Sri K. Jayaram Reddy

1 CC 134 OF 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT CHINNOOR

PRESENT: Sri K. Jayaram Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chinnor.

MONDAY THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014

C.C.No. 134 of 2011

Between:-

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Chennur … Complainant

AND

Gummadi Saraiah, S/o Narsaiah Age 25 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Narlapur, Near Mandamarri Railway Station, Mandamarri. …. Accused

This case is coming on 20.3.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mis. Shehana Sulthana, learned A.P.P. for the State- complainant and of Sri P. Mallesham, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Station House Officer of P.S. Chennur has filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC against the sole accused.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that on the intervening night of 26/27.5.2010 the accused entered into the house of complainant (LW-1) Singidi Rajeshwar Reddy as well as the houses of LW-3 /

Godisela Pochi Reddy, LW-5 / Vennapureddy Laxma Reddy, LW-6 / Ratna

Laxma Reddy, LW-7/ Kalakota Shanker and LW-8 / Janga Narsimha Reddy by broke opening the locks of the doors and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments from the house of LW-1 worth of Rs. 1,05,000/-, from the house of

LW-3 worth of Rs. 12000/-, from the house of LW-5 worth of Rs. 3000/-, from the house of LW6 worth of Rs. 18000/-, from the house of LW-7 worth of Rs 3500/- and from the house of LW-8 worth of Rs. 3500/-, total worth of Rs.

1,45,000/-. Hence the report. Basing on the report of LW-1 a case was registered in Cr.No. 96/2010 U/sec. 457, 380 IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation LW-14 / Sub-Inspector of police examined 2 CC 134 OF 2011 and recorded the statement of complainant and visited the scene of offence where he examined the other witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchanama. On 7.11.2010 the accused was arrested and on interrogation he confessed this offence. Basing on his confession LW-16 / Inspector of police recovered the stolen property worth of Rs. 1,20,000/- which are gold and silver ornaments under cover of panchanama. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence under Section 457, 380 IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. with regard to the accusation. He denied the charge sheet allegations. Charge U/sec. 457, 380 IPC was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 7 and Mo-1 to 6 are marked. After closer of prosecution side evidence accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.

He denied the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of the prosecution and reported no defense evidence.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Now the Point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 IPC ?

8. The accused is charged for the offence under section 457, 380 IPC alleging that on 26.5.2010 during night hours he entered into the house of complainant, LW-3 / Godisela Pochi Reddy, LW-5 / Vennapureddy Laxma

Reddy, LW-6 / Ratna Laxma Reddy, LW-7/ Kalakota Shanker and LW-8 / Janga

Narsimha Reddy committed theft of gold and silver ornaments worth of Rs.

1,45,000/-. As stated above, to prove its case the prosecution has examined 3 CC 134 OF 2011 as many as twelve witnesses and got exhibited seven documents.

9. As seen from the oral evidence of prosecution particularly the evidence of PW-10 panch witness for scene of offence and by considering the documentary evidence in the form of Ex.P-3 scene of offence panchanama,

Ex.P-4 rough sketch and Ex.P-5 photos. This court has no hesitation to hold that a theft was occurred in the houses of PW-1 to PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 wherein their gold and silver ornaments were stolen. However there is no dispute regarding the occurrence of theft. The accused also not denied the same. But the crucial point that has to be proved by the prosecution is that the accused herein was committed theft or not. Therefore now from the evidence available on record it has to be seen whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

10. PW-1 is the complainant and victim. PW-2 is the wife of PW-1. PW-3,

PW-5, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-98 are the victims. They deposed that some unknown offenders committed theft of gold and silver ornaments in their houses. As stated above, the PW-1 to PW-3, PW-5, PW-6,PW-8 and PW-9 never deposed any single word about the involvement of the accused in this offence directly. They only deposed that some unknown offenders committed theft. Therefore it can be said that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused to the offence, the prosecution has at least the prove the alleged recovery of stolen property. The case of the prosecution as per PW-12 is that he arrested the accused on 7.11.2010 and basing on his confession, the PW- 12 recovered the stolen property worth of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the house of accused under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW-11 and LW-12 /

Thummala Gopal Reddy. PW-4 is the Sub-Inspector of police deposed about the register of case and examination of witnesses. Therefore on the point of view of alleged recovery as stated by the prosecution, the evidence of PW-11 is crucial. Therefore this court has carefully scrutinized his evidence.

11.According to PW-11 about three years ago, police called him to police station and found that the accused was in police custody. Therefore he further deposed that on his enquiry, the accused stated that due to problems he committed theft. He further deposed that after preparing panchanama, police took himself and LW-12 / Tummala Gopal Reddy to a village near

Peddapalli of Karimnagar District, where police brought some gold ornaments from a house. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is innocent person and that simply called the accused to police station and 4 CC 134 OF 2011 filed a false case, only for statistical purpose. He further argued that the evidence of PW-11 is uncertain and that if the police really recovered the stolen property, the PW-11 would have give those descriptive particulars.

During cross examination PW-11 admitted that he does not remember the descriptive particulars of stolen property. He further admitted that he does not remember the name of village to which police took him. This court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW-11.

12.Perusal of the evidence of PW-11 goes to show that except vaguely deposing that the accused committed theft, the PW-11 did not depose specifically about the houses wherein the accused alleged to have committed theft. Further according to the case of prosecution, the accused was arrested at Indaram X road of Jaipur Mandal and brought him to police station, where his confession was recorded. After recording the confession of accused again police took the accused and panch witnesses to the house of accused where police recovered the stolen property. But during the evidence the PW-11 deposed that police took himself and LW-12 to a village where police brought some gold ornaments from a house. According to PW-11 the accused was not present, except PW-11 and LW-12 / Tummala Gopal Reddy at the time of alleged recovery, which is quite inconsistent to the case of prosecution.

Further if the PW-12 really arrested the accused at Indaram X road, he ought to have recorded the confession statement then and there and he should have proceeded to the house of accused from there, but in this case the PW- 12 alleged to have brought the accused to police station and again went to the house of accused through Indaram X road, which creates a doubt over the case of prosecution. Therefore the version put forth by the counsel for the accused that the police simply called the accused to police station and filed this false case cannot be ruled out completely. Thus the evidence of PW- 11 is not inspiring the confidence of this court. Therefore it is not safe to keep reliance over the discrepant testimony of PW-11. Thus in view of the above discussion this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

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

Section 457, 380 IPC and he is acquitted of the said offence under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The MO-1 to 3 which were returned to the PW-1 by this court vide orders in CrlMP No. 1414/2010, dt: 19.11.2010 and MO-4 to 6 were returned to PW-3 by this court vide orders in CrlMP No. 1549/2010 dt:

5 CC 134 OF 2011 7.12.2010 towards interim custody shall stands good after completion of appeal period.

The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Luxettipet is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

Dictated to the Sr. Assistant, transcribed by her and after correction, pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2014.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHENNUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the Prosecution for the Defence PW-1: Singidi Rajeshwar Reddy (LW-1)None PW-2: Singidi Premalatha (LW-2) PW-3: Godisela Pochi Reddy (LW-3) PW-4: A. Ravi Kumar, SI of police (LW-14) PW-5: Vennapureddy Laxma Reddy (LW-5) PW-6: Kalakota Shankar (LW-7) PW-7: Motam laxman (LW-9) PW-8: Janga Narsimha Reddy (LW-8) PW-9: Ratna Laxma Reddy (LW-6) PW-10: Ratna Ramaiah (LW-10) PW-11: Naini Madunaiah (LW-13) PW-12: A. Uday Kiran, Inspector of police (LW-16)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:for defence

Ex.P-1: Report lodged by PW-1Nil Ex.P-2: First information Report Ex.P-3: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-4: Rough Sketch Ex.P-5: Photographs Ex.P-6: Relevant portion of confession panchanama of accused Ex.P-7: Relevant portion of recovery panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1: (2 ½ ) tulas Nallapusala Gold Chian MO-2: (¼ ) tula gold Mateelu MO-3: (½ ) tula one pair of gold ralla Kammalu MO-4: (¼ ) tula gold ring MO-5: (¼ ) tula gold Kammalu MO-6: (¼ ) tula gold ring

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHINNUR

6 CC 134 OF 2011

1 CC 186 OF 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT CHINNOOR

PRESENT: Sri K. JAYARAM REDDY

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CHENNUR

MONDAY THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014

C.C. NO. 186 OF 2010

Between:-

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Chennur … Complainant

And

Saidala Chinna Manthaiah, S/o Late Ankaiah Age 50 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o Dugnepalli

.... Accused

This case is coming on 3.3.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. A.P.P. for the State-complainant and of Sri P. Mallesh, Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Chennur filed a charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 509 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the brother of the complainant got performed the love marriage with the daughter of accused. Therefore some disputes have been arose at that time, the accused kept previous grudges in his mind and waiting for opportunity for insulting the complainant, on 26.8.2010 while the complainant was returning from agricultural field and when she reached near to the house of accused, immediately, the accused caught hold the hand of complainant saying that her marriage has to be performed with his son and insulted her before the villagers. Hence the report. Basing on her report a case was registered in Cr.No. 163/2010 U/sec.509 IPC and investigated into. On 31.8.2010 the accused was arrested and on interrogation the accused confessed this offence. Hence the charge.

3.This court took cognizance for the offence under Section 509 IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

By explaining the substances of accusation for the offence under section 509 IPC in

Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2 CC 186 OF 2010

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-8 and Ex.P-1 to P-5 were marked. After closer of prosecution side evidence the accused was examined under section 313 CrPC. He denied the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of the prosecution and reported no defense evidence.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Now the Point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 509 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

8. The accused is charged for the offence punishable under section 509 IPC alleging that on 26.8.2010 he caught hold the hand of complainant saying that her marriage has to be performed with his son and insulted the complainant before the villagers. As stated above to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses and got marked five documents. Now from the evidence available on record it has to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

9.The case of prosecution as per Ex.P-1 report is that on 26.8.2010 while the complainant was attending paddy plantation work, the accused observed her and at about 5.30 p.m. While the complainant was returning to house and when she reached to the house of accused, the accused caught hold her hand, for which she forcibly released her hand, that the accused insulted her saying that the brother of complainant got love marriage with his daughter, on that he will perform the marriage of complainant with his son. On this aspect the evidence of PW-1 to PW-6 is on record. PW-1 and PW-2 are the eye witnesses, who were turned hostile. PW-3 is the brother of complainant / victim.

In his evidence he deposed that about three years ago while his sister was returning to their home, after attending coolie work and when she reached near to the house of accused, the accused caught hold her hand, saying that he will perform her marriage with his son, alleging that he got love marriage.

10.PW-4 is the Complainant / victim. She deposed that her brother got love marriage with the daughter of accused. By keeping in view of that marriage, about two years ago, while he along with her mother returning to their home, after attending coolie work and when she reached to the house of accused, the accused caught hold her hand and dragged her saying that he will perform her marriage with his son. PW-5 is the mother of the complainant /victim. She deposed that about two years ago she along with her daughter went to coolie work, then the accused observed them. She further deposed that while they were returning to house and when they reached to the house of 3 CC 186 OF 2010 accused at about 5.30 p.m, the accused caught hold the hand of her daughter saying that he will keep her daughter as concubine saying that his daughter married her son.

PW-6 is the another eye witness, who is turned hostile. PW-7 and PW-8 are the investigating officers, who deposed about the investigation.

11.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is innocent person and that due to previous grudges the PW-4 filed a false case. He further argued that daughter of accused has got love marriage with the brother of PW-4 and that since the accused did not accept their marriage, PW-4 filed a false case. It is an admitted fact that the brother of complainant / Victim got love marriage with the daughter of accused and that the accused never consented to the marriage of PW-3. PW-3 to PW-5 also admitted the same during their cross examination. By considering the statements of

PW-3 to 5 and PW-4 this court has no hesitation to say that there are no talking terms between the PW-3, PW-4 and the accused since the date of marriage of PW-3 with the daughter of accused.

12.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that there is no evidence of independent witnesses to corroborate with the case of prosecution and that the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5 is not corroborating with each other, therefore no reliance can be placed over the interested and descriptive testimony of PW-3 to PW-5. As rightly stated by the learned counsel for the accused, the independent witnesses who were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 and PW-6 were turned hostile and nothing was elicited to disbelieve their version during cross examination by the learned APP. However this alone is not sufficient to brush away the entire case of prosecution, because this court can rely over the testimony of PW-3 to PW-5 if their evidence is trustworthy and inspires the confidence of the Court. Therefore this court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW-3 to 5.

13.Perusal of the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5 goes to show that they did not depose any single word about the alleged insult by the accused, except stating that the accused caught hold the hand of PW-4 saying that he will perform her marriage with his son. The learned counsel for the accused cross examined PW-3 to PW-5 at length, during cross examination PW-3 admitted that he did not see the alleged incident and that his sister informed him about the alleged incident. Therefore the evidence of PW-3 can be considered as hear say evidence only. Though the PW-3 deposed that his sister informed alleged incident the PW-4 did not substantiated the same. Therefore the knowledge of PW-3 about the alleged incident is doubtful. The case of the prosecution and according to Ex.P-1 report, PW-4 was alone at the time of alleged incident and she narrated the incident to the PW-5 who is her mother. But during the evidence the PW-4 deposed that her mother was also present with her at the time of alleged incident. PW-5 4 CC 186 OF 2010 the mother of the victim also deposed that she was present at the time of alleged incident, which is quite inconsistent to the case of the prosecution, which creates a doubt over the testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 pertaining to their credibility. If the mother of the victim was present at the time of alleged incident, the complainant would have mention the same in her report. But there is no mention in Ex.P-1 report about the presence of her mother. According to case of prosecution and as per the Ex.P-1 report

PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 are the eye witnesses to the case of prosecution. But those witnesses were turned hostile. Further the evidence of PW-5 is also not corroborating with the case of prosecution. Because she deposed that the accused caught hold hand of her daughter saying that he will keep her daughter as concubine, which is also quite inconsistent to the case of prosecution. In view of the above discrepancies between the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 this court is of the view that no reliance can be placed on their discrepant testimony. Therefore the version put forth by the learned counsel for the accused that the PW-4 filed a false case against the accused, as the accused disinclined to the marriage of PW-3 with his daughter cannot be ruled out completely. In view of the above discussion this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such he is entitled for an acquittal.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 509

IPC and he is acquitted of the said offence under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal period. No case property.

Dictated to Sr. Assistant, transcribed by her and after correction pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 10th day of March, 2014

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

CHENNUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE

PW-1: Saidula Rajakka (LW-2) PW-2: Saidula Venkanna (LW-3) PW-3: Bandarukanti Sailu (LW-6) PW-4: Bandarukanti Rajitha (LW-1) PW-5: Bandarukanti Muthakka (LW-5) PW-6: Saidula Venkataiah (LW-4) PW-7: P. Surender, SI of police (LW-8) PW-8: Md. Saleem HC (LW-7) 5 CC 186 OF 2010

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P-1: 161 CrPC statement of PW-1Nil Ex.P-2: 161 CrPC statement of PW-2 Ex.P-3: report lodged by PW-4 Ex.P-4: 161 CrPC statement of PW-6 Ex.P-5: First information report

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

CHENNUR

1 OS.No. 23 OF 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHINNUR

PRESENT : SRI K. JAYARAM REDDY

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHENNUR

THURSDAY THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014

O.S. No. 23 OF 2013

Between:-

Cheda Mallaiah, S/o Gattaiah Age 49 years, Occ: Singareni employee R/o Chennur … Plaintiff AND

1. Mukum Rajaiah, S/o Mallaiah Age 55 years, Occ: Agriculture

2. Mukum @ Mone Thirupathi, S/o Rajaiah Age 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, both are R/o Asnad village of Chennur Mandal.

This suit coming on 11.3.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Mallesham, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants are called absent and set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the suit land bearing sy.no. 166/1 measuring Ac. 3-30 gts situated at Asnad village.

2.It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of the suit land bearing sy.no. 166/1 measuring Ac. 3-30 gts situated at Asnad village. He further contended that he purchased a total extent of Ac.9-30 gts from original owner Medaka Mallu Bai through registered sale deed No. 2448/2004, dt: 2.4.2004 and obtained possession. The vendor of the plaintiff had succeeded an extent of Ac.

11-16 gts of land from her father Vemualapally Lasmaiah, who was original pattedar, out of the said land she sold Ac. 9-30 gts to the plaintiff and transferred the remaining Ac. 1-26 gts in favour of her son

Madaka Ravinder, mutation was also passed in favour of the plaintiff in 2 OS.No. 23 OF 2013 revenue records vide ROR No. 45/2004, dt: 26.7.2004, since the date of purchase the plaintiff has been cultivating the suit land and in the year 2007 he got mutated the suit land in the name of his son Chede Mallesh to an extent of Ac. 5-00 out of Ac. 9-30 gts and an extent Ac. 1-00 was acquired by the Government for canals (Bheemaram project), hence the son of the plaintiff was shown as pattedar and possessor of Ac. 5-00 and the plaintiff has been shown as pattedar and possessor of the suit land measuring Ac. 3-30 gts. The defendants are adjacent cultivators, who are having no manner of right over the suit land have developed malicious intention to grab the suit land and started illegal interference.

Hence the suit land.

3.The defendants having received summons appeared before the court on 23.2.2013. But inspite of granting sufficient time, the defendants failed to file written statement. Hence they were set exparte on 11.2.2014 and the suit is posted to exparte evidence. On 20.2.2014 chief examination of PW-1 is filed and on 26.2.2014 Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-15 are marked. The evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged.

4.The PW-1 reiterated the plaint averments in his chief affidavit. The evidence of PW1 reads that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land having purchased the same from its original owner Madaka

Mallu Bai through registered sale deed vide Doc.No. 2448/2004, dt:

2.4.2004, who succeeded the land to an extent of Ac. 11-16 gts from her father Vemulapally Lasmaiah, out of which she sold an extent of Ac. 9-30 gts to the plaintiff and the remaining land was transferred on her son namely Madaka Ravinder, mutation was also passed in his favour in revenue record vide ROR No. 45/2004, dt: 26.7.2004 and in the year 2007 the plaintiff got mutated an extent of Ac. 5-00 of land in the name of his son and an extent of Ac. 1-00 was acquired by the Government for canals and the remaining land to an extent of Ac. 3-30 shows that the plaintiff is the pattedar and possessor of the suit land. To prove its case the plaintiff also filed Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-15. Now it has to be seen whether the plaintiff could prove his case, because the plaintiff cannot stand on the weaker legs of the defendant and the plaintiff cannot take the advantage of the defendant remained exparte. The plaintiff has to prove his case. This is a suit filed for permanent injunction, to get the injunction, the plaintiff must prove that he was in possession over the 3 OS.No. 23 OF 2013 suit land as on the date of filing of the suit. Apart from the oral evidence of PW-1 we have the documentary evidence in the form of Ex.A-1 to

Ex.A-15.

5.Ex.A-1 is the registered gift settlement deed dt: 2.4.2004, which was executed by Madaka Mallubai in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A-2 is the pattedar pass book, issued by Tahasildar, Chennur, which goes go show that the plaintiff is the pattedar of the suit land. Ex.A-3 is the pattedar pass book, which goes to show that the son of the plaintiff is the pattedar of the land to an extent of Ac. 5-00, Ex.A-4 to A-8 are the CC of pahanies for the year 2001 to 2006 issued by Dy. Tahasildar, Chennur goes to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. Ex.A-9 to

Ex.A-12 CC of pahanies for the year 2007-2010 issued by Dy. Tahasildar,

Chennur goes show that the plaintiff is the pattedar of the suit land.

Ex.A-13 to A-15 are the pahani issued in Mee-seva dt: 3.7.2013 goes to show that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land for the fosli year of 1421 and 1422. Thus upon consideration of unchallenged testimony of PW-1 and by considering the documentary evidence in the form of Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-15 this court is of the view that the claim of the plaintiff is proved. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction.

6.In the result the suit of the plaintiff is decreed restraining the defendants and their men permanently from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the suit land bearing sy.no. 166/1 measuring Ac. 3-30 gts situated at Asnad village. In the circumstances no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, after correction pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of March, 2014.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHINNUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1: Cheda MallaihNone.

4 OS.No. 23 OF 2013

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.A-1: Registered sale deed dt: 2.4.2004Nil

Ex.A-2: Pattedar pass book issued by MRO, Chennur

Ex.A-3: Pattedar Pass book issued by Tahadildar, Chennur

Ex.A-4: CC of pahani for the year 2001-02

Ex.A-5: CC of pahani for the year 2002-03

Ex.A-6: CC of pahani for the year 2003-04

Ex.A-7: CC of pahani for the year 2004-05

Ex.A-8: CC of pahani for the year 2005-06

Ex.A-9: CC of pahani for the year 2006-07

Ex.A-10: CC of pahani for the year 2007-08

Ex.A-11: CC of pahani for the year 2008-09

Ex.A-12: CC of pahani for the year 2009-10

Ex.A-13: CC of pahani dt: 3.7.2013 issued in Me-seva

Ex.A-14: CC of pahani dt: 3.7.2013 issued in Me-seva

Ex.A-15: CC of pahani dt: 3.7.2013 issued in Me-seva

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHINNUR

1 CC 135 OF 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT CHENNUR

PRESENT : Sri K. JAYARAM REDDY

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CHENNUR

WEDNESDY the 19th Day of FEBRUARY, 2014

C.C. NO. 135 OF 2011

Between:-

The State through the Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Chennur … Complainant

And

Attem Narayana, S/o Chinna Lingaiah Age 35 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Chinthalagudem, Chennur …. Accused

This case is coming on 17.2.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. A.P.P. for the State-complainant and of Sri G. Ramesh Chander, Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

The sub-inspector of police of police station Chennur has laid charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise act.

2.The brief averments in the charge sheet are that on reliable information on 27.6.2010 at 0730 hours the LW-1 / Sub-Inspector of police of PS Chennur along with staff went to the mango garden of accused at the outskirts of

Chinthaguda, Chennur and on search they found (11) cement drums (3) iron drums of (200) liters capacity total about 20,000/- liters of jaggery beverage out of two cans one can containing (10) liters and another one containing about (5) liters and one bottle containing 1 ½ liter of gudumba also available about 25 kgs black jaggery in white bag and 5 kgs ammonium mixture in light yellow bag. Since the possession of ID liquor is an offence the Sub-

Inspector of police had seized the contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas. Basing on panchanama the Sub-Inspector of police registered a case in crime no 119 of 2010 under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise act. During the investigation LW-1 sent the samples to the chemical examiner

Nizamabad for analysis and report. The chemical examiner issued report stating that the samples contains reducing sugars, Jaggery which can be used as raw material in the manufacturing of illicit distilled liquor. Hence the 2 CC 135 OF 2011 charge.

3.The case was taken on file under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise act against the sole accused. On appearance of the accused copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 CrPC. Subsequently the accused was examined under section 239 CrPC. He denied the charge sheet allegations. Charge under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise act framed read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-6. After closer of prosecution side evidence the accused was examined under section 313 CrPC. The accused denied the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution and reported no defense evidence.

5.Heard on both sides and perused the record

6.Now the point for the determination is that whether the prosecution has brought home the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

7.The accused is charged under section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise act alleging that he was found in possession of (11) cement drums, (3) iron drums of 200 liters capacity total about 20,000 liters of jaggery beverage, 1 ½ liters of gudumba (ID liquor) and 5 kgs of ammonium mixture in light yellow bag in contravention to the provisions of the A.P. Excise act. As stated above to prove it's case the prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses and got marked six documents.

8.The case of the prosecution as per the PW-4 the Sub-Inspector of police is that on 24.6.2010 on reliable information he along with his staff went to the mango garden of accused and there they found manufacturing materials which are using for preparation of ID liquor and seized (11) cement drums, (3) iron drums, which are covered by 20,000 liters of jaggeri beverage and also seized (16 ½) liters of ID liquor, (25) kgs of Block jageri and (5) kgs of ammonia mixture under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW-1 and

PW-2. Therefore from the point of view of alleged recovery the evidence of

PW-1 and PW-2 is very much relevant hence I have carefully perused their evidence. However on my perusal I could not find any incriminating material against the accused as in as much as in their evidence they categorically 3 CC 135 OF 2011 deposed that they does not know the facts of the case and no contraband was recovered from the accused in their presence. Since these material witnesses are not co-operated with the case at the request of learned APP they were declared hostile. However in spite of cross examination nothing is elicited to infer their presence at the time of alleged recovery except suggesting the only to help the accused they are deposing false. The PW-3, who is the head constable and accompanied the PW-4 deposed the same lines deposed by the PW-4.

9.As stated above except the interested testimony of PW-3 and 4 there is no evidence of any independent witnesses to prove the alleged recovery therefore it is not safe to rely on the interested testimony of PW-3 and 4. In the light of the above discussion this court has no other go but to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise act and he is acquitted of the said offence under section 248 (1) CrPC. His bail bonds shall stands canceled, the sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of February, 2014

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

CHINNUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE

PW-1: Madasu Rajaiah (LW-8)None PW-2: Attem Shanker (LW-7) PW-3: Ch. Erraiah, the then HC (LW-6) PW-4: P. Surender, the then SI of police (LW-1)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1: Signature of PW-1Nil Ex.P-2: Signature of PW-2 Ex.P-3: Scene of offence and seizure panchanama Ex.P-4: First information Report Ex.P-5 and 6: FSL reports.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

CHENNUR

4 CC 135 OF 2011

1 CC 102 OF 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT CHENNUR

PRESENT : Sri K. JAYARAM REDDY

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CHENNUR

FRIDAY the 14th Day of MARCH, 2014

C.C. NO. 102 OF 2011

Between:-

The State through the Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Chennur … Complainant

And

Annala Sridhar, S/o Narayana, Age 28 yrs, Occ: Kirana shop, R/o Nagapur.

…..Accused

This case is coming on before me on 12-3 -2014 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned APP for the prosecution and sri N. Kamala Manohar Rao, Advocate for the accused having been heard and stood over for consideration,this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The sub-inspector of police of PS Chennur has laid charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.The brief avarements in the charge sheet are that on the LW-1 SI of police of PS Chennur along with staff and went for petrolling to Nagapur village and found the accused at 2030 hrs at his kirana shop while selling the whiskey and beer bottles with out having valid license. On enquiry the accused revealed his particulars and confessed this offence. Since the selling of liquor with out license is an offence the SI Of police had seized the five kingfisher strong beer bottles and three original choice quarter whiskey bottles under cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas. Basing on panchanama the SI of police registered a case in crime no 129 of 2010 under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise act. During the investigation LW-1 sent the samples to the chemical examiner Nizamabad for analysis and report. The chemical examiner issued report stating that the samples are Indian liquor.

Hence the charge.

3.The case was taken on file under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise act against the sole accused. On appearance of the accused copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 cr.p.c . subsequently the 2 CC 102 OF 2011 accused was examined under section 239 cr,p.c. He denied the charge sheet allegations . Charge under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise act framed read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

4.In support of its case the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked ExP-1 to Ex.P-5. After closer of prosecution side evidence the accused was examined under section 313 cr.p.c . The accused denied the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution and reported no defense evidence.

5.Heard on both sides and perused the record

6.Now the point for the determination is that whether the prosecution has brought home the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

7.The accused is charged under section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise act alleging that he was found in his kirana shop while selling the liquor with out having license in contravention to the provisions of the A.P. Excise act. As stated above to prove it's case the prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses and got marked five documents.

8.The case of the prosecution as per the PW-3 the sub-inspector of police i that he along with staff went for patrolling to the Nagapur village and found the accused while selling the Indian liquor with out having license and recovered five kingfisher strong beer bottles and three original choice quarter whiskey bottles in the presence of PW-1 and PW-2. There fore from the point of view of alleged recovery the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is very much relevant hence I have carefully perused their evidence. How ever on my perusal I could not find any incriminating material against the accused as in as much as in their evidence they categorically deposed that they does not know the facts of the case and no contraband was recovered from the accused in their presence. Since these material witnesses are not co- operated with the case at the request of learned APP they were declared hostile . How ever in spite of cross examination nothing is elicited to infer their presence at the time of alleged recovery except suggesting the only to help the accused they are deposing false.

9.As stated above except the interested testimony of PW-3 there is no evidence of any independent witnesses to prove the alleged recovery therefore it is not safe to rely on the interested testimony of PW-3. In the 3 CC 102 OF 2011 light of the above discussion this court has no other go but to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise act and he is acquitted of the said offence under section 248 (1) Cr,p.c . The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled ,the unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the steno , after correction ,pronounced by me in open court on this the 14th day of March2014

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CHINNUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

PW-1: Debba Sampath (LW-5)None PW-2: Gudepu Sammaiah (LW-6) PW-3: P. Surender (LW-1)

EXIHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1 Signature of PW-1Nil Ex.P-2: Signature of PW-2 Ex.P-3: Confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P-4: First Information Report Ex.P-5: Analysis Report

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

CHENNUR