Sri. K. Jamaleswara Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE AT KOTHAGUDEM

Present : Sri.K.Jamaleswara Rao, Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem 

Dated this the 14th day of February, 2019

S.C.No.526 of 2012

1.Name of the :The State through P.S. complainant :Kothagudem I­Town

2.Name of the accused:DharmaramPrashanth,S/o: :Sammaiah, Aged about: 20 yrs, Coolie, R/o: Rudrampur thanda, Kothagudem Now at New Boinpalli, Bappoji Nagar, Near Ashok Garden behind Poshamma Temple, Secunderabad (A2)

3.Section of Law: 489 (B) and (C) IPC

4.Cr.No. and P.S.: Cr.No.307/2009, P.S.Kothagudem I­ Town

5.P.R.C.No.: 58/2010

6.Name of the Officer, :Smt: Ch.Sunandamma who committed the :II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First case Class, Kothagudem FAC/I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem 7Prosecution :Sri V.Purushotham Rao, A.P.P. conducted by:

8.Defence conducted by :Sri.L.V.Durga Rao, Advocate :Kothagudem

9.Plea of the accused: Not guilty

10. Finding of the court: Found guilty

11. Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused (A2) is found :guilty for the offence U/s.489 (B) and 489 (C) IPC and hence he is convicted U/s. 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the above said offence.

2

This case is coming before me on 12.02.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Purushotham Rao,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. L.V.Durga

Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The charge­sheet is filed against the accused No.2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.489 (B) and (C) of IPC of

P.S. Kothagudem I­Town.

2. The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that :

On 23.12.2009 at 1200 hours the Sub­Inspector of police Kothagudem I­Town (LW1) along with staff (Lws.2 to 5) while patrolling they found two persons at Auto stand opposite to RTC Bus stand, Kothagudem, that on interrogation they confessed that they are from

Secunderabad, about one week ago while they were attending mason work one Chinna (A3) approached them and introduced himself and he used to circulate fake currency offering three times of fake currency for genuine currency, offered them fake currency worth Rs.17,400/­ in Rs.100/­ denomination in exchange of Rs.4,000/­ genuine currency.

3

Begari Krishna (A1) and Prashanth (accused herein) hatched a plan to circulate the fake currency in Kothagudem as the accused is well acquitted with Kothagudem area, that on 23.12.2009 at 0300 hours they boarded RTC bus at Hyderabad and reached Kothagudem while they were waiting for auto police apprehend them. The accused(A2) and Krishna (A1) were taken into custody at 1200 hours recorded their confession statement and seized fake currency of Rs.17,400/­ from their possession under the cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas (LWs.6 and 7) and brought them to police station and handed over the accused along with the seized currency notes to the SHO, Kothagudem I­Town. Basing on the said panchanama on 23.12.2009 at 1315 hours, ASI of police (LW10) registered the case in Cr.No.307/2009 for the offence under Sec. 489 (B) and (C) of IPC, subsequently circle inspector of police/LW11 examined the witnesses Lws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and drafted Crime details form and sketch of the scene in the presence of mediators (Lws.8 and 9), forwarded the seized fake currency to FSL Hyderabad for analysis report, that on the intervening night of 23/24­12­2009 accused No.2 who kept 4 in lock up escaped from the police custody by wrenching window bars of the lock­up which is subject matter of

Cr.No.308/2009, U/Sec.224 of IPC. On 09.08.2010 at 1000 hours accused (A2) surrendered before the Circle Inspector of

Police (Lw12) and admitted his guilt, that he was taken into custody and the effect of arrest of accused and remanded to judicial custody and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused. 

3.This case was taken on file by taking cognizance for the offences punishable U/sec.489 (B)(C) IPC by the learned I

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem and registered as P.R.C.No.58/2010 and on appearance of the accused case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. and as the alleged offence

U/s.489 (B) and (C) IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions, as such, the case is committed by following

procedure u/s.209 Cr.P.C., to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Khammam, inturn made over to this court, for disposal in accordance with law. 

4. On appearance of the accused before this court, upon hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution 5 and learned defence counsel and upon considering the material on record, charges u/s.489(B)(C) IPC have been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 7 and marked Ex.P1 to P4 and MOs.1 to 8. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined.

6.After completion of recording of prosecution evidence of

Pws.1 to 7, the accused examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and he put to all incriminating material appearing against him and he denied the same.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. 

8.Now the point for determination is : 

Whether the prosecution established the charge U/s. 489(B) and 489(C) IPC levelled against the accused ? 

P O I N T :

9.The case against accused (A2 herein) is taken cognizance for the offence under Sec. 489(B) and 489(C) IPC which pertains to using as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency­notes respectively. The prosecution to prove the 6 possession of the counterfeit currency notes and using as genuine as the counterfeit currency notes has examined Pws.1 to 7 besides relying on Ex.P1 to P4 and MOs.1 to 8. However,

MOs.4 to 8 are only said to have been seized from the possession of accused (A2) herein. PW1 was the then Sub­

Inspector of Police of Kothagudem I­Town and it is his evidence that on 23.12.2009 at 1200 hours he along with his staff i.e., Pw2 and others while performing patrolling duties and found two persons under suspicious circumstances at

RTC Bus stand at Kothagudem, that on interrogation they confessed the guilt, that they revealed their names Bagari

Krishna (A1) and Dharmavaram Prashanth (A2), accused herein. He also stated that the accused have stated that one

Chinna resident of Koduru of Chittor District offered three times of fake currency and for genuine currency. Pw1 further stated that he secured the presence of PW3 and M.Srinivasa

Rao (LW7), upon confession of the guilt by A1 and A2 they have seized 100 rupees denomination of fake currency notes worth Rs.17,400/­ from the possession of A1 and A2 i.e.,

MOs.1 to 8 and that Mos.1 to 8 were having specific numbers.

It is also the evidence of PW1 that Mos.4 to 8 were seized from 7 the possession of the accused No.2 in the presence of PW3 and another. The above evidence of Pw1 is supported by Pw2 who is said to have accompanied to PW1 at the time of patrolling duty. The evidence of Pw2 is an agreement that evidence of

Pw1 so far as the material aspects such as the confession of the accused Nos.1 and 2 of the guilt, the possession of fake currency that A1 and A2 and seizure of fake currency from the possession of A1 and A2 under MOs.1 to 8 and that MOs 4 to 8 were seized from the possession of A2 herein in the presence of Pw3 and another. Keeping in view that Pw3 is the mediator for the confession cum seizure panchanama the evidence of Pw3 can be considered to be material to the case of prosecution. Pw3 the mediator has stated supporting the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 that A1 and A2 confessed their guilt in their presence, that they produced 174 Rs.100/­ counterfeit currency notes, that the SI of police PW1 seized the said currency from the possession of A1 and A2 under the cover of panchanama and that the police obtained their signatures on the panchanama. Pw3 has also identified his signature and that of another mediator and Ex.P2 the confession cum seizure panchanama. Thus, the evidence of material witness 8 for its case, the mediators for confession cum seizure panchanama has supported the case of prosecution in as much as he has stated in agreement that the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2.

10.PW4 is the panch witness for CDF and he also stated that the police observed the scene of offence minutely and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence and prepared

CDF. Thus, the evidence of Pw4 is also any agreement that the evidence of Pws.1 to 3. It is the evidence of Pw5 that upon receiving of Ex.P1 he registered the case in Cr.No.307/2009.

Pw6 is the then Circle Inspector of police, Kothagudem PS, has stated that he took up investigation and verified the investigation and found it ot be correct lines, that he recorded the statements of Pws.1 and 2 and others, that he visited the scene of offence. He also stated that Pw1 produced him along with MOS 1 to 8. It is the evidence of PW7 that he filed charge­sheet after completion of investigation.

11.As could be seen from the cross­examination of

PW1 it can be observed that the defence could not elicit anything against the case of prosecution from the cross­ examination of Pw1. The only elicitation that the defence has 9 could be from the cross­examination of PW12 is that having not seized any ticket from A1 and A2 to show that they came to Kothagudem from Hyderabad. The above aspect of any seizing the ticket can be said to be not material to disprove the case against the accused Nos.1 and 2 keeping in view that the allegations against A1 and A2 pertain to possession and use of the fake currency. Mere non­collection of ticket would not disprove the presence of A1 and A2 nor the possession and use of the fake currency by A1 and A2. The other elicitation that the defence as can be from Pw1 that is that PS

Kothagudem I Town is in a dilapidated condition. It was also suggested to Pw1 that A1 and A2 have asked for the labour charges contended that their services were engaged for repairs of police station. The above suggestion of defence would go to negate their own contentions respecting the presence of A1 and A2 at Kothagudem. The defence could not substantiate its contention that the services of A1 and A2 were undertake for repairs of police station that they have asked for labour charges on that false case is foisted against them, even the above defence has no legs to stands.

12.The defence has give similar suggestions to PW2 as 10 the suggestions that were given to Pw1 and even from Pw2 the defence could not elicit anything against the case of prosecution. The other material witness is Pw3 the mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama. The defence has elicited from the cross­examination of Pw3 that he acted as secretary of the Union located from the side of the Police station Kothagudem I­Town and that he used to visit police station regularly, that the issues of auto union. The above evidence of Pw3 can be said to be no use to the case of defence.

Though Pw3 has stated that he might have signed as panch witnesses in number of cases it cannot be taken to be undertaking the case of prosecution. Even otherwise Pw3 has stated that the scene of offence is situated at Bus stand area which would be considered as supporting the case of prosecution only. The defence could not have elicited anything against the case of prosecution even from the cross­ examination of Pw4 the panch witness for scene of offence and

CDF. The defence has not elicited anything from the cross­ examination of Pws.5 and 7.

13.The defence has elicited from the cross­ examination of PW6 that Pw1 has not seized anything other 11 than MOs.1 to 8, that he has not furnished the details as to dress, identification details of A1 and A2. That apart the defence has also elicited that A1 and A2 have got down from

Hyderabad bus that having not enquired and collected the bus tickets. PW6 has also stated in his cross­examination that when A1 and A2 were produced before him he has not found any original currency notes with A1 and A2. The above evidence of Pw6 that he has not found any currency notes that

A1 and A2 would only go to support the case of prosecution.

The elicitation from Pw6 and that he has not enquired the bus driver or conductor in which A1 and A2 were said to have traveled cannot be said to be a factum that would go against the case of prosecution that apart the defence could not elicit anything from the cross­examination of Pw6 against the case of prosecution.

14. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the possession of fake currency notes and also using of genuine counterfeit currency notes against the accused (A2) herein for the offence contemplated under Sec. 489(B) and 489(C) of

IPC.

12

In the light of the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused (A2) for the charges under Sec.489(B) and (C) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. 

15.In the result, the accused (A2) is found guilty for the offence U/s.489 (B) and 489 (C) IPC and hence he is convicted U/s. 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the above said offence.

Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by her corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of February, 2019.

sd/­

 PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

DT:14­02­2019

HEARD ON THE QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

Heard the accused on quantum of sentence.

Accused submitted that he is having wife and two small children to look after them, that he has also further stated that he is having aged parents to look after them and that he only the bread earner of the family and accordingly sought to consider sympathetically and take a liberal view respecting the quantum of sentence. 

13

Upon taking into consideration of the plea of Accused and the facts and the circumstances of the case accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of

Two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/­ (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence under Sec.489(B) IPC. In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of three months and the accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One year for the offence under Sec.489(C) of IPC.

Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The accused (A2) is entitled for set off under Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. for the remand period already undergone by him. 

Case against other accused pending hence the case property i.e., MOs.1 to 8 shall be returned to lower court. The

Mos.1 to 8 shall be preserved till the disposal of case against other accused or any other orders passed respecting the case property in this case. 

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of February, 2019.

sd/­

 PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

14

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PROSECUTION: ­ FOR DEFENCE: PW.1 D.Venu Chander ­None­ PW.2 J.Sudhakar rao PW.3 N.Srinivas PW4: K.Prasad PW5: G.Venkaiah PW6: B.Ashok Kumar PW7: P.V. Ganesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 Confession­cum­Seizure panchanama Ex.P.2 Confession­cum­Seizure panchanama of A2, dt. 23.12.2009 Ex.P3: CDF proceedings Ex.P4: First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE: ­Nil­ 

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO­1 ­ 26 Fake currency notes @ Rs.100 Sl.No. 5WQ 422236 (04) Fake currency notes @ Rs.100 Sl.No. 5WQ 429236 MO­2 ­ 20 Fake currency notes @ Rs.100 Sl.No. 5WQ 422336 MO­3 ­ 38 Fake currency notes @ Rs.100 Sl.No. 5WQ 422296 (01) Fake currency note @ Rs.100 Sl.No. 5WQ 422996 MO­4 ­ 21 Fake currency notes @ Rs.100 Sl.No. 5WQ 422239 MO­5 ­ 21 Fake currency notes @ Rs.100 Sl.No. 5WQ 422436 MO­6 ­ 35 Fake currency notes @ Rs.100 Sl.No. 5WQ 422936 MO­7 ­ 04 Fake currency notes @ Rs.100 Sl.No. 5WQ 422439 (03) Fake currency notes @ Rs.100 Sl.No. 5WQ 424439 MO­8 ­ 01 Fake currency note @ Rs.100 Sl.No. 5WQ 422996 sd/­

PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

// Attested //

PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

TSBK000003042015

Presented on : 06-05-2015 Registered on : 06-05-2015 Decided on : 21-10-2019 Duration : 4 years, 5 months, 15 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem

Presided Over by P Vasanth

MVOP/100473/2014

NARAMDASU NARASIMHA RAO

Address: 38 YRS, BOMMANAPALLY VILLAGE, TEKULAPALLY

MANDAL, KHAMMAM DISTRICT

VERSUS

A. CHANDRAMOULI AND ANOHTER

Address: BHUPALAPALLY TOWN AND MANDAL, WARANGAL

DISTRICT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : THOTAKURI SRINIVASA RAO Advocate for : R2 SWARNA RAMBABU appearing for A. CHANDRAMOULI AND ANOHTER: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

The matter is reopened as the claim petitioner filed copy of Rc of the vehicle, for which the respondent No.2 has reported no objection, the same is marked as Ex.A11 with consent. Heard both sides. Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate Order).I n the result, this petition is allowed partly awarding compensation of Rs.1,16,740(Rupees One Lakh Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty only) in favour of the claim petitioner and against respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally, with proportionate costs and interest 7.5 percentage per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation with proportionate costs and interest accrued thereon, within one 01 month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount with proportionate costs and interest accrued thereon. Advocates fee is fixed at Rs.2,000. Rest of the claim of petitioner is dismissed without costs.

Date : 21-10-2019 (P Vasanth)

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem

TSBK000000582015

Presented on : 10-04-2015 Registered on : 10-04-2015 Decided on : 27-09-2019 Duration : 4 years, 5 months, 17 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem

AT ,KOTHAGUDEM

Presided Over by P Vasanth

MVOP/100081/2015

GOPALA KRISHMA CHARYULU Age: 52 Occupation : Address:

PUROHITHAM, NEAR RAMALAYAM, BHADRACHALAM,

VERSUS 1:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANOTHER Age: 0 Occupation : Address: SRI SEETHA CHANDRA SWAMY DEVASTANAM,

BHADRACHALAM,

2:M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : SEELAM CHENNA REDDY. Advocate for : appearing for THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANOTHER: Advocate KOTHAPALLY RAMA RAO appearing for 2 respectively.

ORDER

Order pronounced (Vide separate one) In the result, this petition is allowed partly awarding compensation Rs. 3,45,000/-(Rupees Three lakhs forty five thousand only) in favour of the claim petitioner and against respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally, with proportionate costs and interest 7.5 percentage P.A. from the date of of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation with proportionate costs and interest accrued thereon, within two (02) months from the date of this order. On such deposit, the claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- with proportionate costs and interest accrued thereon, and the rest of the amount is ordered to kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of Two years. Advocates fee is fixed at Rs, 4,000/- rest of the claim of petitioner is dismissed without costs.

Date : 27-09-2019 (P Vasanth)

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem

TSBK000002782017

Presented on : 06-11-2017 Registered on : 08-11-2017 Decided on : 20-09-2019 Duration : 1 years, 10 months, 14 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem

Presided Over by P Vasanth

MVOP/100099/2017

Babulal Banshali @ Bhanasali Babulal Jain Age: 65 Address: Maderabasthi, Kothaugdem Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. VERSU Sk. Sadik Age: 24 Address: H.No.4-4-108/2, Ramanjaneya Colony, Chunchupalli G.P. and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : S.V.Rama Rao Advocate for : appearing for Sk. Sadik: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

Order pronounced (Vide separate one) In the result, this petition is allowed partly awarding compensation Rs. 68,107/-(Rupees Sixty Eight thousand One hundred and Seven only) in favour of the claim petitioner and against respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally, with proportionate costs and interest 7.5 percentage from the date of of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation with proportionate costs and interest accrued thereon, within two (02) months from the date of this order. On such deposit, the claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with proportionate costs and interest accrued thereon. Advocates fee is fixed at Rs, 2,000/- rest of the claim of petitioner is dismissed without costs.

Date : 20-09-2019 (P Vasanth)

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem

TSBK000004482014

Presented on : 20-10-2014 Registered on : 20-10-2014 Decided on : 25-09-2019 Duration : 4 years, 11 months, 5 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem

(Presided Over by P Vasanth)

CRLA/100036/2014

GOPOJULA LAVAN KUMAR.

Through Police Station Officer 20 YRS, OCC. COOLIE, RO. SAMITHI SINGARAM VILLAGE OF

MANUGURU M

VERSUS

SHO-MANUGURU.

SHO-MANUGURU.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: CH.MALLIKARJUNA RAO.,Advocate for ADDL.PP appearing for SHO-MANUGURU. Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 374OFIII of CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE,

ORDER

Appellant is produced from District Jail, Khammam. Judgment pronounced (vide separate one). In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused in S.C.No.263/2013 dated 20.02.2013 by the learned Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem is hereby confirmed.

Date : 25-09-2019 (P Vasanth)

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem