Sri. K.Jaya Kumar., B.Sc., L.L.M.,

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri K.JAYA KUMAR

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada Tuesday, this the 17th day of December, 2013

C.C No.870-2010

The State, Sub Inspector of Police, L & O, Ibrahimpatnam P.S, Vijayawada City. …. Complainant.

Vs

Yarlagadda Sahitya, S/o. Gopala Rao, 20 years, Kamma, D.No.3-14, near Brilliants Convent, Kondapalli – Driver of Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 16 TPTR 2544….Accused.

This case coming on 17-12-13 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.J.Vijaya Lakshmi, A.P.P for Complainant and P.Sreedevi, Advocate for the accused and the matter having been 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, Ibrahimpatnam P.S, laid a charge sheet against the accused, Yarlagadda Sahitya, for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A IPC, Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V

Act, in his station Cr.No.242/2010, alleging that the accused being the driver of the car bearing No.AP 16 TPTR 2544, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, around 12.15 p.m on 26-5-10, while proceeding from Yerrakatta towards Kondapalli, dashed the cycle of the deceased-T.Bhimeswara Rao, caused fatal injuries. The injured was immediately shifted to Help Hospitals, Vijayawada in 108 ambulance.

2.On the strength of the statement of PW2-T.Pushpathi,

PW9-K.Murahari Rao, A.S.I of Police, initially, registered a case against the driver of the car, for the offence U/sec.337 IPC, issued

FIRs to all the concerned, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence, recorded the statements of witnesses. PW6-Dr.P.Rama Krishna of

Help Hospitals, treated the injured and issued certificate. It is alleged that the injured was shifted to Manipal Super Speciality

Hospital, Vijayawada on 2-6-10 for better treatment where he 2 succumbed to injuries on 17-6-10. On receipt of death intimation of

T.Bhimeswara Rao from Manipal Super Speciality Hospital, PW11-

Ch.V.Ramana, altered the section of law from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC, issued altered memo, held inquest over the dead body of

Bhimeswara Rao. PW1-Dr.G.Sivarami Reddy, conducted P.M examination over the dead body of Bhimeswara Rao, issued P.M certificate. PW5-N.U.N.S Srinivas, M.V.I, inspected the crime vehicle issued report opining that the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects. PW12-K.Vamsi Krishna, S.I of Police, arrested the accused on 3-12-10, sent him for remand, while LW19-D.K.N

Mohan Reddy, S.I of Police, filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file U/secs.304-A IPC, Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act, against the accused.

4. Copies of documents supplied to the accused as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Copies of documents supplied to the accused as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

6.The accused was examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C. The accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet was put to him for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In its attempt to prove the complicity of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses as PW1 to

PW12, got marked Ex.P1 to P11.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the evidence. He reported no defence evidence.

3

9.Heard the arguments of the prosecution and defence counsel.

10. The point for determination is:

•Whether the prosecution could prove that the accused being the driver of the car bearing No.AP 16 TPTR 2544, drove the same in a rash or negligent manner, around 12.15 p.m on 25-6-10, while proceeding from Kondapalli near V.T.P.S, dashed the cycle of the deceased-

T.Bhimeswara Rao, resulting his death, while undergoing treatment on 17-6-10, as alleged?

•Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the charge U/sec.304-A IPC, Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act, beyond reasonable doubt.

11. POINTS: It is the case of the prosecution that the accused herein being the driver of the car bearing No.AP 16 TPTR 2544, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, around 12.15 p.m on 26-5-10, while proceeding from Kondapalli, near V.T.P.S, dashed the cycle of the deceased-T.Bhimeswara Rao, caused severe injuries resulting his death on 17-6-10, while undergoing treatment at Manipal Super

Speciality Hospital, Vijayawada.

12.The defence of the accused is one of denial.

13.Of the 12 witnesses examined, PW2-T.Pushpavathi is the wife of the deceased-Bhimeswara Rao. PW7-T.Siva Sankar is the son of the deceased. PW3-A.Prabhakar, PW8-M.Yedukondalu, are the alleged eye witnesses to the accident. PW4-G.Someswara Rao is one of the inquestdars under Ex.P4. PW1-Dr.G.Sivarami Reddy, conducted P.M examination over the dead body of Bhimeswara Rao and the author of Ex.P1. PW5-N.U.N.S Srinivas is the M.V.I and the author of Ex.P5. PW6-Dr.P.Rama Krishna, treated the injured initially at Help Hospital and the author of Ex.P6 wound certificate. PW9-

K.Murahari Rao, PW10-G.Joseph, PW11-Ch.V.Ramana and PW12-

K.Vamsi Krishna, are all the I.Os.

4

14.T.Pushpavathi, T.Siva Sankar, testified as PW2 and PW7, are the wife and the son of the deceased-T.Bhimeswara Rao. Even according to the prosecution, these two witnesses namely PW2 and

PW7 are not the witnesses to the accident in which Bhimeswara Rao was killed. Of course, it is PW2, the wife of the deceased who set the criminal law into motion by way of giving statement to police under

Ex.P2. As per the evidence of PW2 and PW7, as on the date of accident the deceased-Bhimeswara Rao was working with V.T.P.S.

It is the common say of PW2 and PW7 that Bhimeswara Rao was killed in the accident that took place on 26-5-10 hit by a car.

Further, it is their common say that on coming to know about the accident, they proceeded to place of accident situated at Sivalayam

Street, found Bhimeswara Rao with injuries, shifted to Help

Hospitals, from there to Manipal Hospital where he died. The undisputed evidence of PW2 and PW7 coupled with the contents of

Ex.P2 would prove Bhimeswara Rao was killed in the accident that took place on 26-5-10 hit by a car. Though the evidence of PW2 and

PW7 would establish the death of Bhimeswara Rao in an accident, their evidence, in my humble opinion, is not useful to the case of the prosecution in its attempt to connect the accused with the offence.

15.As noticed herein before, the prosecution has projected

PW3-A.Prabhakar, PW8-M.Yedukondalu, as eye witnesses for the accident in which Bhimeswara Rao was killed. Among them, PW3-

A.Prabhakar, did not support the version put forth by the prosecution in toto. What all he stated before the Court on oath is that he knew the deceased-Bhimeswara Rao who died in the accident that took place about 3 years back. He did not witness the accident in which the said Bhimeswara Rao was killed. He did not know who is responsible for the accident. As this witness-PW3 did not speak as to the manner of accident nor attributed the cause of death of

Bhimeswara Rao to the accused and further failed to stick on to the version allegedly given by him to the police under Ex.P3, the prosecution declared him as hostile and cross examined him. The cross examination of PW3, by the prosecution, did not yield any result in bringing incriminating material against the accused. Thus, 5 the evidence of PW3, in my humble opinion, is not useful to the case of the prosecution except to say that Bhimeswara Rao was killed in the accident. It is the say of another alleged eye witness, testified as

PW8-M.Yedukondalu, that the deceased-Bhimeswara Rao is his uncle and a resident of Rompimarla Village, Madhira Mandal of Khammam

District, who died in an accident that took place on 26-5-10 hit by a car at Kondapalli area. He added that at the time of accident, he came to Kondapalli to distribute the wedding cards of his brother; and that while he was at the bus stop his uncle Bhimeswara Rao was proceeding towards Yedukondalu from Ibrahimpatnam side; at that time, a car which proceeding from Yerrakatta area towards

Ibrahimpatnam in speed, dashed the cycle of his uncle and his uncle was shifted to Help Hospital and as the car which caused the accident did not stop there, he could not see its driver. It is clear from the evidence of PW8 that he is a resident of Khammam district; and that he allegedly came to Ibrahimpatnam for the distribution of wedding cards of his brother. Of course, he did not identify the accused herein as the driver of the car which allegedly hit cycle of his uncle-Bhimeswara Rao. Since this witness-PW8 is not a resident of area where the accident allegedly took place and as he is a resident of a far off place, Khammam, his presence at the scene of offence and witnessing the accident may not be believed for the simple reason that it is not the claim of the other witnesses like PW2 and PW7 that they came to know about the accident through him. If really, PW8 being a close relative of the deceased-Bhimeswara Rao witnessed the accident, he would have informed about the same to the kith and kin of the deceased at least on phone. Of course, it is not the claim of this witness-PW8 that he informed about the accident to the wife and the children of the deceased either personally or phone. On the other hand, it is the say of PW2 that she came to know about the accident to her husband through

A.Prabhakar-PW3. Thus, much weight cannot be attached to the evidence of PW8, a close relative of the deceased and the resident of far off place.

6

16.G.Someswara Rao, examined as PW4, is one of the inquestdars under Ex.P4. On oath, it is the say of PW4 that he was present when the Ibrahimpatnam police held inquest over the dead body of Bhimeswara Rao in the premises of Government General

Hospital under Ex.P4. He added that the inquestdars opined

Bhimeswara Rao died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The evidence of PW4 would prove that one of the I.Os namely PW11-

Ch.V.Ramana, held inquest over the dead body of Bhimeswara Rao and arrived at a conclusion as to the cause of death of Bhimeswara

Rao is due to injuries sustained in the accident.

17.Dr.P.Rama Krishna of Help Hospitals, examined as PW6, initially treated Bhimeswara Rao on 26-5-10. The doctor noted the injuries found on the person of the said Bhimeswara Rao in Ex.P6 wound certificate and opined that the injuries found on C.T Scan is grievous in nature. PW1-Dr.G.Sivarami Reddy, Professor, Dept. of

Forensic Medicine, Siddhartha Medical College, held autopsy over the dead body of Bhimeswara Rao on 29-6-10. He is the author of

Ex.P1 P.M report. The doctor, noted as many as, 8 ante mortem injuries on the person of Bhimeswara Rao. As per the undisputed evidence of PW1 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1 the cause of death of Bhimeswara Rao is due to multiple injuries and its complications. As noticed herein before, there is enough evidence on record to say apart from the evidence of PW1 that T.Bhimeswara

Rao was killed due to injuries sustained in the accident.

18.N.U.N.S Srinivas, testified as PW5, is the M.V.I. He is the author of Ex.P5. On oath, it is the say of PW5 that at the instance of

S.H.O, Ibrahimpatnam, he inspected the car bearing No.AP 16 TPTR 2544 in the premises of police station, found no damages and issued

Ex.P5, opining that the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects.

19.PW9-K.MurahariRao,PW10-G.Joseph,PW11-

Ch.V.Ramana and PW12-K.Vamsi Krishna are all the I.Os. It is the say of PW9 that on receipt of hospital intimation of Help Hospitals, 7 proceeded there and recorded the statement of PW2 and forwarded the same to the Ibrahimpatnam Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. While, it is the say of PW10 that on receipt of hospital intimation and the statement of PW2, registered a case against the driver of the car, for the offence U/sec.337 IPC, issued FIRs to all the concerned, recorded the statements of PW1, observed the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P9 rough sketch. It is the say of PW11-

Ch.V.Ramana, another I.O, that on receipt of death intimation from

Manipal Super Speciality Hospital, Vijayawada, on 19-6-10, he altered the section of law from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC, issued Ex.P11 altered memo, held inquest over the dead body of Bhimeswara Rao in the presence of inquestdars, while it is the say of PW12, another

I.O, that he arrested the accused on 3-12-10 when he surrendered

before him and his successor D.K.N Mohan Reddy, filed charge

sheet.

20.As discussed herein before, though there is enough evidence on record to say that T.Bhimeswara Rao was killed due to injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 26-5-10, absolutely, there is no evidence much less worth acceptable to say that the accused herein being the driver of the car bearing No.AP 16

TPTR 2544, drove the same in a rash or negligent manner, caused the accident, resulting the death of T.Bhimeswara Rao. In the absence of such evidence which is essential to constitute the offence u/sec.304-A IPC, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged. Accordingly, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

The points, are accordingly answered.

21.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.304-A IPC, Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Sureties are discharged.

Dictated to P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of

December, 2013.

8

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution:Defence: PW1: Dr.G.Sivarami Reddy -None- PW2: T.Pushpavathi PW3: A.Prabhakar PW4: G.Someswara Rao PW5: N.U.N.S Srinivas PW6: Dr.P.Rama Krishna PW7: T.Siva Sankar PW8: M.Yedukondalu PW9: K.Murahari Rao PW10: G.Joseph PW11: Ch.V.Ramana PW12: K.Vamsi Krishna

Documents marked for Prosecution:Defence: Ex.P1: P.M Report -Nil- Ex.P2: Statement of PW2 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4: Inquest Report Ex.P5: M.V.I Report Ex.P6: Wound Certificate Ex.P7: Hospital Intimation Ex.P8: F.I.R Ex.P9: Rough Sketch Ex.P10: Death Intimation Ex.P11: Altered Memo

III Addl.C.M.M., Vijayawada.

9

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE: VIJAYAWADA.

DATE OF

OffenceTaken on Apprehen-Released Commen- Close of Sentence Filesion of on bailcement trialor accusedof trialOrder 26-5-1031-12-103-12-103-12-1028-8-1217-12-1317-12-13

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY: This Case was taken on file on 31-12-

10. Accused was appeared on 26-7-11. The accused was examined u/sec. 251 Cr.P.C on 10-4-12 with regard to the accusation made against him in the charge sheet for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried. PW1 was examined on 28-8-12, PW2 was examined on 7-11-12, PW3 was examined on 21-12-12, PW4 and PW5 were examined on 6-2-13, PW6 and PW7 were examined on 3- 4-13, PW8 was examined on 29-4-13, PW9 and PW10 were examined on 5-6-13, PW11 was examined on 18-6-13 and PW12 was examined on 13-12-13. Accused is examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C on 17-12-13. Heard the arguments on 17-12-13. Judgment pronounced on 17-12-

13. For some adjournments accused was called absent. Hence delay.

CALENDAR CASE NO.870-2010 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: VIJAYAWADA.

Complainant:The State, Sub Inspector of Police, L & O, Ibrahimpatnam P.S, Vijayawada City.

Description of the Yarlagadda Sahitya, S/o. Gopala Rao, 20 years, Accused:Kamma, D.No.3-14, near Brilliants Convent, Kondapalli – Driver of Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 16 TPTR 2544

Offence :Causing Death by negligent driving

Section of Law :304-A IPC

Finding:Accused found NOT GUILTY

Result:In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.304-A IPC, Sec.134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Sureties are discharged.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

10

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV-ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present: SRI K. SIVA RAMAKRISHNA B.Com., B.L.,

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 13th day of December, 2013

CALENDER CASE No. 409 of 2013

Between:-

Ganugapenta Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Pitchireddy, Age 41 years, R/o. 77-33-23, Shanthinagar, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada.… Complainant

AND

Goddalla Nancharaiah, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Age 53 years, R/o. Laku Road, Kankipadu, Krishna District…Accused

This case was coming on 12-12-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Sudhakar, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri P.

Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following : -

J U D G M E N T

The complainant filed this compliant to prosecute the accused for the offences under sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from him on 31.12.2009 for his family necessities and executed a pronote (Ex.P.6) in his favour on the even date by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% P.A either to him or his order on demand. On 15.09.2011 he has issued a cheque (Ex.P.1) bearing No. 002049 for Rs.50,000/- to be drawn from his account maintained in Corporation Bank, Kankipadu

Branch towards part payment of the debt due to him under the pronote (Ex.P.6). He presented the cheque (Ex.P.1) in his account maintained in

Andhra Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Vijayawada for collection and the said cheque was returned un-paid with an endorsement that “Funds 2

Insufficient” and the same was informed to him by his bankers with a memo Ex.P.2 dt: 21.09.2011 and that on 30.09.2011 he got issued a lawyer notice to the accused by way of registered post demanding for payment of the amount within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The lawyer notice was returned to him on 03.10.2011 with an endorsement that intimated and not claimed. The accused did not choose to receive lawyer notice and to pay cheque amount and that the accused is liable to be punished for dishonour of the cheque issued by him due to insufficient of funds in his account.

02. The accused appeared before the Court and he was furnished with copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and he denied the case of the complaint U/Sec. 138 R/w.142 of N.I. Act and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

03. During the course of trial, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked on behalf of the complainant. On the closure of the complainant side evidence the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of complainant P.W.1. He denied the same. No witnesses are examined and Ex.D.1 was marked on his behalf.

04.The complainant was examined as P.W.1. Cheque, memo issued for return of cheque, office copy of the lawyer notice, Postal Receipt,

Returned Registered postal cover and Promissory Note were marked as

Exs.P.1 to P.6.

Stamped receipt cum acknowledgment issued by P.W.1 was marked as Ex.D.1.

05.Now the point for determination is:- 3

Whether the complainant proved and established that cheque Ex.P.1 in question was issued by accused to discharge of legally enforceable debt due to him and the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in his bank account and whether the accused is liable to be punished for the offence

U/sec.138 R/w.142 of N.I. Act?

As per the evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of Exs.P.1, P.2 and

P.6, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from him on 31.12.2009 for his family necessities and executed a pronote (Ex.P.6) in his favour on the even date by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% P.A either to him or his order on demand. On 15-09-2011 he has issued a cheque (Ex.P.1) bearing No. 002049 for Rs.50,000/- to be drawn from his account maintained in Corporation Bank, Kankipadu Branch towards part payment of the debt due to him under the pronote (Ex.P.6).

He presented the cheque (Ex.P.1) in his account maintained in Andhra

Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Vijayawada for collection and the said cheque was returned un-paid with an endorsement that “Funds

Insufficient” and the same was informed to him by his bankers with a memo Ex.P.2 dt: 21.09.2011.

Further as per the evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of Ex.P.3 to

P.5, on 30.09.2011 he got issued a lawyer notice to the accused by way of registered post demanding for payment of the amount within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The lawyer notice was returned to him on 03.10.2011 with an endorsement that intimated and not claimed. The accused did not choose to receive lawyer notice and to pay cheque amount.

06. The accused contented that no notice was served to him as contemplated U/Sec. 138 (b) of N.I. Act and that he is not liable to be prosecuted for the offences U/sec. 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act.

4

07.According to Section 138 (b) of N.I. Act it is obligatory that notice in writing should be given to the drawyer of the cheque within 30 days of receipt of information by the payee or holder in due course as the case may be from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. No particular form of notice is prescribed under proviso (b) of section 138 of N.I. Act. Unless notice is served or deemed to have been served, no cause of action will arise. Unless a notice in writing is received by the drawyer of a cheque the offence would not be constituted. Receipt of notice is absolutely necessary as a pre-condition for constituting such an offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. Very significantly it does not say that it should be sent by registered post or that it should be served by post. When a notice was sent by registered post and address on notice was given correctly and the said notice was returned with endorsement that intimated and not claimed by the addressee, notice would be deemed to be duly served.

The evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of Exs.P.3 to P.5 emphatically reveal that P.W.1 got issued a lawyer notice to the accused within 30 days of receipt of intimation by the banker regarding the return of cheque as un-paid, by way of registered post and the notice sent by way of registered post was returned with an endorsement as intimated and not claimed. In manner of that it is presumed that the notice was duly served to the accused in due course of time and it is not reasonable and sensible to consider the contentions of the accused that no notice was served to him without proving that he is not residing in the given address and the endorsement made on the returned postal cover is false and as such his contentions are liable to be discarded.

08.The accused further contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable under law and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5

The evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of Exs.P.1, P.2 and P.6 divulged that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from

P.W.1 under the pronote Ex.P.6 for his family necessities and agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24 % P.A. either to him or his order on demand and later the accused issued a cheque

Ex.P.1 for Rs.50,000/- to be drawn from his bank account towards part payment of the debt due to him under the pronote executed by him and he presented the said in his bank account for collection and the said cheque was returned unpaid with a memo with an endorsement that funds insufficient and he filed this complaint to prosecute him after issuing the statutory notice and that it is not reasonable and justifiable to consider the contentions of the accused that the complaint filed by the complainant against him is not maintainable under law and the same is liable to be dismissed.

09.Further the accused asserted that he tendered and paid

Rs.20,000/- towards full and final settlement of the amount due to the complainant under the cheque and also under the pronote subsequent to issuance of notice and filing of this case.

P.W.1 has acknowledged and conceded in the cross examination that he received Rs.20,000/- from the accused towards full and final settlement of the amount due to him under the cheque and also pronote subsequent issuance of the notice and filing of the complaint.

Under law when a person after receiving notice on dishonour of cheque issued by him, has tender the amount payable by him, he must be deemed to have discharge his obligation and the creditor is bound to accept the tender. Once the complainant agrees to receive the amount towards the liability of the accused during the pendency of the complaint, it amounts to conclude and settle the offence and that the accused could not be said to be guilty of non-payment of the amount.

6

The accused tender the amount payable by him and the complainant agreed to collect the amount towards the liability of the accused during the pendency of the case and he received the amount from the accused towards full and final settlement of the sum due to him under the cheque and also under the pronote and that it amounts to conclude and settle the offence and as such the accused is liable to be acquitted.

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

Sec.138 R/w.142 of N.I. Act and he is acquitted under Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of December, 2013.)

Sd/- K. Siva Ramakrishna,

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Complainant For Defence.

P.W.1: G. Srinivasa ReddyNIL

Documents marked

For Complainant:-

Ex.P.1: Cheque Dt: 15-09-2011 Ex.P.2: Cheque Returned Memo Dt: 21.09.2011 Ex.P.3: Office Copy of Registered legal notice dt: 30.09.2011 Ex.P.4: Postal Receipt Dt: 30.09.2011 Ex.P.5: Returned Registered Notice dt: 03.10.2011 Ex.P.6: Promissory Note dt: 31.12.2009

For Defence:-

Ex.D.1: Stamped Receipt Cum Acknowledge issued by P.W.1.

Sd/- K. Siva Ramakrishna,

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. // TRUE COPY //

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada.

7 8

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL, CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

CALENDER CASE NO: 409 / 2013

Date of:

1. Offence: 21.09.2011

2. Complaint : 28-10-2011

3. Apprehension of accused : 03.01.2012

4. Commencement of trial : 12.12.2013

5. Closure of Trial : 12-12.2013

6. Judgment : 13.12.2013

07. Name of the complainant :

Ganugapenta Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Pithireddy, Age 41 years, R/o. 77-33- 23, Shanthinagar, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada.

8. Name of the accused :

Goddalla Nancharaiah, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Age 53 years, R/o. Laku Road, Kankipadu, Krishna District.

9. Offence : Under Sec. 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act

10. Finding : Found not guilty

11. Result: The accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act and he is acquitted U/Sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C.

12. Explanation for delay : This case was originally taken on file on the file of I ACMM Court, Vijayawada on 12.12.2011. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused on03.01.2012. The case transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in Dis. No. 1145/12.03.2013 and assigned a new number as C.C. No. 409/2013 and on 31.10.2013 the accused was examined U/sec., 251 Cr.P.C. and the trial was commenced on 12.12.2013, PW.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 and Ex.D.1 were marked and the complainant’s side evidence was closed on the same day. On 12.12.2013 the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of complainant and he denied the same and reported no evidence for his defence and heard the arguments on both sides on 12.12.2013 and judgment pronounced on 13.12.2013. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- K. Siva Ramakrishna,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada. Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. // TRUE COPY //

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV-ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present: SRI K. SIVA RAMAKRISHNA, B.Com., B.L.,

IV- Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

Tuesday, this the 17th day of December, 2013

CALENDER CASE No. 621 of 2013

Between:-

The State:- Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station,

Vijayawada City. ...Complainant

(Cr. No. 523/ 2013)

AND

Nali Sivaiah, S/o. Sambaiah, Age 22 years, R/o. Cherukuru Village, Parchuru Mandal, Prakasam District.…Accused

This case was coming on 13-12-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of the prosecution for complainant; and of Smt. G. Malathi,

Advocate for accused under legal aid and 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, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station laid charge-sheet against the accused in his station Cr. No. 523/2013 for the offence U/Sec. 411 IPC.

02.The accused was produced before the Court and he was furnished with copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. and he denied the prosecution case and that a charge U/Sec. 411 IPC against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

03.During the course of the trial P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.04 and M.Os-1 to 60 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On the closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.

2 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he admitted the same and pleaded for mercy and also got filed a memo for the same. No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

04The defacto-complainant, mediator and investigation officer were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3. The complaint given by the defacto complainant,

F.I.R., Rough Sketch and Mahazar were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.04. Sixty

Iron rod pieces were marked as M.Os-1 to 60.

05.The gist of the prosecution case is as follows:-

P.W.1 is working as a Supervisor in Toll Plaza situated at Keesar

Village. Prior to 16.10.2013 some unknown offenders flattened the cement slabs laid on a Canal situated at NH-9 Road, near Mulapadu village and committed theft of Iron rods rested in the said cement slabs. On 16.10.2013 at 5.30 AM P.W.1 noticed the same and went to

Ibrahimpatnam Police station and gave complaint Ex.P.1 to the SI of Police

P.W.2. He registered the complaint Ex.P.1 in his station Cr. No. 523/2013 for the offence U/Sec. 379 IPC and submitted copies of FIR Ex.P.2 to all concerned. He examined P.W.1 and other witnesses (L.Ws.2 to 4) and recorded their statements under 161 Cr.P.C., He visited the scene of offence situated at NH-9 Road, near Mulapadu village and prepared rough

Sketch Ex.P.3 for the scene. On 18.10.2013 at 9.00 AM on reliable information he along with his staff P.W.3 and other mediator (L.W.7) proceeded towards Ring Centre, Ibrahimpatnam and when they reached near the Bus Stop situated at Ring Centre, Ibrahimpatnam, the accused on seeing them tried to run away along with a plastic gunny bag which was in his possession. P.W.2 on suspicion chased him, along with his staff and caught hold of him and interrogated him in the presence of P.W.3 and other mediator. The accused during the course of interrogation confessed 3 that he was in possession of iron rods which are stolen on flattening the slabs and that he apprehended the accused and seized the said iron rods

M.Os-1 to 60 from his possession in the presence of P.W.3 and other mediator and drafted mahazar Ex.P.4 for the same. He sent the accused to the court for judicial remand. He, after completion of investigation laid the charge sheet against the accused. The accused is liable to be punished for the offence U/Sec. 411 IPC.

06.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section 411 IPC?

The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and the contents of complaint Ex.P.1 positively reveal that, prior to 16.10.2013 some unknown offenders flattened the cement slabs laid on a Canal situated at NH-9 Road, near

Mulapadu village and committed theft of Iron rods rested in the said cement slabs. On 16.10.2013 at 5.30 AM P.W.1 who working as a

Supervisor in Toll Plaza, Keesara Village and noticed the same and gave complaint Ex.P.1 to the SI of Police P.W.2. He registered the complaint

Ex.P.1 and investigated into. He during the course of investigation, examined P.W.1 and other witnesses and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough Sketch Ex.P.3 for the scene. Later P.W.1 was informed by the police that they recovered 60 iron rod pieces M.Os- 1 to 60 which are stolen from the slabs laid on the said canal and he has identified for the same.

In consequences of this the sixty iron rod pieces M.Os-1 to 60 are rested in the slabs laid on the canal situated at NH-9 Road, near Mulapadu village and the same were committed theft on flattening the slabs and the said iron rod pieces were recovered and informed to P.W.1 and he has identified M.Os- 1 to 60.

4

07.Further the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and the contents of Mahazar

Ex.P.4 consistently reveal that, on 18.10.2013 at 9.00 AM on reliable information P.W.2 along with his staff, P.W.3 and other mediator proceeded towards Ring Centre, Ibrahimpatnam and when they reached near the Bus Stop situated at Ring Centre, Ibrahimpatnam, the accused on seeing them tried to run away along with a plastic gunny bag which was in his possession. P.W.2 on suspicion chased him, along with his staff and caught hold of him and interrogated him in the presence of P.W.3 and other mediator. The accused during the course of interrogation confessed that he was in possession of iron rods which are stolen on flattening the cement slabs and that he apprehended the accused and seized the said iron rods M.Os-1 to 60 from his possession in the presence of P.W.3 and other mediator and drafted mahazar Ex.P.4 for the same. He sent the accused to the court for judicial remand.

The accused got filed a memo and admitted the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3.

In order that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the contents of

Mahazar Ex.P.4 divulged that iron rod pieces M.Os-1 to 60 which are committed theft on flattening the slabs are seized from the possession of the accused by P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.3 and other mediator under cover of mahazar Ex.P.4 and that the prosecution proved that the iron rod pieces M.Os-1 to 60 were seized from the possession of the accused.

Further the accused filed a memo and admitted the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3.

08.In view of all these reasons, I feel that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the contents of Ex.P.1 to P.4 positively divulged that the iron rods

M.Os-1 to 60 are rested in the cement slabs laid on the canal situated at

NH-9 Road, near Mulapadu Village and the said iron rod pieces are 5 committed theft on flattening the cement slabs and the said iron rod pieces M.Os- 1 to 60 were seized from the possession of the accused by

P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.3 and other mediator under cover of Mahazar

Ex.P.4 and the accused got filed a memo and admitted the evidence of

P.W.2 and P.W.3 and that the prosecution proved and established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec. 411 IPC and that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence U/Sec. 411

IPC.

09.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charge U/Sec. 411

IPC framed against him and he is convicted U/Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C.

(Typed my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of December, 2013).

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

10.When questioned about the quantum of the sentence u/sec. 248(2)

Cr.P.C. the accused has stated that his aged parents and other family members are depending upon him for their lively hood and he has committed the offence without knowing the consequences and he is a coolie by profession and he is maintaining his parents and other family members on attending coolie works and they are none to look after them and pleaded for mercy.

11.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the plea of accused, I feel that the accused is not entitled for the benefits of the provisions either under section 360 Cr.P.C., or under

Probation of Offenders Act and that I sentenced the accused to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three months for the offence U/Sec.

411 IPC.

6

12.The period of remand undergone by the accused as an under trial prisoner i.e., from 18-10-2013 to this day i.e., 17-12-2013 shall be set off

U/Sec. 428 Cr.P.C.

13.The orders passed for return of sixty iron rod pieces i.e. M.Os- 1 to 60 to P.W.1 in Crl.M.P. No. 7013/2013, dt: 10.12.2013 are hold good.

(Typed my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th December, 2013).

Sd/- K. Siva Ramakrishna,

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

P.W.1: D. Vijaya Krishna -None- P.W.2: R. Sankara Rao P.W.3: B. Venkateswara Rao Documents marked For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

Ex.P.1: Report given by Pw.1 NIL Ex.P.2: FIR Ex.P.3: Rough Sketch Ex.P.4: Mahazar Material Objects Marked

M.Os- 1 to 60: Iron Rod Pieces

Sd/- K. Siva Ramakrishna,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada.

// True Copy //

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

7

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL, CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA

CALENDER CASE NO: 621 / 2013

Date of:

1. Offence : prior to 16.10.2013

2. Complaint : 16.10.2013

3. Apprehension of accused : 18.10.2013

4. Commencement of trial: 10.12.2013

5. Closure of Trial : 13.12.2013

6. Judgment : 17-12-2013

07. Name of the complainant : SI of Police, Ibrahimpatnam P.S. Vijayawada City

8. Name of the accused :

Nali Sivaiah, S/o. Sambaiah, Age 22 years, R/o. Cherukuru Village, Parchuru Mandal, Prakasam District

9. Offence : Under Sec. 411 IPC

10. Finding : Found Guilty

11. Result : In the result the accused is found guilty for the charge U/Sec. 411 IPC framed against him and he is convicted U/Sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C., and to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three months for the offence U/Sec. 411 IPC. The period of remand undergone by the accused as an under trial prisoner i.e., from 18- 10-2013 to this day i.e., 17-12-2013 shall be set off U/Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. The orders passed for return of sixty iron rod pieces i.e. M.Os- 1 to 60 to P.W.1 in Crl.M.P. No. 7013/2013, dt: 10.12.2013 are hold good.

12. Explanation for delay :The case was taken on file on 29.10.2013. Copies of all documents are furnished to the accused on 31.10.2013. The accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., on 11.11.2013. The Prosecution evidence is started on 10.12.2013 and the evidence closed on 13-12-2013 and on 13-12-2013 the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Heard the arguments on the same day. Judgment was pronounced on 17-12-2013. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- K. Siva Ramakrishna,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada. Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. // True Copy //

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV-ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present: SRI K. SIVA RAMAKRISHNA, B.Com., B.L.,

IV- Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

Tuesday, this the 17th day of December, 2013

CALENDER CASE No. 749 of 2013

Between:-

The State:- Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station,

Vijayawada City. ...Complainant

(Cr. No. 580/ 2013)

AND

Madhavarapu Arun Kumar, S/o. Yesobu, Age 38 years, R/o. Sakthinagar, Ibrahimpatnam.…Accused

This case was coming on 13-12-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of the prosecution for complainant; and of Smt. G. Malathi,

Advocate for accused under legal aid and 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, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station laid charge-sheet against the accused in his station Cr. No. 580/2013 for the offence U/Sec. 379 IPC.

02.The accused was produced before the Court and he was furnished with copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. and he denied the prosecution case and that a charge U/Sec. 379 IPC against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

03.During the course of the trial P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.03 and M.Os-1 to 12 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On the closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.

2 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he admitted the same and pleaded for mercy and also got filed a memo for the same. No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

04The defacto-complainant, eye witness and investigation officer were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3. The complaint given by the defacto complainant,

F.I.R., and Rough Sketch were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.03. Twelve Iron rod pieces were marked as M.Os-1 to 12.

05.The gist of the prosecution case is as follows:-

P.W.1 is the Assistant Security Officer and P.W.2 Security Guard in

Andhra Pradesh Heavy Machinery and Engineering Company Limited,

Kondapalli. On 13.11.2013 at 6.00 PM the accused entered into the premises of the company and committed theft of iron rods and kept the same in a plastic bag and tried to escape with plunder. P.W.2 on seeing the same caught hold of him red handedly and informed to P.W.1. He immediately came to the scene of offence. He along with P.W.2 brought the accused and twelve iron rods M.Os- 1 to 12 which are committed theft by him to the Ibrahimpatnam Police station and handed over to the SHO

P.W.3. P.W.1 gave complaint against the accused for the same. P.W.3 registered the complaint Ex.P.1 in his station Cr. No. 580/2013 for the offence U/Sec. 379 IPC and submitted copies of FIR Ex.P.2 to all concerned.

He examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and other witnesses (L.Ws.3 and 4) and recorded their statements under 161 Cr.P.C., He apprehended the accused and seized twelve iron rods from his possession and sent him to the court for judicial remand. He visited the scene of offence situated at the premises of Andhra Pradesh Heavy Machinery and Engineering Company

Limited and prepared rough Sketch Ex.P.3 for the scene. His SI of Police, after completion of investigation laid the charge sheet against the 3 accused. The accused is liable to be punished for the offence U/Sec. 379

IPC.

06.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section 379 IPC?

The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and the contents of complaint Ex.P.1 positively reveal that, on 13.11.2013 at 6.00 PM the accused entered into the premises of the company and committed theft of iron rods and kept the same in a plastic bag and tried to escape with plunder. The security guard P.W.2 on seeing the same caught hold of him red handedly and informed to his Assistant Security Officer P.W.1. He immediately came to the scene of offence. He along with P.W.2 brought the accused and twelve iron rods M.Os- 1 to 12 which are committed theft by him to the

Ibrahimpatnam Police station and handed over to the SHO P.W.3. P.W.1 gave complaint against the accused for the same.

07.Further the evidence of P.W.3 and the contents of Ex.P.2 and P.3 positively reveal that, 13.11.2013 at 7.00 PM, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to the

Police station and handed over the accused and iron rods M.Os-1 to 12 which are committed theft by him in the premises of the company, to him and P.W.1 gave complaint Ex.P.1 against the accused for the same. He registered the complaint Ex.P.1 in his station Cr. No. 580/2013 for the offence U/Sec. 379 IPC and investigated into. He during the course of investigation, examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He apprehended the accused and seized twelve iron rods from his possession and sent him to the court for judicial remand. He visited the scene of offence situated at the premises of Andhra Pradesh

Heavy Machinery and Engineering Company Limited and prepared rough

Sketch Ex.P.3 for the scene.

4

The accused got filed a memo and admitted the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3.

In order that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the contents of Ex.P.1 positively reveal that the accused entered into the premises of Andhra

Pradesh Heavy Machinery and Engineering Company Limited and committed theft of iron rods M.Os-1 to 12 and tried to escape along with plunder and P.W.2 on seeing the same caught hold of him red handedly and that the prosecution proved that the accused committed theft of iron rods M.Os-1 to 12 from the premises of the company and tried to escape with plunder and P.W.2 caught hold of him red handedly and handed over to P.W.3 and the iron rods which are committed theft by him. Further the accused filed a memo and admitted the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3.

08.In view of all these reasons, I feel that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the contents of Ex.P.1 to P.3 positively divulged that the accused entered into the premises of Andhra Pradesh Heavy Machinery and

Engineering Company Limited and committed theft of iron rods M.Os-1 to 12 and P.W.2 caught hold of him red handedly while he was trying to escape along with plunder and handed over to P.W.3 and he apprehended the accused and seized twelve iron rods M.Os-1 to 12 and the accused got filed a memo and admitted the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and that the prosecution proved and established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec. 379 IPC and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence U/Sec. 379 IPC.

09.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charge U/Sec. 379

IPC framed against him and he is convicted U/Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C.

(Typed my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of December, 2013).

Sd/- K. Siva Ramakrishna,

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada 5

10.When questioned about the quantum of the sentence u/sec. 248(2)

Cr.P.C. the accused has stated that his aged parents, wife and children and other family members are depending upon him for their lively hood and he has committed the offence without knowing the consequences and he is a mason by profession and he is maintaining his parents, wife and children and other family members on attending mason works and they are none to look after them and pleaded for mercy.

11.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the plea of accused, I feel that the accused is not entitled for the benefits of the provisions either under section 360 Cr.P.C., or under

Probation of Offenders Act and that I sentenced the accused to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three months for the offence U/Sec.

379 IPC.

12.The period of remand undergone by the accused as an under trial prisoner i.e., from 14-11-2013 to this day i.e., 17-12-2013 shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

13.The orders passed for return of 12 iron rods i.e. M.Os- 1 to 12 to

P.W.1 in Crl.M.P. No. 7106/2013, dt: 13.12.2013 are hold good.

(Typed my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th December, 2013).

Sd/- K. Siva Ramakrishna,

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution:- For Defence:- P.W.1: Ch. Sambasiva Rao- None- P.W.2: B. Venkateswara Rao P.W.3: V. Venkateswara Rao Documents marked For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

Ex.P1: Report given by Pw.1 NIL Ex.P.2: F.I.R., 6

Ex.P.3: Rough Sketch Material Objects Marked

M.Os-1 to 12: Iron Rods

Sd/- K. Siva Ramakrishna,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada. // True Copy //

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

7

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL, CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA

CALENDER CASE NO: 749 / 2013

Date of:

1. Offence : 13.11.2013

2. Complaint : 13.11.2013

3. Apprehension of accused : 13.11.2013

4. Commencement of trial: 13-12-2013

5. Closure of Trial : 13-12-2013

6. Judgment : 17-12-2013

07. Name of the complainant : SI of Police, Ibrahimpatnam P.S. Vijayawada City

8. Name of the accused :

Madhavarapu Arun Kumar, S/o. Yesobu, Age 38 years, R/o. Sakthinagar, Ibrahimpatnam.

9. Offence : Under Sec. 379 IPC

10. Finding : Found Guilty

11. Result : In the result the accused is found guilty for the charge U/Sec. 379 IPC framed against him and he is convicted U/Sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced the accused to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three months for the offence U/Sec. 379 IPC. The period of remand undergone by the accused as an under trial prisoner i.e., from 14-11-2013 to this day i.e., 17-12-2013 shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The orders passed for return of 12 iron rods i.e. M.Os- 1 to 12 to P.W.1 in Crl.M.P. No. 7106/2013, dt: 13.12.2013 are hold good..

12. Explanation for delay :The case was taken on file on 30.11.2013. Copies of all documents are furnished to the accused on 11- 12-2013. The accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., on 11-12-2013. The Prosecution evidence is started on 13.12.2013 and the evidence is closed on 13-12-2013 and on the same day accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Heard the arguments on 13.12.2013. Judgment was pronounced on 17-12-2013. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- K. Siva Ramakrishna,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada. Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

// True Copy //

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE– CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: Ms.D.Lakshmi,

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 27th day of November, 2014

C.C.No.927/2013

Between:

The Sub Inspector of Police, S.N.Puram Police Station, Vijayawada City.

..Complainant .

And

A-1 Tirumala Raju Sureshbabu, S/o.Venkateswara Raju, Aged:29 Years.

A-2 Tirumala Venkateswara Raju, S/o.Ramachandraraju, Aged:50 Years.

A-3 Tirumala Vasantha Rani, W/o.Venkateswara Raju, Aged:45 Years.

A-4 Tirumala Sai Durga Bhavani, D/o.Venkateswara Raju, Aged:19 Years.

(A1 to A4 are belongs to Suryavamsapu RAjulu by caste and residents of Teachers Colony, D.No.2-10-5-84, IInd Line, Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada.)

.. Accused Nos.1 to 4.

This case coming on for final hearing before me for consideration today after hearing both sides on 27-11-2014 in the presence of Sri S.Srinivasu, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri C.Sreepathi Rao, Advocate for Accused and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Police

Station laid charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under

Section 498-A IPC.

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

It is the case of prosecution that L.W.1 Tirumala Devi is resident of D.No.16-3-3, Kowtha Subbaiah Veedi, Purnanandapet,

Vijayawada and the marriage of L.W.1 was solemnized with A-1 on 15.02.2013 in the presence of both side elders and at the time of marriage her parents presented Rs.4,00,000/- towards dowry,

Rs.32,000/- sister-in-law and 1 ½ gold ornaments to A-1 and spend

Rs.6,00,000/- for marriage expenditure and also offered what they demanded. Immediately after marriage she joined her husband to lead 2 conjugal life with her in laws house and since then her husband with the active support of her parents in-law i.e., A-2 to A-4 subjected her to cruelty and harassment both mentally and physically and demanded

additional dowry from her parents and also demanded for a car and A-2

to A-4 did not allow her to share bed with her husband and on 13.05.2013 evening at 18.00 hrs., she along with her elders went to her in-laws house to conduct conciliatory talks with her husband and in-laws but they did not allow them inside their house her in-laws shouted at her by saying who asked accused to come and then shut the doors on their face and during the time her husband was not at home. Due to unbearable harassment of A-1 to A-4 L.W.1 reported the matter and in turn L.W.8 S.I. registered the same as F.I.R in Cr.No.400/2013 under

Section 498-A IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation L.W.8 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and arrested Accused No.1 on 16-05-2013 and A-2 to A-4 were surrendered on 24-05-2013 and released on bail after accepting sureties. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against

A-1 to A-4. Hence, the charge.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable u/sections 498-A IPC.

4. On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 4, copies of the documents have been furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Accused Nos.1 to 4 are examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C stating the accusation for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution in all examined

P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-3 are marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence in the evidence of prosecution witnesses Section 313 (b) of Cr.P.C. examination is dispensed with.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3

8.Now the point of determination is that:

Whether the accused Nos.1 to 4 harassed P.W.1 both mentally and physically by subjecting her cruelty and thereby he is liable for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC?

9.POINT:P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant/victim and she deposed that in the year 2013 due to some disputes with her husband in-laws and sister-in-law i.e., A-1 to A-4, she went to Police Station to complain the same and by that time Police obtained her signature on blank paper, but she do not know what police have scribed on the blank paper. She further deposed that both of them took divorce by way of mutual consent on the file of Hon'ble Family Court, Vijayawada and she received Rs.9 lakh towards permanent alimony and the matter was settled outside of the Court. She further deposed that she has no objection to acquit the Accused nos.1 to 4 in this case. So, in view of the evidence of P.W.1, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State has given up the evidence of other material witnesses available on record.

10.On perusal of evidence of P.W.1, she did not depose anything against the accused with regard to alleged harassment meted out in the hands of the accused Nos.1 to 4. Since, P.W.1 turned hostile and go bye her case, it seems to be absolutely no positive evidence revealed to base conviction against the accused. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I hold that prosecution utterly failed to prove the case against Accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

11.IN THE RESULT, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty and they are acquitted u/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C of the offence punishable u/section 498-A IPC. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall continue till disposal of appeal.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 27th day of November, 2014.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: ACCUSED:

P.W.1 : T.Devi. -NONE-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on report.

Ex.P2 : Report of P.W.1.

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil -

II ACMM,

VJA.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

C.C.No.927/2013

DATES OF:

1. Offence (prior to): 14-05-2013.

2. Complaint: 14-05-2013.

3. Apprehension of Accused : 16-04-2013 (A1) 24-05-2013 (A2 to A4)

4. Commencement of Trail: 27-11-2014.

5. Close of Trail: 27-11-2014.

6. Judgment: 27-11-2014.

7.Complainant :The Sub Inspector of Police S.N.Puram P.s., Vijayawada City.

8.Name of the Accused :A-1 Tirumala Raju Sureshbabu, S/o.Venkateswara Raju, Aged:29 Years. A-2 Tirumala Venkateswara Raju, S/o.Ramachandraraju,Aged:50 Years. A-3 Tirumala Vasantha Rani, W/o.Venkateswara Raju, Aged:45 Years. A-4 Tirumala Sai Durga Bhavani, D/o.Venkateswara Raju, Aged:19 Years. (A1 to A4 are belongs to Suryava- msapu RAjulu by caste and residents of Teachers Colony, D.No.2-10-5-84, IInd Line, Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada.)

9. Offence: Under Sec. 498-A IPC.

10. Plea of Accused.: NOT GUILTY

11. Finding: FOUND NOT GUILTY.

12. Result: Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/section 498-A of IPC and they are acquitted u/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall continue till disposal of appeal time.

13. Explanation for delay : This case is taken on file and posted to 21-08-2013. On 14-07-2013 Accused Nos.1 to 4 are present, copies of documents are furnished. For examination call on 15-07-2014. On 15-07-2014 Accused Nos.1 to 4 are present, they are examined u/section 239 Cr.P.C a charge u/sec.498-A IPC is framed and the contents of charge sheet were read over and explained to them, in Telugu language, for which, they denied the same and claimed to be tried. Issue SS to L.W1 to 3. On A1 to A3 are present, LW1 present and reported that the summons is not served. Issue fresh SS to LW1 to LW3. A-4 absent. Issue N.B.W against A4 till 20-2-2015. On 27-11-2014 Petition filed to advance this case from 20-02-2015 to 27-11-2014 and the same is allowed. Accused is present, P.W.1 is examined, Exs.P-1 to P-3 are marked. The evidence of L.Ws.2 to 8 are given up by the Asst., Public Prosecutor. The prosecution side evidence is closed. As there is no incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses section 313 (b) of Cr.P.C examination is dispensed with. Heard. Judgment was

pronounced on the same day. Hence, the delay.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN,

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.