinivas.,

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

FOR SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KADAPA.

Present: Sri K. CHAKRADHARA SRINIVAS, M.A.B.L.,

Judicial Magistrate of first Class for Special Mobile Court

Dated, this the 20th day of April, 2012.

C.C.No. 133 of 2011

R.Ajay Kumar, S/o R.Subbarayudu, Hindu, aged 35 years, D.No. 2/995, Sri Hari Rao street, Nagarajupeta, Kadapa – 516 001. . . . . Complainant

Vs.

B.Anand Kumar, S/o B.Anand Rao, Hindu, aged 40 years, W/as Junior Assistant, D.E.O office, Kadapa Opp: Govt. Arts college, Kadapa. . . . .Accused.

This case is coming on 19.4.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Rajasekhar, Advocate for the complainant and of

Sri M.Nagi Reddy, Advocate for the accused, after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The complainant in this case filed complaint u/sec.138 r/w.142 of

Negotiable Instrument Act is filed against the accused.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- That the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant on 12-2-2010 for his necessities under a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum as and when demanded by the complainant and thereafter the complainant has demanded the accused several occasions to payback the said promissory note debt and the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.

039755 dt. 12-2-2011 drawn on IDBI Bank, Kadapa for Rs.1,00,000/- towards payment of aforesaid debt and thereafter the complainant has deposited the above said heque with his S.B.Account lying in

Corporation Bank, Kadapa branch for encashment of the cheque amount. Surprisingly, the complainant was informed by his Banker 2 vide cheque return memo dt. 14-2-2011 that the cheque issued by the accused was dishonored due to Insufficient funds and thereafter the complainant has sent a legal notice dt. 1-3-2011 to the accused demanding the accused to pay the money covered under the dishonored cheque and the said legal notice was received by the accused on 3-3- 2011 and he gave a reply notice dt. 18-3-2011 with false and untenable allegations. Hence the complaint U/s.138 r/w.142 of Negotiable instruments Act.

c) On perusal of records, the case was taken on file U/Sec.138 r/w.Sec.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence

U/Sec. 138 r/w Sec.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The contents of examination read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of complainant, the complainant has examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On behalf of the accused DW1 was examined and no documents are marked. Then

Complainant side evidence was closed. The accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the evidence of complainant and reported time for defense evidence.

6. Heard arguments from both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is; “Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable U/Sec. 138 r/w.142 of N.I Act?” 3

8.POINT:

In this case the complainant himself examined as Pw1 namely Sri

R.Ajay Kumar has filed his chief examination affidavit and has deposed that the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant on 12-2-2010 for his necessities under a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum as and when demanded by him and thereafter he has demanded the accused several occasions to pay back the said promissory note debt and the accused has issued a cheque bearing

No. 039755 dt. 12-2-2011 drawn on IDBI Bank, Kadapa for

Rs.1,00,000/- towards payment of aforesaid debt and thereafter he has deposited the above said cheque with his S.B.Account lying in

Corporation Bank, Kadapa branch for encashment of the cheque amount. Surprisingly, he was informed by his Banker vide cheque return memo dt. 14-2-2011 that the cheque issued by the accused was dishonored due to Insufficient funds and thereafter he has sent a legal notice dt. 1-3-2011 to the accused demanding the accused to pay the money covered under the dishonoured cheque and the said legal notice was received by the accused on 3-3-2011 and he gave a reply notice dt. 18-3-2011 with false and untenable allegations and prays to punish the accused U/sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence him to imprisonment besides imposing fine for double the cheque amount and also award compensation to him out of the fine amount in terms of Sec. 357 Cr.P.C in the interest of justice.

In the cross examination Pw1 has admitted that Ex.P1 got filled by him. Accused given Ex.P1 cheque as a security for the loan taken by him under a pronote and the writing on Ex.P1 and signature are different inks used different pens and Ex.P1 filled by him. Pw1 has 4 denied the suggestion that the accused not committed any offence and he filed false case for extracting money.

Pw1 was recalled as per orders in Crl.M.P.No. / 2012 dt. 19- 4-2012 and has deposed that the amount covered under Ex.P1

Rs,.1,00,000/- was paid by him to the complainant and that there is no legally enforceable debt against the accused as deposed by him in his evidence.

9.On the other hand on behalf of the accused himself examined as Dw1 namely Sri B.Ananda Kumar has deposed that Ex.P1 cheque taken by the complainant as collateral security. Ex.P1 got different colour of inks. Signature is in dark blue. Cheque got written light blue ink pen. Signature with a ball pen. Ex.P1 got written by Pw1 for his convenience and that there is no legally enforceable debt and prays to dismiss the complaint.

In the cross examination Dw1 has denied the suggestion that he was deposing false evidence for escaping criminal liability.

10.Pw1 was recalled as per orders in Crl.M.P.No. / 2012

dt. 19-4-2012 and has deposed that the amount covered under Ex.P1

Rs,.1,00,000/- was paid by him to the complainant and that there is no legally enforceable debt against the accused as deposed by him in his evidence.

11.Hence, there is no incriminating material against the accused and complainant is failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

12. On considering the above discussion I am of the considered view that the complainant is failed to prove his case against accused for the offence punishable u/s.138 r/w. 142 of N.I. Act.

5

13. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.

138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the personal assistant, typed by him directly on the

computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20thday of April, 2012,

Sd/- K.Ch.Srinivas.,

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Complainant: Defence:

PW.1 : Sri R.Ajay Kumar D.W.1: Sri B.Anand Kumar

Exhibits marked for Complainant:

Ex.P.1: Cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- bearing No. 039755 given by the accused.

Ex.P.2: Cheque return memo dt. 14-2-2011.

Ex.P.3: Office copy of legal notice dt. 1-3-2011.

Ex.P.4: Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.P.5: Office copy of reply notice dt. 18-3-2011.

Ex.P.6: Original promissory note dt. 12-2-2010 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the accused in favour of complainant.

Exhibits marked for Defense: NIL.

Material objects:- Nil

Sd/- K.Ch.Srinivas.,

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.