Sri K.Kiran Kumar

CC 381/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, 

NIZAMABAD

Present : Sri K.Kiran Kumar, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 24th day of November, 2015

C.C. No. 381 OF 2011

Between:­

Sri Farooq Ahmed S/o Late Ameer Ahmed, age; 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o Malakpet, Hyderabad. …Complainant 

And

Sri B.N.Vilas S/o Naganath, age; 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 11­1­73, APHB colony, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad. …Accused

This case is coming on 23­11­2015 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajender Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and Sri G.Madhava Rao, advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following : 

 J U D G M E N T

This is a private complaint filed by the complainant Under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act against sole accused.

2. Brief facts of the complaint:­

The complainant along with others is the owner of a land admeasuring 1436 sq. yards situated at Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad, the accused along with three others jointly entered into an agreement with the complainant and others for purchasing of the said land, while so the accused and co­purchaser had fallen due of Rs.10,25,000/­ to the complainant. 

The complainant further submitted that subsequently, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 108220, dt.01.03.2010 for Rs.5,25,000/­ drawn on Axis Bank, Nizamabad Branch, infavour of complainant towards the debt amount due by the accused. 

The complainant received the cheque and presented the same in his account through his banker State Bank of India, Amberpet branch, Nizamabad. But the said cheque was dishonored by the accused banker for the reasons 'FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” and the accused banker issued a memo dt. 05.03.2010 to the complainant's banker and subsequently the same was intimated to the complainant by his banker.

Date: 24.11.2015I AJMFC

CC 381/2011

The complainant got issued registered legal notice dated: 17.03.2010, demanding the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the legal notice, having received the legal notice, the accused did not choose to repay the cheque amount or reply the legal notice. Thus, the accused flouted his promises made to the complainant and therefore the accused is liable to be penalize U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence the complaint.

3.After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, this court took cognizance of the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on 25.06.2011 and ordered summons to the accused.

4. On appearance of accused the case copies were furnished to the accused. The accused was examined Under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the substance of acquisition leveled against him in telugu language for which the accused denied the same and claimed to be tried. 

5. To substantiate the complainant case, complainant was examined as PW1, another co­owner was examined as PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked on behalf of complainant. On closer of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined Under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused was explained the incriminating evidence found against him in the prosecution case in Telugu language, he denied the same and reported no defence, on behalf of accused, document Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of accused. 

6.Heard both sides.

The learned counsel for the complainant's contention is that all the material requirements to prosecute under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act are fulfilled, as such accused is liable to be punished Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded compensation to the complainant.

7. The learned counsel for accused had contended that the complainant failed to establish that Ex.P1 was issued towards legally enforceable debt or liability, as such this case is not maintainable.

8. Considering the material on record the points for determination are:

 (1) Whether the complainant succeeded in proving that the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable liability or debt? (2) Whether the complainant had complied with (b) (c) of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act? (3) Whether the complainant proved his case?

9.During the course of trial, the complainant having invoked the provisions of Section 145 (1) of Negotiable Instruments Act, filed his affidavit with a prayer to treat the same as his examination in chief and the same plea was permitted. As seen from facts incorporated in the said affidavit filed by the complainant who was examined as PW1, it is reiteration of facts mentioned in his complaint, more or less it is replica of complaint.

Date: 24.11.2015I AJMFC

CC 381/2011

10.Point No.1:

(a) As seen from the complaint, evidence of PW.1 and other material placed on record, the complainant and others are the owners of a land admeasuring 1436 sq. yards situated at Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad, the accused along with three others jointly entered into an agreement with the complainant and others for purchasing of the said land, while so the accused and co­purchaser had fallen due of Rs.10,25,000/­ to the complainant. Further it is contended by the complainant that the accused had issued Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.108220 for Rs. 5,25,000/­ drawn on Axis Bank, Nizamabad branch. The complainant further contended that the said cheque was dishonored and returned unpaid to complainant with a reason “Funds Insufficient”, thereafter the complainant got issued statutory notice under Ex.P3 to the accused calling the accused to repay the cheque amount. The accused having received the legal notice, kept silent. Since, the accused failed to repay the debt amount which was advanced by the complainant, this complaint is filed by the complainant. At the outset, it is pertinent note that the plea of the accused is that there is no privity of contract, much less, creditor  and debtor relationship between the complainant and the accused. The accused has contended that Ex.P1 cheque was not issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability.

11.It is a settled proposition of law that the initial burden lays on drawee i.e., the complainant to prove that the cheque in question was issued for a legally enforceable liability due to him. Once, the complainant/drawee discharges from his initial burden, the onus of proof shifts on the accused, to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the Cheque in question was issued for the legally enforceable liability.

12.Keeping in view of the aforesaid proposition, it has to be evaluated whether the complainant could discharge from his initial burden to prove that Exs.P1 was issued to discharge the legally enforceable liability or debt, and places the evidential burden on the accused to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque in question was issued to discharge the liability due to the complainant/P.W.1.

13.To rebut the contention of the complainant, the accused did not choose to examine any witness on his behalf, but placed reliance on Ex.D1 document on his behalf, further upon perusal of examination of the accused under section 251 Criminal Procedure Code, the accused did not choose to submit anything in his defence, when this court explained the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, from the complainant case Under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The accused submitted that (for beneficiary the relevant portion is extracted) I have issued cheque in friendship to PW1, he requested me to arrange Rs.5,00,000/­, he has misused the cheque. So, now only the cross­ examination of PW1 conducted by the learned counsel for accused is crucial and left out for considering the defence of accused to be probable or not.

14.In Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G.Hegde 1 , The Apex Court held in para 32 :­ An accused for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statue need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden 1. (2008) 4 SCC 54.

Date: 24.11.2015I AJMFC

CC 381/2011

on the basis of the materials already brought on record. An accused has a constitutional right to maintain silence. Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case in different.

15.Following the legal proposition has laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the accused need not step into the witness box to give an explanation the circumstances which prevailed to issuance of the disputed cheque. 

The pleading and the case of complainant/PW.1 would suggest that the 16. complainant along with some other had sold a piece of land to accused and others, though the contention of complainant/PW1 and the accused stands on different footing, the complainant/PW1 initially has to establish his case, the basis of this dispute is the land and evidencing the said transaction the original of Ex.D1 came into existence, the complainant/PW1 has neither made a mention what he has subsequently tried to establish, the complainant/PW1 had failed to get the original of Ex.D1 and clearly give an indication that he had intended to suppress the document and concealed certain facts.

17.Interestingly, the accused in order to rebut the presumption has produced Ex.D1, both PW1 and PW2 had acknowledge that Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the Agreement of sale cum GPA, this court could not understand why the complainant has shied from producing the document, which is the basis of the present litigation, no reason is assigned by the complainant to suppress a crucial document. Ex.D1 demonstrates that five vendors had executed the document in favour of fourteen persons, but to the contra the testimony of PW1 and PW2 reveals that only four persons had entered into agreement with them, the Ex.D1 also demonstrates that the total sale consideration is Rs.75,19,500/­, but to the contra the testimony of PW1 and PW2 reveals that they have disposed off the landed property for Rs.7,000/­ per Sq. yard and for the total consideration of Rs.1,00,52,000/­. So there is inconsistency. 

18.Eventually, the Ex.D1 reveals that five persons had disposed of a landed property to fourteen persons, there are certain unexplained queries like what is the necessity to obtain only cheque from the accused, when there were thirteen others also, what is the necessary for the complainant/PW1 to obtain the cheque in his favor, how the complainant/PW1 came to conclusion that the accused has to pay Rs.10,25,000/­, on what date the parts of sale consideration was paid to complainant/PW1 and others, whether the complainant is authorized to file or represent this case on behalf his co­owners.

The contention of the accused is that he had issued a blank cheque in 19. friendship to PW1, PW1 had approached the accused to arrange finance, since the accused could not arrange funds he had delivered his blank signed cheque to PW1, in this regard to establish the contention the accused had elicit in the cross­ examination of PW1 (for beneficiary the relevant portion is reproduce) it is true after the transaction of Ex.D1 the relation between myself and the accused has thicken. This answer given by PW1 take this court to believe the version of accused. 

Date: 24.11.2015I AJMFC

CC 381/2011

The admissions of complainant/P.W.1 read thus: Cross examination of PW1: 20. “ i) The sum of rupees under Ex.P1 belongs to Miss Badar Jahan, Mohd. Abdul Qayyum, Mohd. Abdul Muqeed, Abdul Raheem and myself. ii) It is true on 5.10.2007 myself and Miss Badar Jahan, Mohd. Abdul Qayyum, Mohd. Abdul Muqeed, Abdul Raheem have executed agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of accused and 3 others. iii) As per Ex.D1 it is mentioned that we have received Rs.75,19,500/­ from the accused and his co­purchaser. iv) It is true we have given the possession of the land to the accused and his co­purchaser”. v) I cannot say after lapse of how many days of execution of Ex.D1 I have received the Ex.P1. 

The admissions of Co­owner/PW2 read thus: Cross examination of PW2: 21.

i) As per the Ex.D1 the total number of purchasers are 14 members. ii) It is true Ex.D1 contained the agreed terms and conditions. iii) It is true in Ex.D1 column No.12 it is incorporated that we have not concealed anything pertaining to the sale. 

22.No doubt in order to escape the stamp duty to be paid to the government the exact amount of the transaction would be suppressed, but the complainant should have make a mention in his pleadings but he failed to do so, for the best reasons known to him.

Thus, what is contended by the accused has been admitted by the 23. complainant/PW.1. It is clear from the admissions of the complainant/PW1, that he had received the entire sale consideration on the execution of original of Ex.D1. It may be worth to add that the original of Ex.D1 documents is the basis for creating legal obligation but to the dismay of complainant/PW.1 his own document is negative and against his case. Further, it probables from the aforesaid admissions that there is no privity of contract between the accused and the complainant, much less, debtor and creditor relationship.

24.This court intend to draw the presumption postulated under Section 91 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which emphasizes that when the terms of contract, grant or other disposition are reduced to the form of a document, the method of proof of the terms is by the production of document itself or by furnishing secondary evidence where such secondary evidence is admissible under Section 65 of The Evidence Act. The reason for the rule obviously is, if extrinsic or other evidence is allowed, the court will be permitting the substitution of the contents of one document for another. While Section 91 states that terms of documents like contract etc., mentioned therein have to be proved by production of original or by permissible secondary evidence, the present Section 92 enacts that ­ “no oral evidence shall be admitted to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from its terms”. It is a principle of justice and fair play that is enacted under Section 92 to prevent an unscrupulous man from resiling or going back on his earlier agreed commitment reduced to writing. Section 92 states that when the document referred to in Section 91 is proved (as laid down in Section 9) no oral evidence shall be admitted between the parties or their representatives for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. 

Date: 24.11.2015I AJMFC

CC 381/2011

25.This court also intend to draw the presumption postulated under Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act :­ That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it: 

Applying the presumption as postulated under Indian Evidence Act to the 26. facts of the case and the aforesaid admissions are conclusive to arrive at a just decision that there is no debtor and creditor relationship between the accused and the complainant/PW.1 and the plea of the accused that Ex.P1 was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or liability, it cannot be said that the aforesaid admissions are stray admissions.

On earnest consideration of the admissions of the complainant/P.W.1, 27. which are highlighted supra, this court have no hesitation to hold that Ex.P1 was brought into existence under suspicious circumstances. Consequently, it makes the court to record finding that the accused could rebut the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by proof of preponderance of probabilities and that the accused could able to substantiate his plea of defence to disbelieve the fact that there exists debtor and creditor relationship between the accused and the complainant/PW1 under Ex.P1.

28.For the aforesaid reasons, it is inevitable to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish and convince this court that Ex.P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability, ultimately the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused. 

29. Point 2:­

As seen from the cross examination of PW.1, it establishes that the accused has denied that the statutory legal notice was not sent to the accused, as well as issuance of statutory legal notice.

30.The complainant has also produced the postal receipt i.e., Ex.P4, which goes to show that, a registered postal envelop bearing No. 3374 was dispatched to Sri B.N.Vilas, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad.

31.The act of giving a notice contemplated by Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act means actually serving notice in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897. In other words even if there is any ambiguity regarding what constitutes services of notice, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897 has clarified the position of law. From the reading of Section 27 of the said Act it is clear that any document under Central Act is required to be served by post, as such a service shall be deemed to be effected by delivering the same in the ordinary course of post. It further makes it clear that unless different intention appears as per any Act or regulation, such a service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre paying and posting by registered post. In other words if such a document is sent by registered 

Date: 24.11.2015I AJMFC

CC 381/2011

post and if it does not return back it is deemed to have been served. But, such a presumption is a rebuttable presumption and it is always open to the address to prove that in fact he did not receive such a registered post.

32.This Court is relying on decision of Hon'ble Apex court reported in: 

C.C.Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and another 2 the three Judges 

Bench of apex Court has held that: “There is no need to make such averments in the complaint for raising presumption as to serve of notice in the said situation as in view of Section 27 of General Clauses Act and Section 114 of Evidence Act, once the notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the service of notice is deemed to have been effected. Mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of Section 138 proviso (b) stands complied with when the notice is sent in the said manner. However, the drawer can rebut the presumption of service of notice by showing that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address or the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or the letter was never tendered or the report of the postman was incorrect.

33.In Indo Automobiles Vs Jai Durga Enterprises and others 3 , the apex Court held that “once notice has been sent by registered post with acknowledgment due to a correct address, it must be presumed that the service has been made effective.”

34.Following the legal propositions laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, so also the mandatory notice issued by the complainant shall be deemed to have been served in view of the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, which stipulate that when the envelope is sent to the addressee with proper and correct address by registered post with acknowledgment due, and there is endorsement that the addressee remained absent during delivery time, it has to be construed that it is a deemed service.

35.To rebut the said presumption the accused did not placed any material on record to establish that on the relevant date and time he was not residing at the address mentioned in Ex.P3 or Ex.P3 was dispatched to wrong address. The accused fail to establish that Ex.P3 was not nominated to correct address. As such, this point is answered in favour of complainant and against accused.

36. Point No. 3:­

(a) Upon close scrutiny and examining the rival contentions placed on record by both the sides, this Court has come to an indomitable and inescapable conclusion that complainant failed to convince this Court that Ex.P1 was not issued towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability, but at the same time the complainant succeeded in establishing that he has complied Section 

(b) (c) of 138 Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. 2007 (2) ALD (Crl.) 294 (SC) = (2007) 6 SCC 555. 3. 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 299 (SC) = (2008) 8 SCC 529.

Date: 24.11.2015I AJMFC

CC 381/2011

37.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is acquitted under section 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. 

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of November, 2015.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :­ FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Sri Farooq Ahmed­Nil ­ PW2: Sri Md.Abdul Raheem.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :­

Ex.P1: Original cheque bearing No. 108220, dated:01.03.2010 Ex.P2: Cheque return memo issued by Axis Bank Ltd., Ex.P3: Legal notice, dated:17.03.2010 Ex.P4: Postal receipt, dtd: 17.03.2010 Ex.P5: Receipt of under certificate of posting, dated:17.03.2010 Ex.P6: Unserved postal cover.

FOR DEFENCE :­

Ex.D1: Certified copy of Agreement of sale­cum­GPA. 

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Date: 24.11.2015I AJMFC

1

CC.274-09

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS 

MAGISTRATE AT BODHAN

Present:­ Sri. K.Kiran Kumar, I Addl. Judl. F.C. Magistrate, Nizamabad. (F.A.C. of Judl. F.C. Magistrate, Bodhan)

Dated this the 8th day of October, 2015

CC. NO. 274 OF 2009

(Cr. No. 120/2009 of P.S., Bodhan)

Between :­

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Bodhan, Police station. 

...Complainant

And

Takur Padam Singh S/o Govindh Singh, age: 51 years, Caste: Rajputh, Occ: Driver of Maharashtra RTC Bus bearing No. MH 20­D­5172, R/o Navandi village, Biloli Tq., Nanded District. 

...Accused

This case is coming on 08­10­2015 before me for hearing in the presence of learned Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.Shyam Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following : 

JUDGEMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Bodhan, Police Station, Nizamabad Dist., filed charge sheet in Cr. No. 120/2009 for the offences punishable under sections 304­A and 338 Indian Penal Code against accused.

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

On 13.04.2009, at about 0815 hours, on reliable information LW12/Sri P.Ramulu, SIP of Bodhan police station, had proceeded to the government hospital, Bodhan 2

CC.274-09

and recorded the statement of LW1/Sri Vemu Pedda Galaiah, he stated that about one month back, he along with his younger brother Chinna Galaiah and some other of his village along with their tractors went to the place and attending works with their tractors where every they get. On 13.04.2009 at about 7­30 pm, he along with his younger brother were proceeding towards Salura side on their tractor bearing No. AEE 2968 and when they reached Salura camp and in the mean time a Maharashtra RTC Bus bearing No. MH 20 D 5172 came from Bodhan side and the accused has drove the said Bus in a rash and negligent manner and dash against their tractor from its back, due to which he jumped from the said tractor and fell down the road, due to that he sustained injuries to his right hand, right eye and also on other parts of his body, his younger brother who was driving the Auto also strucked in the seat of the tractor as the tractor overturned, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot, after giving dash to the tractor the accused stopped it at a distance and absconded, then shifted him to hospital for treatment. Thereafter, LW1/Sri Vemu Pedda Galaiah had presented a report to Bodhan police station.

On receipt of the report of LW1/Sri Vemu Pedda Galaiah a case in Cr. No. 120/2009, U/sec. 304­A and 337 Indian Penal Code was registered by LW12/Sri P.Ramulu, SI of police, Bodhan police station and First Information Report was issued and sent to all concerned.

During the course of investigation LW12/Sri P.Ramulu, SIP, had visited the government hospital, Bodhan, he had examined and recorded the details statement of LW1/Sri Vemu Pedda Galaiah and other witnesses in Part­II CD. Thereafter LW12/Sri P.Ramulu had conducted the scene observation panchanama and also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, LW10/Sri Dr.C.Murali Krishna has treated the LW1/Sri V.Pedda Galaiah and held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that cause of death of deceased was due to head injury, LW11/Sri D.E.V.K.Paul had inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.

On 17.04.20091, at about 3­00 pm, the accused has voluntarily surrendered before LW12/Sri P.Ramulu, SIP of Bodhan P.S., and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence, LW12/Sri P.Ramulu had effected the arrest of accused, sent him before the Hon'ble for judicial remand. After completion of investigation LW12/Sri P.Ramulu, SIP, had filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3

CC.274-09

3.This case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Section 304­A and 338 Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4. After appearance of the accused, necessary case copies were furnished to the accused, as required under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code. 

5. The accused was examined under section 251 Criminal Procedure Code, the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Sections 304­A and 338 Indian Penal Code, was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried. 

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW8 were examined, Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. The learned Senior Asst. Public Prosecutor had given up the evidence of LW3, 5, 11 and 12, as such this court was constrained to close the evidence of LW3, Lw5, Lw11 and LW12.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the incriminating evidence from the prosecution case was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides. 

9.The point for determination is:­

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention leveled against accused, beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of offence punishable under sections 304­A and 338 Indian Penal Code ?

POINT :­

10.Tragically, this is a case wherein it is alleged that a person was crushed to death and another person sustaining grievous injury, Section 304­A Indian Penal Code applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done, in all probabilities, will cause death. Section 304­A applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. So, precisely the elements to constitute an offence punishable under section 304­A Indian Penal Code is negligence and rashness. Either of which or both of which 4

CC.274-09

may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are rashness/negligence.

11.In order to prove its case, the prosecution must place evidence on record, to the effect that the accused being the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No. MH 20 D 5172, (for brevity herein after shall be referred as crime vehicle) caused death of deceased and inflicted injuries to PW1 by rash and negligence, at the relevant date and time. To prove the accident PW1 to PW5 and PW8 testimony was relied by the prosecution, the prosecution relied on documents marked as Ex.P1, Ex.P3 to Ex.P5.

12.PW1 is the person who has set the law into motion, PW1 is the sibling of deceased, PW1 has also sustained injuries in the accident, recuperating from the shock and horrified accident, PW1 narrated that on 13.02.2009 in between 7­00 pm to 7­30 pm, he along with deceased were navigating towards Saloora from Bodhan on tractor, while so when they were nearing towards Saloora, the oncoming Maharashtra State Bus rammed their tractor from their behind, due to the said impact, the tractor turned turtle, resulting to severe fracture injuries to PW1 and the deceased instantly succumbed to head injuries. PW1 was shifted to area hospital, Bodhan for treatment.

13.To place sufficient corroboration to the testimony of PW1, the prosecution had relied upon testimony of PW2 and PW3, PW2 and PW3 are projected as eye witnesses to the prosecution episode, PW2 recited that on the fateful day he was going on his two wheeler from Bodhan to Saloora, while so he noticed a Bus of Maharashtra State which was navigating from Bodhan to Biloli, the bus had dashed an Auto and the Bus was proceeding further without stopping, PW2 has chased the bus and in the said exchange he had noticed the Bus hitting the tractor from the behind. PW3 recited that on 13.04.2008, he along with PW1 and deceased had halted their tractor at Saloora for having supper, mean while the PW1 and deceased finished their supper and proceeding on foot to reach the parked tractor, all of sudden the crime vehicle came from their behind and knocked the tractor, resulting to grievous injuries to PW1 and instant death of deceased. 

14. To place sufficient corroboration to the testimony of PW1 to PW3, the prosecution had relied upon testimony of PW7, PW7 is the medical doctor, PW7 in­turn deposed that, on 13.4.2009 he has examined and treated PW1 and basing 5

CC.274-09

on his physical examination he has issued Ex.P4 medical certificate, PW7 has also the opportunity to conduct the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, PW7 has issued post mortem examination report under Ex.P5, lastly, PW7 was of the opinion that the deceased has died due to head injury.

15.To place sufficient corroboration to the testimony of PW1 to PW3, and PW7, the prosecution had relied upon testimony of PW8, PW8 is the investigating officer, PW8 in­ turn deposed that, he received information and proceeded to area hospital, Bodhan, secured the presence of injured, examined and recorded the statement, PW8 basing on the contents of statement of PW1 registered a case and issued the First information report under Ex.P7, PW8 has visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene observation panchanama in the presence of mediators, recorded the statement of witnesses, finally, PW8 upon completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet. 

16.From the evidence of PW1 to PW3, PW7 and PW8 and Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 it is crystal clear that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the fact that on 13.04.2009, the deceased was killed in a road accident and PW1 sustained severe fracture injuries in the road accident. Now it is for the prosecution to establish that accused being the driver of the crime vehicle drove the said vehicle rash and negligently there by killing the deceased and caused severe fracture injuries to PW1. 

17.The prosecution has examined the eye witnesses of the accident as PW2 and PW3. PW2 and PW3 has acknowledged that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the relevant date and time of incident, to the contra, the earliest statement of PW1 made to police und1er section 161 Criminal Procedure Code would demonstrate that, PW1 has categorically testified that after hitting the tractor the driver of the crime vehicle has skulk away by leaving the crime vehicle near the scene, likewise the earliest statement of PW2 made to police under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code would demonstrate that, PW2 has not seen the driver of crime vehicle, interestingly both PW1 and PW2 for the very first time has improvised their contention and identifying the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle.

18.It is alleged that, on 13.04.2009 at about 7­30 pm, the alleged accident has occurred, on 25.04.2014 both PW1 and PW2 were examined in chief, almost after lapse of five long 6

CC.274-09

years PW1 and PW2 had seen the accused, having a rare occasion to have the glimpse of driver of the crime vehicle, it is not possible to capture the image of the person in the brain, that to the alleged accident has occurred in the night, so the testimony of both PW1 and PW2 appears to be suspicious, the earliest statement of PW1 and PW2 made to police under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code would demonstrate that, they never spell the identity particulars of the driver of the crime vehicle. 

19.The Hon’ble Apex Court inHeera & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 1 , wherein at Para No.11 it was held as hereunder: “It is no doubt true that much evidentiary value cannot be attached to the identification of the accused in Court where identifying witness is a total stranger who had just a fleeting glimpse of the person identified or who had no particular reason to remember the person concerned, if the identification is made for the first time in Court.”

20.The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. has held in K. Rajaiah Vs. State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor,  wherein at Para No.36, it was observed as hereunder:

“In most of the cases, particularly in accident cases, the drivers will be strangers to the witnesses and the injured witnesses. Therefore, Investigating Officers must be careful. Normally, the vehicle involved in the accident will be present at the scene of offence. Thus, Investigating Officers must try to seize all the necessary documents which connect the accused with the crime like Trip sheet, driving license or any other documents which reveal the identity of the accused. In case of APSRTC bus or even a private bus, the police must seize the Statistical Report and other documents, if any, available with the conductor or in the cabin to connect the driver of the bus with the crime. Similarly, wherein a case the witnesses claim that they can identify the driver of the bus, then the Investigating Officer must have some patience and record the physical features of the accused as narrated by the witnesses. If at all the accused had left any of his personal belongings at the scene of offence or in the bus, then those material objects should be collected so that they establish the identity of the accused.” 1AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2425 7

CC.274-09

21. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. has held in: Piginaraji Ranga Rao v. State of A.P 3 , wherein at Para No.17, it was observed as hereunder:

“The circumstances that there was no prior acquaintance between the witnesses and accused and the fact that the lorry was stopped at a distance of 20 or 25 feet from the place of accident and the driver after stopping the lorry, ran away from the place of accident, show that the witnesses had no opportunity to have a good look at the accused. In such circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the investigating officer to elicit the descriptive particulars of the accused from the witnesses and to hold

Test Identification Parade, which would establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.”

22.Be it as it is, PW1 and PW2 are suppose to be the crucial witnesses, scrutinizing and analyzing their evidence, they both does not speak about rash and negligence on the part of driver, they both in one voice had testified that the bus has dashed the tractor from behind.

23.Flaws in the prosecution case:-

No doubt in this alleged accident one person was crushed to death and another sustained severe fracture injuries, the investigating officer had not probed the accident in a proper prospective way, the driver of the crime vehicle is stranger to the witnesses, it is the incumbent of the investigating officer to conduct the test identification of the driver, which he failed to do, the accident was alleged to be done with the RTC Bus of

Maharashtra State, in order to fix the accused the best person would have been the conductor of the said Bus, but ultimately the investigating officer for the best reasons known to him failed to assert the conductor, the investigating officer has also failed to examine the officials of the RTC to declare that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle, no passengers were cited as witness, the investigating officer has also failed to seize trip sheet, driving license, statistical report and other documents.

8

CC.274-09

24. Merely it can not be held that the fact of crushing the deceased to death by the crime vehicle and inflicting in fracture injuries to Pw1, would not establish rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, there must be cogent and concrete evidence with regard to speed or wrong direction, tantamount to rash and negligent.

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in :State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors.,4 wherein at Para No.9 it was held as hereunder:

“The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.”

26.Apparently, the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to establish the identity of the driver, so also rash and negligence. Hence of the basis ingredients for constituting the offence “causing death by negligence” conspicuously is missing.

27.Following the legal propositions and analyzing the allegation leveled against accused, this court has came to a indomitable conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution is not convincing to inspire the confidence of this court to conclude that accused being the driver of the crime vehicle, caused death of deceased and inflicted severe injuries to PW1.

28.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 304-A and 338 Indian Penal Code and the accused is acquitted under section 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of October, 2015.

Sd/-

I-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Nizamabad. FAC. Judl.F.C.Magistrate, Bodhan.

9

CC.274-09

::Appendix of Evidence:: Witnesses Examined Prosecution: Defence: Pw1:Vemu Pedda Galaiah Nil Pw2:Md.Shakeel Pw3:Vemukoti Sanjeevulu. Pw4:Juddu Srinivas Reddy Pw5:Gaddam Ramesh Pw6:Bollepalli Venugopal Rao @ Bujji Pw7:Dr.C.Murali Krishna Pw8:P.Ramulu, Investigating Officer ::Exhibits Marked for Prosecution :: Ex.P1: Signature of Pw4 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P2: Signature of Pw5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Inquest Panchanama Ex.P4:Medical Certificate Ex.P5:not marked Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P8: Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P9:MVI Report ::Exhibits Marked for Defence:: Nil :M.Os.Marked: Nil

Sd/-

I-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Nizamabad. FAC. Judl.F.C.Magistrate, Bodhan.

10

CC.274-09

24.4.2017 1 OS.No.84/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD.

PRESENT: SRI K.KIRAN KUMAR,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2017.

OS.No. 84 of 2015

Between:-

Sangam Narsaiah, S/o Gangaram, aged 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: SC, R/o H.No.5-98/3, Ramadugu (V) of Dharpally Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

... Plaintiff.

And

1. The Forest Section Officer, Dharpally Forest Range, Forest Office Dharpally, Mandal Dharpally, Dist. Nizamabad.

2. District Collector, Nizamabad. … Defendant.

This suit coming on 19.04-2017 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri D. Madhan Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Assistant Government Pleader for the defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

1.This suit is filed by plaintiff against the defendants seeking relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their family members, legal heirs, successors, agents, workmen, unsocial elements etc., from making any sort of interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property* and awarded with costs.

2.The necessary rival contentions of both the parties to the suit are narrated briefly as follows:

3.Plaintiff is owner and possessor of suit schedule property * :: Schedule of Property :: All the existing agriculture land to an extent of Ac.6-00 Guntas under the Sy.NO.1159/6 situated at Ramadugu (V) of Dharpally Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad within the G.P. limits of Ramadugu village of Mandal Dharpally, Dist. Nizamabad and bounded as under: North: Land of Katasli Gangadhar Sy.No.1164, South: Ramadugu to Dharpally Road, East: Sy.No.1159 and forest, West: Mallaiah Temple and Tenugu Mallaiah.

24.4.2017 2 OS.No.84/2015 having allotted by the government and issued pattedar pass book and title deed in favour of plaintiff and his name was entered in revenue records, the suit schedule property is dry land at the time of allotment, the plaintiff spend the amounts on the suit land by obtaining loans from various persons and converted and made the land suitable for cultivation, put the two borewells by spending much amount and doing peaceful cultivation in the said land.

4.Plaintiff claimed that the government also allotted land some other people who are landless persons in the village under the

Sy.No.1159 and they are also doing cultivation in their allotted land peacefully.

5.Plaintiff claimed that on 16.05.2015 at about 11.30 a.m., while the plaintiff doing irrigating the water to his fields and doing cultivating, the defendant along with staff came to the suit land and forcibly evict the plaintiff from the suit land and trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the possession of the said suit land and also illegally and forcibly interfere into the suit land of the plaintiff by taking the advantage of poor financial and social status of the plaintiff in order to illegally occupy the suit schedule property, the plaintiff resisted the acts of the defendant, while leaving the suit schedule property, the defendant threatened that they come at any time and occupy the suit schedule property and dispossess and evict the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land, as such, the plaintiff has apprehended of danger to his property from the activities of the defendant, the defendant also threatened the plaintiff with the dire consequences of death, if the plaintiff did not vacate the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit for the aforesaid relief.

24.4.2017 3 OS.No.84/2015

For the defendants:

6.The defendant No.1 filed his written statement by denying the averments of plaint. The defendant No.2 filed memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 submitted that Sy.No.1159 of Ramadugu village of Dharpally Mandal having an extent of area Ac.507.12 guntas was included in

Amsanpally Forest block and notified U/s. 4 of APFA 1967 vide

G.O.Ms.No.374 F & RD (For-III) Dept. Dated 30-4-1976, as per Khasra pahani 1954-55, Sy.No.1159 of Ramadugu village is having Ac.507-12 guntas mentioning Sarkar Poramboku and the entire area of

Sy.No.1159 of Ramadugu village was included in Amsanpally Forest

Block and notified as Forest and there is no out side forest area (Revenue land) as per records.

7.Defendant No.1 claimed that issuing of pattas in favour of plaintiff extent of Ac.6-00 guntas in Sy.No.1159 is against the existing

Forest Act i.e., APFA 1967 F(c) Acts 1980, there is no cultivation in the forest area of Sy.No.1159 of Ramadugu village and it is false to say that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the said forest land.

8.Defendant No.1 claimed that Sy.No.1159 extent of

Ac.507-12 guntas was notified as Forest and its protection is primary duty of the concerned Forest Officers, the Forest Department is having fully rights on Sy.No.1159 of Ramadugu village of Amsanpally

Forest Block at this stage, there is no cause of action to file the present suit, the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands.

Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

24.4.2017 4 OS.No.84/2015

9.On the basis of pleadings of both the parties to the suit, the following issues have been settled for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction over the suit schedule property against the defendants as prayed for ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim against the defendants?

3. To what relief?

10.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as

Pw.1 and the plaintiff has relied upon certain documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On behalf of the defendants, defendant

No.1 examined himself as Dw.1 and the defendant No.1 has relied upon certain documents which were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 on their behalf. After reporting no further evidence on behalf of either side, both side evidence was closed and both side were given the opportunity to submit their arguments.

11.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that, the suit schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff by the concerned revenue authorities and the revenue authorities have issued pattedar pass book and title deed in favour of plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that since the date of allotment the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and on perusing pahanies under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, it is very much clear that the name of the plaintiff is reflecting in the possessor column of

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that the defendants on 16.5.2015 tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for plaintiff would argued that by examining Pw.1 and by letting in five documents in evidence as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, the plaintiff has amply 24.4.2017 5 OS.No.84/2015 prove his suit claim.

12.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants had strenuously and vehemently rejected the contention of the plaintiff. The learned counsels for the defendants has argued veraciously that, the plaintiff has suppressed the real facts and filed this suit with false and frivolous allegations, the learned counsels for the defendants has argued that, originally the suit schedule land is forest land and there cannot be any cultivation in the forest land. The learned counsel for the defendants has argued that plaintiff failed to prove his title over the suit schedule property the plaintiff is claiming title basing on revenue documents, this suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

Issue No.1 and 2:

13.To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed his sworn affidavit in lieu of chief examination of Pw.1, the plaintiff relied on documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 which are exhibited in his favour. The chief examinations of Pw.1 appears to be the replica of averments of plaint on oath. Resisting the claim of plaintiff, the defendant No.1 has filed his detailed written statement, defendant No.2 has adopted the written statement of defendant

No.1, defendant No.1 got himself examined as Dw.1, nine documents are exhibited on their behalf as Ex.B1 to Ex.B9.

14.Basically, in a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant/defendants from interfering with plaintiff possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and defendants tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession.

24.4.2017 6 OS.No.84/2015

15.Upon reading the plaint averments and the chief affidavit of PW.1, it could be understood that, the plaintiff is contending that in the year 2002 the government has allotted him government dry land to an extent of Ac.6.00 guntas lying in Sy.No.1159 situated at

Ramadugu village of Dharpally mandal, Dist. Nizamabad. Since the date of allotment, the plaintiff is in the peaceful possession and cultivating crops in the said land by obtaining loans from various financial institution.

16.It is observed from the schedule of the property annexed to the plaint of the suit that, the suit schedule property is an agriculture land. Before adverting to the discussions, on the oral evidence put forth by the rival contenders, it is apposite to briefly described about the documents placed in evidence and relied by the plaintiff with regard to their relevancy to the contention of the plaintiff. Through Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 the plaintiff is claiming his right and title over the suit schedule property. Through Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 the plaintiff is claiming his possession over the suit schedule property.

During the course of cross examination of PW.1 nothing was elicited to disbelieve the contention of the plaintiff.

17.For proper adjudication and proper understanding of the facts on hand, it would be apposite to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in M.K.Setty v. M.V.L.Rao1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as:

In a suit for injunction what is material, is only the aspect of possession.

1 AIR 1972 SC 2299 24.4.2017 7 OS.No.84/2015

18.Following the settled legal proposition and applying the same to the facts set out in the suit that, even a trespasser shall not be evicted forcefully and shall be evicted by adopting the due process of law. Thus, it become essential on the part of this Court to prohibit and restrain any such interference or invading into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

19.The integral part of the dispute is that, defendant No.1 is claiming that the entire area of Sy.No. 1159 of Ramadugu village was included in Amsanpally forest block and it is notified as forest. Thus, there is no revenue land as per record in Sy.No.1159. Further the defendant No.1 claiming that, issuance of patta pass book and title deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property is against the existing forest Act i.e. APFA 1967, F(c) Act, 1980. To buttress the contention of the defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 had relied on Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 documents, these documents were marked with consent of the plaintiff, the documents under Ex.B1 to

Ex.B9 are the self attested copies by Dw.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 are the public documents/revenue documents and the defendant No.1 has not adduced any oral evidence to prove the contents of the Ex.B1 to

Ex.B9. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 has asserted that the plaintiff was allotted the suit schedule property by the defendant

No.2 and recognizing such allotment to the plaintiff, the concerned revenue authorities has issued title deeds and pattedar pass book in favour of the plaintiff.

20.Herein, the nature of the suit land appears to be in dilemma, the defendant No.1 claims that the suit schedule property is part of forest land, but admittedly the defendant No.1 has not 24.4.2017 8 OS.No.84/2015 challenged the issuance of Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 in favour of plaintiff nor his department has initiated any steps to get the documents under

Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 cancelled. Unless and until the documents under

Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are not cancelled, the plaintiff has every legitimate right to hold the suit schedule property.

21.As can be seen from the material placed on record, the plaintiff is not claiming his perpetual rights upon the suit schedule property and he is only claiming his possession and to strengthen the said contention the plaintiff has relied upon the revenue documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Certainty, there is dispute with regard to the nature of the property and this court does not wants to intrude into the said aspect, as the defendant No.1 is impliedly admitting that, plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing this suit.

22. The defendant No.1 has asserted certain facts in cross examination of Dw.1 (for beneficiary the relevant portion of the cross examination is extracted) here under:

It is true the suit schedule property was allotted by the district collector to the plaintiff2. It is true the name of the plaintiff is reflecting in the column of possessor in the pahanies from the year 20023. It might be true that our department people tried to restrain the plaintiff from entering into the suit schedule property on 16.5.20154.

23.Considering the answers rendered by the Dw.1, it emphasis the contention of the plaintiff as correct. From the answers of Dw.1 impliedly it can be held that, the plaintiff is in possession of 23rd line of Cross examination of Dw.1 dated 12.04.2017 3Page 2, 6th line of Cross examination of Dw.1 dated 12.04.2017 4Page 2, 8th line of Cross examination of Dw.1 dated 12.04.2017 24.4.2017 9 OS.No.84/2015 the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and defendants tried to restrain the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

24.Therefore, for the foregoing reasons and discussions made supra, the plaintiff established his claim, as on the date of filing the suit, he is in actual possession of suit schedule property and he is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants.

Accordingly, issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff.

Issue No.3:

25.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendants by way of granting perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2017.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Appendix of evidence For plaintiff Witnesses examinedFor Defendants

Pw.1 :Sangam NarsaiahDw.1:K.Babu, FRO ::Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff ::

Ex.A1: Copy of pahani patrika for the year 2008-09 of Sy.No.1159 issued by village Revenue Officer, Ramadugu village of Dharpally Mandal, Nizamabad district in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A2: Copy of pahani patrika for the year 2014-15 of Sy.NO.1159/6 issued by Me-seva, Dharpally mandal, Nizamabad dist in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A3: 1-B Namuna (ROR) Ex.A4: Pattedar pass book Ex.A5: Title deed 24.4.2017 10 OS.No.84/2015 :: Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants ::

Ex.B1: Attested copy of A.P. Gazette. Ex.B2: Attested copy of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 Ex.B3: Attested copy of Circular issued by the Chief Secretary A.P. to all Dist. Collectors. Ex.B4: Attested copy of Pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex.B5: Attested copy of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex.B6: Attested copy of pahani for the year 2007-08 Ex.B7: Attested copy of pahani for the year 2014-15 Ex.B8: Attested copy of prohibitory order. Ex.B9: Attested copy of Amsanpally Block map.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

24.04. 2017 1 O.S.No.247/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE NIZAMABAD.

PRESENT:

SRI K.KIRAN KUMAR,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2017

O.S. No. 247 of 2015

Between:

G.Jagadeeshwar, S/o G.Sudershan, age: 36 years, Occ: Busienss, R/o Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad. ...Plaintif

And

M.D.Waseem, S/o Basheer Ahmed, age: 35 years, Occ: Photo Studio Business, R/o H.NO.8-8-33, Linegally, Nizamabad.

..Defendant

This suit is coming on 24.04.2017 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Narayandas, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri M.A. Qayyum, and Sri P.Venkata Ramanaiah, Advocates for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) along with future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit and till realization and awarded with costs.

2. Thumb-nail sketch of the facts of the case which germen from the pleading of the both the contenders is as follows

For plaintif:

3.Plaintif claimed that he and defendant are well acquaintance with each other since long time, out of the said acquaintance the defendant approached the plaintif and requested the hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of his personal and family needs in the month of April, 2014, 24.04. 2017 2 O.S.No.247/2015 accordingly the plaintif agreed and paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant on 15.04.2014, in turn the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of plaintif in the presence of two witnesses and promised to repay the loan amount with interest at the rate of 2% per month within short period.

4.Plaintif claimed that thereafter the plaintif several times personally approached and requested the defendant to repay the said hand loan amount with interest, but the defendant failed to repay the amount, having vexed up with attitude of the defendant, the plaintif got issued legal notice dated 24.08.2015 to the defendant, the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). Therefore, the plaintif was constrained to file this suit for the aforesaid relief.

For the defendant:

5.Defendant filed written statement by denying the entire averments of the plaint. Defendant admitted that, he and plaintif are acquainted with each other. Defendant claimed that, plaintif used to run chit business without any license etc., and he became a member in a chit group of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2011 and at the time of joining in the chit of the plaintif obtained the signatures of this defendant on some blank, printed proformas and white papers etc., after the completion of the said chit period, the defendant demanded for the chit amount, but the plaintif failed to pay the chit amount and postponed the matter of payment of chit amount on one or the other pretext, he demanded the plaintif to pay the chit amount and pressurized him for the said amount, as such the plaintif herein developed grudge and filed the false case by creating the alleged promissory note, the promissory note is not executed by this defendant at any point of time, there is no receipt for the amount of promissory note, as such no consideration was passed through the 24.04. 2017 3 O.S.No.247/2015 alleged document, as such, he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintif, plaintif created the document, there is no cause of action to file the suit.

Hence, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties to this suit, the following issues were framed for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintif advanced an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant on 15.01.2015 in turn defendant executed the promissory note in favour of plaintif?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled to claim the suit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with future interest against the defendant?

3. To what relief?

7.On behalf of plaintif, he himself examined as Pw.1 and attestor of the promissory note Sri G.Dhanunjay was examined as PW.2. The plaintif has relied on four documents which were exhibited on his behalf as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

On the other hand, the defendant himself examined as Dw.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both side.

The learned counsel for the plaintif has argued that, the defendant has admitted his signature on the relevant column of promissory note under

Ex.A1, thus the defendant has invited the burden on himself, but the defendant could not get relived from the statutory burden. The learned counsel for the plaintif has argued that, by examining the plaintif himself and also by examining the attestor of the promissory note under Ex.A1, the plaintif has succeeded in establishing the suit claim. The learned counsel for the plaintif has argued that, by producing and exhibiting the promissory note under Ex.A1, the plaintif amply proved the suit claim and as such, the suit shall be decreed in favour of plaintif.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant has argued that, the plaintif failed to prove that the consideration was passed 24.04. 2017 4 O.S.No.247/2015 under Ex.A1 and Ex.A1 was issued towards discharge legally enforcible debt

dated 15.04.2014. The learned counsel for the defendant has argued that, the

defendant never executed the promissory note in favour of plaintif under

Ex.A1. The learned counsel for the defendant has argued that, the defendant has subscribed the chit organized by the plaintif and at the time of membership the defendant had signed on blank paper, printed proforma. The learned counsel for the defendant has argued that, plaintif failed to prove his contention, as such this suit may be dismissed in limini.

Issue No.1 and 2:

9.The plaintif has filed his affidavit in lieu of the chief examination of

Pw.1 and on reading of the contents of the chief affidavit of PW.1, it is reiterating the contents of the plaint on oath. From the chief affidavit of PW.1, it could be understood that plaintif is contending that, he and defendant are well acquainted with each other since long time and out the said acquaintance and intimacy, the defendant has approached the plaintif in the month of April, 2014 and requested the plaintif to arrange hand loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of personal and family needs of the defendant. Believing the version of the defendant, the plaintif has agreed to arrange the said funds and paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to defendant on 15.04.2014 in the presence of two witnesses, evidencing the said transaction the defendant got executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintif in the presence of two witnesses and also the defendant agreed to repay the said amount along with interest @ 2% per month. Inspite of repeated request of plaintif, the defendant did not heed to the request of plaintif and failed to repay the hand loan amount, thus, the plaintif got constrained to issued legal notice on 24.09.2015. The defendant has received the legal notice, but he failed to repay the loan amount along with interest to the plaintif.

24.04. 2017 5 O.S.No.247/2015

10.Refuting the contention of the plaintif, defendant himself examined as Dw.1 and contended that he never requested the plaintif for hand loan, he never borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif under any promissory note at any relevant time and he never got executed any promissory note in favour of plaintif, the suit promissory note under Ex.A1 is false and fabricated document created by the plaintif for the purpose of the suit claim, the defendant has strenuously contended that, the plaintif is running private chit business without any license and the defendant has joined one of the chit as a member and in the said chit the plaintif has to pay

Rs.1,00,000/- to him, at the time of subscribing and induction of the said chit, the plaintif obtained the signature of defendant on blank printed proforma and also on white papers, thereafter on the completion of chit, the defendant demanded the plaintif for chit amount, but the plaintif failed to pay the chit amount and postponed the matter for payment of chit amount on one pretext or the other, as the defendant pressurized the plaintif to pay the chit amount the plaintif filed this false suit, there is no receipt passed by defendant for the alleged amount.

11.It is the oral evidence of the PW.1 and PW.2, that on 15.04.2014 the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif after receipt of

Rs.1,00,000/- in the presence of PW.2 and another person. It is the oral evidence of PW.1 that Ex.A1 was brought into existence by the plaintif and defendant after receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.04.2014. On the other hand, the defendant has vehemently denied the said contention of the plaintif. Herein, it is appropriate to note that, the defendant through his written statement has asserted that the plaintiff obtained the signature of this defendant on some blank, printed proformas and white papers etc * .

12.From this assertion, the defendant has invited the burden upon him. In this regard, except the sole testimony of defendant, there is no *3rd line of 3rd para of written statement of defendant.

24.04. 2017 6 O.S.No.247/2015 evidence to corroborate and strengthen the contention of defendant. The defendant has denied the entire transaction covered under Ex.A1. The main contention of the defendant is that, the plaintif is running a private chit and wherein, the defendant has subscribed one of the chit for a value of

Rs.1,00,000/- organized by plaintif, but the defendant could not lead any sort of evidence to believe the version taken by the defendant to be true and correct. During the course of cross examination of DW.1, it was admitted by

DW.1 that it is true the address mention in Ex.A4 is that of mine and I have received legal notice under Ex.A2 1 . From this admission of DW.1, it is very much clear that, the defendant is well aware about the contents of the legal notice under Ex.A2 and inspite of having knowledge of the contents of

Ex.A2, the defendant did not choose to reply the said notice under Ex.A2.

Thus, the demeanor of the defendant is questionable and gives an occasion to draw and adverse inference against the defence taken by the defendant.

13.Apart from that also, it was elicit and admitted in the cross examination of Dw.1, that the signature in the relevant column of Ex.A1

is that of him 2 . He has not filed any document to say that he has

subscribed chit organized by the plaintiff, till date 3 . He did not got

issued any legal notice to the plaintiff demanding him to give back his

blank signed documents 4. Moreover, the cross examination of the plaintif witnesses i.e., Pw.1 and PW.2 conducted on behalf of defendant, could not yield any benefit to the contention of the defendant, as the plaintif has denied the contention of the defendant, but there is no material elicited to disbelieve the contention of the plaintif. The contention of the defendant is that he never requested the plaintif to arrange funds and also never borrowed any amount of money from plaintif at any point of time appears to be suspicious and bleak.

1 . 1st line of cross examination of DW.1 dated 18.04.2017. 2 . 3rd line of cross examination of DW.1 dated 18.04.2017. 3 . 4th line of cross examination of DW.1 dated 18.04.2017. 4 . 6th line of cross examination of DW.1 dated 18.04.2017.

24.04. 2017 7 O.S.No.247/2015

14.The main contention of the defendant appears to be that, the defendant has subscribed a chit for value of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2011, which was alleged to be organized by the plaintif. During the said alleged transaction of the chit, the plaintif has obtained the signature of the defendant on some blank white papers and printed proformas, the plaintif has never returned the said document after completion and termination of the chit.

15.Adverting to the said contention of the defendant, it is pertinent to note that the defendant has claimed that, at the time of joining the chit the plaintif obtained his signatures on some blank white papers and printed proformas and also the defendant is claiming that, the suit promissory note is alleged to be created. Admittedly, the defendant did not initiated any legal course against the plaintif to regain the blank signed documents. Even after receipt of the legal notice of this suit, he did not bother to reply the same. The defendant took two contradictory and inconsistence defence, which are quite opposite to each other and at the same time the said defences of the defendant cannot be sustained, as such, the defence of the defendant does not have any sanctity, defendant could not establish the that he never executed the promissory note and he never borrowed any amount from the plaintif under Ex.A1 and he subscribed the chit only. The defendant could not rebut the contention of the plaintif.

16.Absolutely nothing is placed by the defendant to appreciate his contention as correct and also to disprove the case of the plaintif, at the same time, Pw.1 has narrated the sequence of event, he has also produced Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4, admittedly Ex.A1 bears the signature of defendant and unilaterally it is to be believed that, defendant has executed the promissory note on 15.04.2014 by receiving Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif, Ex.A1 creates an legal obligation on defendant, it is significant that the defendant failed to repay the loan amount borrowed by him, thereby the defence taken by the defendant 24.04. 2017 8 O.S.No.247/2015 appears to be false, on the whole it is abundantly clear that the plaintif could establish his claim against the defendant. Therefore, the plaintif is entitled to recovery of the amount from defendant. Issues 1 and 2 answered accordingly.

Point No.3:-

17.In the result, suit is decreed for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with costs in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant, liable to pay the suit amount with interest on the principal amount only at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2017.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Appendix of evidence For plaintif of witnesses examined For defendant Pw.1: G.Jagdeshwar, Dw.1: M.D.Waseem Pw.2: G.Dhanunjay : Exhibits marked ::

Ex.A1: Original promissory note - Nil - Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice Ex.A3: Postal receipt Ex.A4: Served postal acknowledgment card of defendant

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

1 CC No. 596/15

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST 

CLASS, NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri K.Kiran Kumar, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 20th day of November, 2015

CC. NO. 596 OF 2015

(Cr. No. 181/2015 of P.S., Town­IV, Nizamabad)

Between :­

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Town­IV, Police station, Nizamabad 

...Complainant

And

Dasari Poshetty @ Pandalolla Poshetty @Sriram @ Ramu S/o Venkati, age: 19 years, Caste: Dasari, Occ: Waste papers lifter, R/o Rajarani Dubba, Banswada.

...Accused

This case is coming on 19­11­2015 before me for hearing in the presence of learned Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following : 

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Town­IV, Police Station, Nizamabad filed charge sheet in Crime No. 181/2015 for the offence under sections 457, 380 Indian Penal Code against accused.

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

On 29.07.2015, at about 1100 hours, LW1/Sri Noonemunthala Suresh Goud came to police station and lodged a telugu scribed report stating that, on 26.07.2015 at about 6­30 pm, he locked his house doors and went to his native village i.e., Gundaram, thereafter on 29.07.2015 at about 0700 hours, his house owner namely Sri M.Satish made a phone call to him and informed that, his house latches was found broken, immediately LW1/Sri Thangellapally Vikram rushed to his rented house and found that some unknown offenders gained entry into the house by breaking open the locks of the doors, cupboard and committed theft of one pair of gold ear tops, one pair of broken gold side tops, one pair of silver leg chains, one silver saree key locket and silver waist belt. Thereafter, LW1/Sri Noonemunthala Suresh Goud had presented a report to Town­IV, police station, Nizamabad.

I-AJMFC

Dt: 20.11.2015

2 CC No. 596/15 On receipt of the report of LW1/Sri Noonemunthala Suresh Goud a case in Crime No. 181/2015, U/sec. 457, 380 Indian Penal Code was registered by LW7/Sri P.Madhu, Sub­Inspector of Police of Town­IV police station, Nizamabad and First Information Report was issued and sent to all concerned.

During the course of investigation LW7/Sri P.Madhu, SIP had examined and recorded the detail statements of LW1/Sri Noonemunthala Suresh Goud and other witnesses in Part­II CD, LW7/Sri P.Madhu had an opportunity to visit the scene of offence and conducted panchanama of scene of offence in the presence of mediators and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. 

On 30.07.2015, at about 0600 hours, LW7/Sri P.Madhu, SIP along with his staff were performing vehicle check at Nyalkal cross road, Nizamabad, at that time three persons came from Nyalkal village side on one vehicle, on seeing them they try to escape from there, then the police chased and apprehended the said persons. On interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed this offence, the police got recovered this case property and other case property from the possession of the accused and the police have conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators, LW7/Sri P.Madhu had effected the arrest of accused produced him before the Hon'ble Court for Judicial remand. After completion of investigation LW7/Sri P.Madhu had filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4.The accused was produced from District Jail, Nizamabad and necessary case copies were furnished to the accused, as required under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code. 

5.The accused was examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code a charge for the offence punishable under sections 457 and 380 Indian Penal Code was framed, the contents of charge was read over and explained to him in telugu language, for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried. 

6.During the course of inquiry, on behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW4 were examined, documents marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 and material object Mo.1 to Mo.5 were marked. The learned Senior Asst. Public Prosecutor had given up the evidence of LW2/Sri Billa Satish Kumar, LW3/Sri Peddapati Eashwara chary and LW6/Sri J.Narayana, as such this court was constrained to close the evidence of LW2, LW3 and LW6.

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the incriminating evidence from the prosecution case was read over and 

I-AJMFC

Dt: 20.11.2015

3 CC No. 596/15 explained to him in telugu language, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides. 

9.The point for determination is:­

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention leveled against accused, beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence punishable under sections 457 and 380 or 411 Indian Penal Code ?

POINT :­

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution must place evidence on record, to the effect that accused trespassed into the house of PW1, with an intention to commit theft from the house of PW1 or Dishonestly received stolen property i.e., Mo.1 to Mo.5 belonging to PW1, at the relevant date and time. To prove commission of theft PW1 was examined by the prosecution.

11.According to PW1, on 26.07.2015, at about 6­30 pm, he locked his house and went to his native village, thereafter on 29.07.2015, in the morning hours, when he returned back to his house, he noticed that some unknown offenders had gained entry into his house by broke opening the latches of the main door and committed theft of one pair of gold ear tops, one pair of broke gold side tops, one pair of silveer leg chains, one silver saree ky locket and silver waist belt. PW1 has preferred a report, the report presented by PW1 was marked as Ex.P1. Subsequently PW1 has identified the property as his stolen property and received Mo.1 to Mo.5 for interim custody from this Court. The accused had not choose to cross examine this witness, so the accused has not disputed the fact that this witness was not in the possession of Mo.1 to Mo.5 on the relevant date and time of incident, as well as the fact of commission of theft of the Mo.1 to Mo.5 from the dwelling house. Moreover the accused had not disputed the contents mentioned in the report under ExP1. 

12.To place sufficient corroboration to the testimony of PW1, the prosecution had relied upon testimony of PW2, PW2 in turn deposed that, on 29.07.2015, at about 1200 hours, the police called him to Rotary nagar, Nizamabad, they requested him to act as mediator for the scene of offence panchanama, PW2 further testified that the police had conducted the scene observation panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P2 in his presence. The accused had not choose to cross examine this witness, so the accused has not disputed the Ex.P2. 

I-AJMFC

Dt: 20.11.2015

4 CC No. 596/15

13.To place sufficient corroboration to the testimony of PW1 and PW2, the prosecution had relied upon testimony of PW4 i.e., Sub­ Inspector of Police of Town­IV police station, Nizamabad, PW4 in turn deposed that, on 29.07.2015, at about 1100 hours, while he was present at Town­IV police station, Nizamabad, PW1 appeared before him, presented a report and PW4 basing on the contents of the same registered a case in Crime No. 181/2015, under sections 457, 380 Indian Penal Code, Ex.P6 is the original First Information Report issued by PW4. PW4 had an opportunity to record a detail statement of PW1 under section 161 Criminal Procedure code, PW4 had proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted the scene observation panchanama and prepared the rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P2 in the presence of mediators. Thereafter on 30.07.2015 at about 0600 hours, PW4 was performing vehicle check at Nyalkal cross road, Nizamabad then he had apprehended the accused and on interrogation the accused has voluntarily confessed this offence, PW4 recovered this case property and other case property in the presence of mediators. Though PW4 was cross examined, nothing worth could be elicited to disbelieve his version, more ever the accused has not denied the issuance of Ex.P6 basing on Ex.P1 report.

14.From the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 it is crystal clear that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the fact that on the intervening nights of 26/27.07.2015 some unknown offender/offenders had trespassed into the house of PW1 and breaking the house doors by night in order to commit theft. Now it is for the prosecution to establish that accused is the culprit.

15.In order to establish the said contention the prosecution has examined PW3, PW3 deposed that, on 30.07.2015, at about 0630 hours, while this witness was proceeding near Nyalkal cross roads, Nizamabad, police called him and requested him to act as mediator. Accordingly PW3 along with LW6/Sri J.Narayana had agreed to act as mediators for confession cum recovery panchanama, PW3 has testified that on inquiry the accused revealed that, he had committed theft in the police limits of Nizamabad town in the houses, he has further revealed that he was in possession of some gold ornaments, which he have secured from the theft, PW3 also testified that the police have recovered some property from the possession of the accused in his presence, the police have recorded the confession­cum recovery panchanama in his presence as narrated by both the accused under Ex.P3 to Ex.P5. 

16. Appreciation of Evidence on record:­

a) Flaws in the prosecution case, admittedly in this case the prosecution agency has not conducted any test identification parade of accused, secondly, the prosecution agency has not conducted any test identification parade of recovered property, thirdly, PW3 who is projected as one of the mediator for recovery of stolen property is not I-AJMFC

Dt: 20.11.2015

5 CC No. 596/15 resident of place of seizure, fourthly, the prosecution has not given the copies of seizure report to the accused to say that the stolen property was recovered from his instance, as such the investigating agency failed to comply section 100 (5) of Criminal Procedure Code.

b) Here it is worth to mention that, PW3 who is projected as mediator for confession and recovery panchanamas, his evidence appears to be very formal and casual, it is the allegation of the prosecution that accused had committed altogether 2 crimes, the same reflects in Ex.P3 to Ex.P5, on perusal Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 it appears that the police officer who had conducted the confession cum recovery panchanama had mention the crime No's of the alleged crime, alleging the involvement of accused, astonishingly how a person can memorize the crime numbers by coming to know the name of accused, it is also projected by the prosecution that the accused voluntarily confessed about his involvement and almost all the case property was recovered at the instance of accused, but surprisingly PW3 does not speaks so, PW3 evidence would only show that some property was recovered from the possession of the accused near Nyalkal cross roads, Nizamabad, more particularly PW3 failed to mention the description of the property which was alleged to be recovered from the possession of accused, so also PW3 failed to mention what property was recovered from which accused.

17.There is no documentary evidence to convince and establish that Mo.1 to Mo.5 belongs to PW1, so also police failed to conduct test identification of property to establish the ownership, here at this juncture it is worth to note that the accused has raised a defence that he has nothing to do with Mo.1 to Mo.5, Mo.1 to Mo.5 was not stolen by him and Mo.1 to Mo.5 was not recovered from his instance, more ever the accused has not claimed the ownership/possession of Mo.1 to Mo.5, more specifically the accused has not disputed that Mo.1 to Mo.5 does not belong to PW1, as such this court is left with no other alternative, but to believe that Mo.1 to Mo.5 belongs to PW1.

18.As it is a settled principle that confession made by accused while in police custody not to be proved against him and no confession made to police officer shall proved against the person accused of any offence. Altogether it is very much clear from the testimony of PW3 that the police were also present at the place and the accused confessed in the custody of police. On the whole the testimony of PW3 is not corroborating the contention of prosecution i.e., PW4, as such not inspiring the confidence of this court. The testimony of PW3 is not trustworthy, as such not inspiring the confidence of this court.

19.Upon minute scrutiny of entire evidence places on record the prosecution case is unconvincing, unbelievable, as such not inspiring the confidence of this Court, as such the accused is given benefit of the same.

I-AJMFC

Dt: 20.11.2015

6 CC No. 596/15

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 457 and 380 Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted  under section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The accused is lodged in District jail, Nizamabad, as such the jail authorities are directed that the accused is set at liberty, if he is not required in any other case/cases.

21.The case property under CPR No. 138/2015 i.e., Mo.1 to Mo.5 which is given in interim custody to PW1 vide Crl. M.P. No.1246/2015, 

dated: 13.08.2015, shall become absolute after lapse of appeal time. 

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of November, 2015.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW1: Sri Noonemunthala Suresh Goud­ None ­ PW2: Sri Dyamanamena Dhammaiah PW3: Sri Kadudooram Poshetty PW4: Sri P.Madhu/I.O.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:­

Ex.P1: Report, dated: 29.07.2015 Ex.P2: Crime details form Ex.P3: Attested copy of Confession cum recovery panchanama Ex.P4: Attested copy of recovery panchanama Ex.P5: Attested copy of seizure panchanama Ex.P6: Original First Information Report.

For Defence: ­ Nil ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo.1: One pair of ear tops Mo.2: One pair of broken gold side tops Mo.3: One silver saree key locket Mo.4: Silver waist best Mo.5: One pair of silver leg chain. 

 I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Nizamabad. 

I-AJMFC

Dt: 20.11.2015

7 CC No. 596/15

I-AJMFC

Dt: 20.11.2015