C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
Calendar and Judgment
Calendar Case No: 340/2019
ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE,
KOVVUR
=============================================================
1. Date of Offence :: Prior to 09.06.2017
2. Date of Report/Complaint :: 09.06.2017
3. Date of Apprehension :: ----
4. Date of Release :: Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice
5. Commencement of trial :: 29.11.2021
6. Date of Closure of trial :: 15.07.2025
7. Date of Judgment :: 19.12.2025
8. Name of the Complainant :: State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station.
9. Name of the Accused :: 1.Gunnam Abbu Rao, S/o Ramachandrarao, age 53 years, D.NO.3- 109, Nalleru vari veedhi, Kapileswarapuram, Valluru village, Mandapet Mandal, E.G.Dt. 2.Malireddy Rambabu @ Jaya Babu, S/o Sattibabu, age 43 years, D.No.1-148, Vetlapalem village, Samarlakota mandal, E.G.Dt.
10. Section of Law :: Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC
11. Plea of Accused :: Pleaded Not guilty
12. Finding of the court :: Found not guilty
13. Result: In the result, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of both the accused and their sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no property seized and produced in this case, hence no property order is passed.
14. Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file under section 420 r/w 34
IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2 and numbered as C.C.340/2019. On 21.01.2020, 2 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. charge framed against them for the offence under section 420 r/w 34 IPC. The trial commenced in this case on 29.11.2021 and closed on 15.07.2025. On 15.07.2025, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and posted for arguments. Heard arguments on 12.11.2025 and Judgment pronounced on 19.12.2025. Hence the delay.
Sd/- Smt.K.Naga Lakshmi,
II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate,
Kovvur.
Copy Submitted to:
The Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.
3 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-
CUM – II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: KOVVUR.
Present: Smt. K.Naga Lakshmi, II Additional Judicial I class Magistrate, KOVVUR
Friday, this the 19 th day of December, 2025
CALENDER CASE NO340/2019
BETWEEN:
State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station..
::: Complainant
A N D 1.Gunnam Abbu Rao, S/o Ramachandrarao, age 53 years, D.NO.3-109, Nalleru vari veedhi, Kapileswarapuram, Valluru village, Mandapet Mandal, E.G.Dt. 2.Malireddy Rambabu @ Jaya Babu, S/o Sattibabu, age 43 years, D.No.1-148, Vetlapalem village, Samarlakota mandal, E.G.Dt. ::: Accused
This case is coming on 12.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Babu Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri G.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station has filed a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime No.53/2017 alleging that, the accused committed the offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that –
(i) PW.s 1 and 3(LW.s 1 & 2) are doing cultivation and also doing as paddy broker. PW.19(LW.20) is resident of Brahmanagudem living by doing paddy business such a long period and also introducing the paddy commission agents and rice millers. PW.s 1 to 19 and LW.10/SS Chandra Bose are farmers and cultivate the paddy in their respective agriculture land. A1 and A2 are paddy brokers and running a paddy brokerage office as the name of Venkateswara canvassing office at Kovvur. A1 and A2 introduced them self and further informed 4 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 that, they are doing paddy business. Then PW.1 and PW.19 introduced A1 and A2 to the farmers i.e. PW.s 2 to 18, 20 to 38 and other farmers. The accused Nos.1 and 2 collect the paddy rice bags from the farmers with deceitful words and promised to pay the money Rs.950/- for each bag. But the accused Nos.1 and 2 collect the paddy rice bags, did not pay the money in total Rs.38,47,208/- (Rupees thirty eight lakhs forty seven thousand two hundred and eight only) and cheated the farmers.
(ii) Basing on the report given by PW.3, this case in Cr.No.53/2017 under
Sec.420 IPC of Tallapudi PS was registered by PW.39 and investigated into.
During the course of investigation PW.39 examined the farmers who are said to be sold their paddy rice to the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and recorded their statements.
Threafter A1 got anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble IX Addl. Sessions Judge, W.G.,
Kovvur vide Crl.M.P.No.817/2017 dt.17.07.2017 and released. Thereafter PW.39 served notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. to A2 and released after compliance of notice. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, PW.39 filed chargesheeet against the accused.
3. Basing on the material on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 IPC against Accused No.s 1 and 2.
4. On appearance of accused No.s 1 and 2, case copies were furnished to them, as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5. Accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and explained the charge for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 IPC against them in
Telugu for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.39 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 on behalf of the prosecution. The learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW.23/Puppala Suribabu and
LW.47/Ambati Satyanarayana. The prosecution filed memo along with VRO report stating that, LW.10/Sidhamsetty Subash Chandra Bose, LW.24/Sidda Veera
Venkata Satyanarayana, LW.28/Puppala Nagaraju, LW.30/Yadapati Peddaiah,
LW.31/Gajjula Veeraju, LW.34/Ganisetti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana,
LW.36/Meka Veeranna, LW.43/Sidda Satya Sai and LW.46/Ragu Chandra Rao, 5 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 whereabouts not known. Hence their evidence is closed. On behalf of accused
Nos.1 and 2, Exs.D1 to D6 were marked.
7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.PC, explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they stated that, entire incriminating evidence appearing against them is false and reported no defence evidence.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.
9. Now the point for determination is:-
Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2, for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? POINT:
10. It is the case of prosecution that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 collected the paddy rice bags from the farmers with deceitful words and promised to pay the money Rs.950/- for each bag. But the accused Nos.1 and 2 did not pay the money in total Rs.38,47,208/- (Rupees thirty eight lakhs forty seven thousand two hundred and eight only). Thereby accused Nos.1 and 2 are facing accusation for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 IPC.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 39 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2. PW.3 is defacto complainant, PW.s 1, 2, 4 to 38 are said to be victims and PW.39 is investigation officer. Ex.P1 is the Report given by
PW.3 and Ex.P2 is FIR
12. As seen from the record, the prosecution examined so many witnesses in order to prove the case of prosecution. PW.1 who is said to be one of the victim deposed that, their village farmers used to supply paddy to A1, inturn A1 used to sold it to the rice millers. A2 used to supply lorries for transportation of paddy to the millers through A1. He sold 582 paddy bags to A1 for Rs.970/- each. In total 18 farmers sold their paddy to A1 from their village. A1 mentioned in a paper that, the price to be paid towards cost of the paddy to each farmer as well as himself. A1 has to pay Rs. 14,22,000/- to all 18 farmers. A1 promised that, he will clear all the payments to the farmers within 20 days. But A1 did not clear the payments to the 6 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 farmers including him. When they approached the A1 and asked about the payments, the A1 stated that, he will clear all the payments with in short period. A1 did not pay the total amount to any of the farmer in his village for about 2 months.
Even after waiting for about 2 months, as the accused did not pay the amount to him and other farmers, then he presented a report in Tallapudi Police station. Along with him, the other farmers also accompanied with him to the police station.
13. As per the evidence of PW.1, A1 purchased the paddy from the farmers through PW.1 on credit basis. At that time, A1 mentioned in the written paper about all the particulars of the paddy and the names of the farmers from whom, he purchased the paddy and also about the price which has to be paid to the farmers by him. But he did not produce the such written paper before the investigation officer nor before the court. Furthermore as per Ex.P1, A1 has to be paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and odd to the farmers. But as per the evidence of PW.1, A1 has to be paid only Rs.14,22,000/- to all 18 farmers including PW.1. During cross examination, he admitted that he used to purchase the paddy on commission from the farmers. One Koyya Satyanarayana/PW.19 used to purchase the paddy on commission basis. Further he admitted that to transport the paddy to rice mills the weigh bill is very necessary to transport the paddy to the rice mills of other districts. They used to pay the chess for check post for transporting the same. But the prosecution did not file and did not secure such weigh bills and to show that the accused paid chess to the check post to transport the said paddy which was alleged to be purchased from the victims in this case. furthermore as per the evidence of PW.1, he himself presented report to the Tallapudi PS. But police did not take any action on his report. thereafter he along with other farmers gave Ex.P1. But he did not file the said report before this court and the investigation officer also did not file the such document before the court. Atleast the copy of the said report was not filed by PW.1 before the court.
14. Furthermore, PW.1 admitted that there is no direct transaction between the accused and his village farmers. Surprisingly he stated that A1 paid an amount of Rs.36,00,000/- for paddy. He himself stated that the accused did not pay any amount to the farmers towards price of purchasing paddy. But during 7 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 cross examination PW.1 stated that A1 paid an amount of Rs.36,00,000/- for paddy. Therefore he has given self contradictory statements in his evidence.
Furthermore, during chief examination he stated that A1 has to pay
Rs.14,22,000/-. So that A1 paid more than the amount which was actually indebted to the farmers. His evidence is also silent in which lorries the said paddy was transported by the accused.
15. Moreover PW.1 stated that he obtained the gold loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from State Bank of India to discharge the liabilities of 18 farmers who supplied paddy to him. But it was not stated by him in his earlier statement nor in his chief examination. During cross examination of PW.1 it reveals that he purchased the paddy bags from the farmers and in turn he sold away the same ot A1. But it was not stated by PW.1 in his chief examination . instead of that he stated that he obtained the bank loan for repayment of the amount to the farmers. PW.1 did not explain why he obtained the bank loan for repayment of the said amount to the farmers. Had really, PW.1 is no way relating to the paddy transaction what is necessary to him to obtain bank loan and to pay the said amount to the farmers.
As per the contention of the accused PW.1 purchased the said paddy bags from the farmers and he failed to pay the said sale consideration. Therefore the admissions of PW.1 that he obtained bank loan and repaid amount to farmers is supported the version of the accused.
16. PW.2 who is said to be one of the victim deposed that, in the year 2017, he sold 235 paddy bags @ 950/- each to A1 and PW.1, Mylavarapu Nageswara
Rao. He has to get sale proceeds of Rs.2,23,000/- and odd. After 15 days, PW.1 gave him Rs.29,000/- out of Rs.2,23,000 and odd. He has to receive Rs.1,94,000/-.
Along with him, 18 farmers from their village sold paddy to A1 and PW.1. The other farmers also did not receive the sale proceeds from the A1 and PW.1. All the farmers together went to the police station and gave report.
17. As per the evidence of PW.2, he does not know A2, he sold away the paddy bags to PW.1 and after 15 days PW.1 gave Rs.29, 000/- towards sale proceeds out of Rs.2,23,000/- and odd. As per his version, PW.2 along with other 8 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 farmers sold away the paddy bags to A1 and PW.1. during cross examination of
PW.2 he came to the court on the day of giving evidence with PW.1. PW.1 is his cousin. He admitted that they are selling the paddy bags through PW.1 to the rice millers and agents. He signed on Ex.P1 which was lodged by PW.1 and LW.2.
He do not remember the date when Ex.P1 was given to the police. he does not know the native place of A1. On enquiry he came to know that A1 relating to the
Mandapeta. Therefore as per the evidence of PW.2, he sold away the paddy bags to PW.1 and received part sale proceeds from PW.1. he did not state any where about the transaction alleged to be took place between himself and A1. As per his version, he sold away the paddy bags to PW.1 who is his cousin.
18. PW.3 who is said to be one of the victim deposed that, he sold paddy to
A1 through PW.19, who is resident of Brahmanagudem. He sold paddy to A1 the total yielding from Ac.8.00. One paddy bag containing of 75 kgs is cost of Rs.950/- and the total paddy bags 244 were sold to the A1. The total worth of 244 paddy bags, he has to receive an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- and odd. To his knowledge, the accused gave him about Rs.60,000/- out of Rs.2,30,000/- and odd. He never asked the A1 directly, but he approached the LW.20, who is the mediator between him and A1. He came to know that, A1 used to reside in Kovvur. They waited for some time to receive the balance amount. The mediator/PW.19 informed him that, the sale proceeds will handed over to him shortly and postponing the same from time to time. Later he got prepared a report/Ex.P1 and given to the police in
Tallapudi police station. Later police examined him and recorded his statement. To his knowledge there were about 30 farmers sold paddy to A1.
19. So that he sold away the paddy to A1 through PW.19. As per his chief examination, he never asked A1 directly for the remaining balance amount of
Rs.1,70,000/- of the sale proceeds. He approached PW.19 for that amount and on that PW.19 informed him that the sale proceeds will hand over to him shortly and postponing same from time to time. Therefore, as per the evidence of PW.3, he did not approach the accused for remaining balance amount and they never made any promise to him for payment of the such amount.
9 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
20. As per his evidence, he does not know the person name who drafted
Ex.P1. As per his version 4 or 5 persons went to the police station and submitted report. But as seen from Ex.P1, it was submitted by PW.3 only. He stated that he directly contacted with PW.19 for sale of the said paddy. He did not obtain any weigh bill from A1 nor from PW.19. He does not remember the date and month of said transaction. PW.3 is the complainant and who gave report to the police. As per his evidence, the accused cheated so many farmers.
But Ex.P1 is silent who were cheated by the accused and how much quantity of paddy was sold away to A1. He did not mention the name of A1 in Ex.P1 that he is the resident of Valluru of Mandapeta Mandal. Admittedly PW.3 never contacted with A1 directly and he sold the paddy to A1 through PW.1. Therefore there is no direct contact and no direct transaction between A1 and PW.3.
Furthermore, as per the contents of Ex.P1, which was given by PW.3 and which set the law into motion, he sold away the paddy to A1 through the mediator/PW.19 by believing the words of accused. But as per the evidence of
PW.3, he never contacted with A1 directly and never done any transaction with
A1 directly. Furthermore Ex.P1 does not reflect about receiving of Rs.60,000/- towards part of sale proceeds and he sold away the paddy bags for an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- as deposed in his chief examination. Further as per the evidence of PW.3, PW.3 only sold away the paddy to A1. He did not deposed anywhere about sold away the paddy by the remaining farmers in his village and also about cheated them by the accused. Admittedly, Ex.P1 does not disclose who sold away the paddy to accused and who were cheated and what quantity of paddy was sold away to the accused by the said farmers.
21. PW.4 who is said to be one of the victim deposed that, about 4 years back, in the Rabhi season, he sold about 160 bags of Paddy to PW1. Each paddy bag cost of Rs.950/-. He has to receive the sale consideration of total amount Rs.1,60,000/- approximately. He received Rs.40,000/- through PW.1.
He asked PW.1 for payment of the remaining balance of Rs.1,20,000/- But the
PW.1 postponing the same without paying money. After repeated demands from all the farmers of their village, PW.1 informed that, PW.1 in-turn sold the 10 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 entire paddy to the accused, in which he collected from villagers and further informed that, the accused did not made any payment to PW.1. On one occasion, he was accompanied by PW.1 to Kovvur, who taken him to a house in Kovvur, which was found door locked. PW.1 informed him that, the door locked house belongs to A1. Then, he went to Police Station along with
PW3/LW1 and then LW1/PW3 lodged report against the accused.
22. As per the evidence of PW.4 he also sold away the paddy bags to
PW.1 and received Rs.40,000/- from PW.1. He asked PW.1 for payment of remaining balance of Rs.1,20,000/- and on that PW.1 postponing the same without payment of said amount. On repeated demands made by all the farmers, PW.1 informed that he sold away the purchased paddy to the accused.
Therefore PW.4 did not contact with accused and he sold away the said paddy to PW.1 only. it clearly establishes that, there is no direct contact between PW.4 and A1 with regard to the selling of the paddy and receiving of the amount. He did not know about A1 till PW.1 informed to him that, the said paddy was sold away to A1 by PW.1. Therefore it clearly shows that, there is no direct contact with A1 by PW.4 and that, the accused never made any promise to PW.4 for payment of remaining balance sale proceeds.
23. Admittedly PW.4 has no acquaintance with the accused. He sold away the paddy bags to PW.1. But due to default of PW.1, he did not make any efforts to lodge report against PW.1. Furthermore he does not remember the place of accused at Kovvur where he along with other farmers went to ask the accused. Surprisingly PW.4 stated that, he does not know what happened between PW.1 and accused about the transaction of sale of paddy. Therefore as per the evidence of PW.4, it is proved that, A1 never contacted with PW.4 and never purchased the paddy bags directly with him and never promised to
PW.4 for payment of remaining sale proceeds.
24. PW.5 who is said to be one of the victim deposed in his chief examination that, he sold away the 150 bags of paddy to PW.1 and received
Rs.45,000/- from PW.1. Thereafter, he asked PW.1 for payment of remaining 11 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 balance of Rs.1,00,500/-. But PW.1 postponing the same without paying said amount. After repeated demands from all the farmers, PW.1 informed that,
PW.1 inturn sold away the paddy to the accused and the accused did not pay any amount to PW.1. Therefore, it clearly establishes that, there is no sale transaction of the said paddy between PW.5 and accused and so that, there is no question of promise to repayment of the said amount by the accused.
Therefore, the alleged offence of cheating does not attract against the accused, in view of the evidence of PW.5. Admittedly, PW.5 has no acquaintance with the accused. According to him, he sold away the paddy bags to PW.1. He stated that PW.1 paid Rs.45,000/- within one month and thereafter he waited another 15 days for remaining balance amount. He never demanded the accused directly.
25. PW.6 who is also said to be one of the victim deposed in his chief examination that, at about 4 or 5 years ago in the Rabi season, he sold approximately 150 paddy bags to PW.1 for an amount of Rs.950/- each bag for an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- and odd. All the farmers along with him waited for 40 days, but the accused did not pay the single pie to them. During his cross examination, he stated that, PW.1 is his son. Himself and his son cultivated the land separately. PW.1 living separately and he did cultivation his own. Even though he is the father of PW.1, he stated that he sold away the paddy bags to
PW.1, but not the accused. But he stated that, after waiting 40 days, the accused did not pay any amount. His evidence is silent what is the necessity to the accused for payment of said amount without purchasing the said rice bags.
Admittedly he has no direct acquaintance with A1 and A2. The above transaction took place with PW.1. He admitted that, his son/PW.1 is doing commission business by selling the paddy to the purchasers. He did not allege that, he sold away the paddy to the accused either directly or through PW.1. But surprisingly, he stated that inspite of demands made by PW.1, the accused postponed the same and requested not to put-up any case against him and so that, PW.1 did not lodge any report before Tallapudi PS. But as per the evidence of PW.1, he has given report to Tallapudi Police about cheating 12 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 committed by the accused, but the police did not take any action on his report.
PW.1 not stated anywhere about requesting by the accused not to put-up any criminal case against him. Therefore, the evidence of PW.6 is not consistent with the evidence of PW.1 and so that, his evidence is not free from suspicion.
26. PW.7 who is said to be one of the victim deposed that, at about 4 ½ years back, he sold 115 paddy bags to PW.1 and received sale consideration of
Rs.1,09,250/- and on that day, PW.1 promised that, he will pay the entire remaining sale consideration within 40 days. He came to know through PW.1 that he sold away the paddy to A1 and did not pay the remaining amount.
Therefore, as per the evidence of PW.7 also, the entire transaction of sale of the paddy bags took place between PW.1 and PW.7, but not with the accused.
The part of the sale consideration was also made by PW.1 and also the promise made by PW.1 for payment of remaining balance amount. Therefore, there is no direct transaction with A1. Admittedly he does not know the personal particulars of A2 and he never sold away any paddy to A2.
27. As per the evidence of PW.8, he sold away the paddy bags to A1 and
PW.1. Both promised him to pay the paddy bags price within one week after delivery of paddy bags. A1 and PW.1 took the delivery of said paddy bags from him. Therefore, PW.8 was made believe by the PW.1 and A1. But they have given report to police against A1 and they did not give any report against PW.1 nor made any allegations in Ex.P1 against PW.1.
28. During cross examination, he stated that, he cannot say the survey number and boundaries of Ac.3.00 of agricultural land which is cultivating by him. He cannot say the name of his landlord. He does not know the father’s name and native place of A1. He know A1 through PW.1 only. He does not know the lorry number in which paddy bags were loaded. He did not state anywhere about the transaction between himself and accused. At least he did not say about demanding the accused for payment of the balance amount. As per his evidence, he along with other farmers went to the house of A1 in
Kovvur. But he could not say the door number of his house and area of A1. He 13 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 could not say when he visited the house of A1 in Kovvur. Furthermore, he did not present any report to the police personally. Therefore, his evidence is also not free from suspicion.
29. PW.9who is said to be one of the victim deposed that, he sold away the paddy bags to A1 and A2 through PW.1 and received only Rs.40,000/- and the amount due is Rs.87,000/-. He waited for 6 or 7 months and placed the matter before elders. The accused promised before elders that they would pay the remaining balance amount. But the entire case of prosecution, A2 is only the person who supplied the lorries for transporting the paddy bags. He is not the purchaser of the paddy bags.
30. During cross examination he admitted that PW.1 got weighed the paddy bags and arranged the coolies forloading the said bags into the lorries.
According to his version, PW.1 brought A1 and A2 to him. He categorically admitted that PW.1 is the answerable for payment of the sale consideration. He does not have prior acquaintance with the accused. Further he stated that he demanded PW.1 for payment of the balance sale consideration. Therefore, had really, he sold away the said bags to the accused, why he kept silent without demanding them for payment of the balance consideration and what is the reason for demanding PW.1 for such amount. Furthermore as per the case of the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred in the year 2018. But PW.9 stated that he sold away the bags to the accused in the month of March, 2007. Atleast he does not know who gave report to police against A1 and A2 and about the names of 18 or 19 farmers which are alleged to be cheated by the accused.
Further he admitted that, PW.1 alone is the responsible for the transaction between him and accused and the accused are not responsible for remaining amount.
31. PW.10 who is said to be one of the victim deposed that, he sold away the paddy bags to A1 and another person through PW.1 and he has received an amount of Rs.55,000/- only and the remaining balance of Rs.1,35,000/- has to be received. But the accused did not pay the said amount. Other 15 farmers 14 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 were also sold away their paddy bags to A1 through PW.1. They also received only part payment towards sale consideration. During cross examination he stated that, they sold away the said paddy bags on the assurance given by
PW.1 that he would collect the sale consideration from the purchasers and pay the same to them. PW.1 received commission for that transaction. Therefore, such statement itself establishes that, the accused never made any promise to
PW.10. So that, there is no question of cheating and that the alleged offence is not attracted against the accused, as per the evidence of PW.10. Furthermore, he stated that, PW.1 gave to him an amount of Rs.55,000/- which is the part payment. He does not know the other farmers names and he does not know the father name, surname and village of A.1. Further, as per his evidence, PW.3 gave report to police. He did not give any report to police. Further he categorically deposed that, PW.1 is responsible for payment of the balance sale consideration to him.
32. PW.11 who is said to be one of the victim deposed that, at about 6 years back, he sold away 147 paddy bags to A1 and out of total sale consideration, an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-, he received Rs.60,000/- only. Along with him, other 40 other farmers sold away their paddy to A1. Some of them received sale consideration in full and some of them did not receive the amount.
As per his evidence, PW.1 gave amount of Rs.60,000/- to him towards part of sale consideration. Further he categorically deposed that, PW.1 is liable to pay the remaining balance amount of Rs.80,000/- to him. Therefore, as per the evidence of PW.1, the accused did not contact with him directly and they did not make any promise to pay any amount towards sale consideration of paddy bags.
33. PW.12 who is said to be one of the victim deposed that, at about 6 years back, he sold away 75 paddy bags to A1 through PW.1 for an amount of
Rs.950/- for each bag and he has received Rs.20,000/- out of the sale consideration of Rs.74,000/-, the said Rs.20,000/- was paid by the A1. There after A1 promised him that, he would pay the balance amount within 20 days.
But he did not pay the said amount.
15 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
34. During cross examination, he admitted that, PW.1 collected paddy bags from all the formers by taking commission amount. PW.3 purchased the paddy bags from their Village. Prior to the alleged transaction, he did not sell the paddy to A1. He did not have any documentary proof to show that, A1 paid
Rs.20,000/- to him and he has to pay balance of Rs.54,000/-. Even though he stated about part payment of the sale consideration by A1 and promise made by A1 for payment of remaining balance amount, he did not file any documentary proof to show that, the said transaction took place between himself and A1 and on that A1 indebted Rs.54,000/- to him.
35. PW.13 who is also said to be one of the victim deposed that, at about 7 years back he sold away 96 paddy bags to some persons through PW.1 and he was promised that, the said sale consideration would be paid within one week.
During cross examination he stated that, he does not know the survey number of agriculture land and he did not handover any pattadar or 1-B adangal to the police. Further he admitted that, every year he supply the paddy bags to PW.1 for more than 10 years. Further he stated that, he never spoken to any person about the names of A1 and A2. Further he admitted that, he did not state to the police that, he supplied the paddy bags to A1 and A2 and that, A1 did not pay the sale consideration to him. Further he categorically admitted that, the said transaction took place between himself and PW.1. Therefore, as per the evidence of PW.13, he did not sell any paddy bags to the accused and the accused did not promise to him for payment of the said consideration as alleged.
36. PW.14 who is said to be one of the victim deposed that, at about 6 years back, he sold away 120 paddy to A1 through PW.1 and he received
Rs.40,000/- towards part sale consideration and the remaining sale consideration of Rs.70,000/- was not paid to him. During cross-examination of
PW.14 he admitted that, whenever he used to sell paddy, he used to conduct the transaction with PW.1. Further he admitted that, the obligation for payment of the sale consideration is on PW.1. He has been conducting sale consideration with PW.1 for 10 to 15 years. Further he stated that, he did not 16 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 give any complaint to the police against A1 and he did not know the phone number of A1 and he cannot say the address of office of A1 in Kovvur. Further he admitted that, he does not have any receipt issued by the lorry owner for supplying the paddy.
37. Further he admitted that, on the day of giving evidence, he came to the court by accompanying with father of PW.1 and younger brother of PW.1.
Further he stated PW.1 informed to him that, he has to attend the court to give evidence and he did not receive any summons from the police. Further he stated that, he is the relative of PW.1. Therefore as per the evidence of PW.14 he did not make any single allegation against the accused. He did not sale the paddy to accused and the accused did not make any promise to him for payment of the sale consideration . Admittedly the sale transaction took place between PW.4 and PW.1.
38. PW.15 who is one of the victim deposed that about 4 or 5 years back, he sold the paddy to A1 and A2 through PW.1 and on that the accused promised that they would pay the sale consideration within 15 days. Even after 15 days, they did not pay the said amount. Then he questioned PW.1 for that further amount for two times. During cross examination he admitted that, the said sale transaction took place between himself and PW.1. Prior to the alleged transaction, he did not have any transaction with A1 and A2. He did not know
A2. He does not know the phone number of A1 and address particulars in
Kovvur. Thus it is clear that the said sale transaction of paddy took place between PW.15 and PW.1. As per his evidence, he demanded PW.1 for payment of the said amount. Had really, any promise made by the accused, what prevented PW.15 for demanding A1 and A2 for payment of the said amount. He did not demand the accused for the said amount. He only questioned PW.1 twice about the said payment. Therefore, PW.15’s evidence clearly establishes that, no transaction took place between PW.15 and accused and so that there is no question of making promise for payment of the said sale consideration.
17 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
39. As per the evidence of PW.16, he sold away 168 bags of paddy to A1 and A2 through PW.1 and delivered the same to them. He received Rs.43,000/- as advance and he was promised to pay the balance amount within 15 days.
But they did not pay the said amount. Then he approached PW.1 and informed him about non-payment. On that, PW.1 himself along with other formers went to the house of A1 in Kovvur. But it was found locked. Then they gave report to police.
40. During cross examination, he admitted that, he does not have any documentary proof to show that the accused paid Rs.43,000/- towards advance and he owes Rs.1,16,000/- towards balance consideration. In their village,
PW.1 and others purchased the paddy on commission basis. During his cross examination, it is elicited that he never made any phone call to A.1 and he does not know the address and door number of A1. He does not have any weigh bill to show that he delivered the paddy bags. Had really, the accused made promise, what prevented him to make demand for payment of the remaining balance amount. Without knowing about the accused, their address particulars and their phone numbers, selling the paddy bags to them is not believable and sustainable.
41. It is the evidence of PW.17 that, at about 6 years back, he sold away the 116 paddy bags to A1 through PW.1 and he received Rs.60,000/- from them and he was informed that, the balance sale price shall be paid within 10 days by
A1 through PW.1. He has waited for 20 days, but it was not paid to him. On that, he questioned PW.1 who is the mediator between himself and A1. During cross examination he stated that, according to him, PW.1 is Muta-coolie. But during chief examination he stated that, PW.1 is the mediator for selling the paddy bags. PW.1 discussed with him and fixed the rate of paddy bags. PW.1 loaded the paddy bags into the lorry and he paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- to him. He further deposed that, he used to demand PW.1 for payment of the balance sale consideration for 10 days. Therefore, as per his evidence, PW.1 is not the Muta-coolie and he loaded the bags in the lorry by paying the part of sale consideration of Rs.60,000/- to him and made promise for payment of the 18 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 remaining balance amount. Further, he categorically deposed that, PW.1 is liable for payment of the balance sale consideration as he dealt with him.
Therefore, as per the evidence of PW.17, there is no direct transaction with the accused by PW.17 and that the accused did not make any promise to him for payment of the balance amount.
42. It is the evidence of PW.18 that, in the year 2017, he sold paddy bags to A1 and A2 through PW.1. But he did not receive any amount towards sale price. He was informed by PW.1 that the total price shall be paid within one week. But it was not paid to him. He waited for one week and questioned PW.1 about payment of the sale consideration. On that, PW.1 told him that, the said payment shall be made in another two days. He waited for one month. But he was not paid any amount. During cross examination he admitted that, usually the commission agents purchased the paddy from him. Further he deposed that, PW.1 approached him and spoke to him about sale of paddy bags. One person namely Babu Rao and PW.1 came at the time of loading the paddy bags. He does not know the father name of accused and village of A1 and A2.
As per his version, PW.1 made promise that, the said payment shall be made within one week. PW.1 assured him that, A1 shall pay the said sale price soon.
He has been asking PW.1 for payment even now. Therefore, as per the evidence of PW.18 also, PW.1 made promise for payment of the sale price.
Further, he stated that one Babu Rao and PW.1 came to him at the time of loading the paddy bags. But the name of A1 and A2 are not the Babu Rao, at least he does not know the names of persons who alleged to be cheated him.
Even according to his evidence, he did not contact with accused for selling the paddy bags. Further he stated that, he alongwith PW.1 and other farmers went to Kovvur to the office of A1, but he could not say the names of the farmers who accompanied with them to go to the office of A1. At least he could not say the names of all the 40 farmers, who went to the police station. He does not know the surname, father name and village of accused. Therefore, his evidence is not free from suspicion.
19 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
43. As per the evidence of PW.19, he supplied 20 coolies for loading the paddy bags into the lorry, when A1 and A2 purchased the paddy bags. At about 10 days after the said transaction, PW.3 informed him that, A1 did not pay the balance amount of paddy price. Then, he along with all the farmers went to the house of A1 in Kovvur and found it locked. During cross examination he stated that, he is Muta-Mastri. He used to supply the paddy on commission basis for 10 years. It is also elicited during cross examination of PW.19 that, he did not state in his previous statement that, he is a paddy trader and supply the paddy to the rice mill owners and commission agents. There is no weigh bill for the lorries, at that time when the paddy bags were loaded and sold the same to the accused.
44. PW.20 who is also one of the victim deposed that, at about 7 years back, he sold away 52 paddy bags to A1 and A2 and he has received
Rs.24,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- was not paid to him. At the time of purchasing the said paddy bags, A1 and A2 promised that, they would pay the said amount within 10 days.
45. During cross examination of PW.20, he admitted that, he got facial acquaintance with A1 through commission agent Immani Sekhar. PW.20 is the son of PW.3. By the time of giving Ex.P1, he was also accompanied with PW.3 and by that time, he along with PW.3 used to reside in the same house. But he did not sign on Ex.P1. When PW.3 and PW.20 who are the father and son and who are residing together in the same house, sold away their paddy bags in different transactions to the accused and the accused indebted the amounts to them, is not believable. Furthermore, PW.20 who accompanied with PW.3 at the time of giving report, did not sign on it. Had really, he was cheated by the accused, definitely, he would sign on it and at least his name was also mentioned as a victim in Ex.P1. But PW.3 did not do the same. Further PW.20 stated that, he does not know the phone number of A1, he does not know where the office of A1 is situated in Kovvur. Further, he admitted that, except his oral statement, there is no documentary proof to show that, he supplied the paddy bags to A1 and A1 promised him to pay the amount to him. Further, he 20 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 admitted that, he did not issue any notice to A1 demanding for payment of the sale price to him.
46. PW.21 deposed that, he sold the paddy of 169 bags to A1 for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and he received an amount of Rs.1,32,000/-. He requested them for remaining amount of Rs.28,000/- for several times, but they did not pay the same. Further he stated that, he along with other victims filed the case.
47. During cross examination he stated that, he got acquaintance with
PW.19 since long time and he used to sell the paddy through PW.19 and PW.2 is Jattu-mastri to engage the coolies. He did not give any receipt to the police which was alleged to be given to him by the accused towards balance amount.
He admitted that, PWs. 1 and 2 are doing paddy commission business.
48. PW.22 who is another victim deposed that, he sold away 121 paddy bags to A1 for an amount of Rs.1,21,000/- and he received Rs.80,000/- only.
Himself and 10 farmers went to A1 to ask about remaining amount, but he was not there. Then they gave report to police. During cross examination he stated that, he cannot say the surname of A1, father name of A1 and other particulars of A1. Further he admitted that, PW.1 used to purchase the paddy from the farmers of their village. The paddy transaction relating to this case took place at the instance of PW.1. He also admitted that, he used to ask PW.19 for the remaining sale amount. Admittedly he did not give any report to the police separately. Further, PW.22 who stated that, he went to the office of A1 deposed that, he does not know the address particulars of A1 and he cannot say the names and particulars of the other persons who came with him to ask A1 for remaining amount. Surprisingly, he admitted that, the remaining sale amount of
Rs.35,000/- has to be paid by PW.19 to him. Therefore, as per his version
PW.19 is responsible for the remaining sale amount.
49. PW.23 who is also said to be one of the victim deposed that, he sold away the paddy of 130 bags to A1 and A2 and he received Rs.20,000/- as advance amount. He further deposed that, the accused promised that, they will 21 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 pay the remaining amount within one week. But they did not pay the same.
They waited for one month and he along with other farmers went to the office of accused in Kovvur to ask about the same, but the accused were not present there. During cross examination he admitted that, PW.1 and PW.19 used to purchase the paddy bags in his village and loaded into the lorries after weighing the same. According to his version, A1 and A2 directly approached him and purchased the paddy. But he does not know the father name, surname of the accused and their residence. He could not say the date, when he along with other farmers went to the office of A1. Admittedly, he did not give any report to the police. He does not know about the address particulates of A1 and anything about A2. Further he admitted that, A2 never purchased any paddy from him.
Admittedly he did not go to the police station nor given any report. But he stated that, the police constable came to him and recorded his statement. Surprisingly, he does not know who is the complainant in this case and about the date when the complaint was given to the police.
50. PW.24 who is also said to be one of the victim deposed that, he sold away 150 bags of paddy to A1 and another and received Rs.1,00,000/- as advance amount. A1 and another person promised that the remaining amount will be given within a week, but they did not pay the said amount. On that, after one month, all the farmers including PW.24 went to the office of A1 in Kovvur, but it was found locked. During cross examination he stated that, PW.19 got weighed the purchased paddy bags and loaded into the lorry. Further, during his cross examination, so many contradictions relating to the number of paddy bags which were sold away by PW.24, about receiving the amount of
Rs.1,59,146/- from the accused and also waiting of 45 days for remaining amount were elicited. But these are all contradictions were denied by PW.24.
Admittedly he is also not given any report to the police. Further he admitted that, he does not know the name of other person who came along with A1 and he did not allege anything against the said person.
51. PW.25 who is said to be one of the victim deposed that, he sold away 90 paddy bags to A1 and A2 and he received an amount of Rs.60,000/-.
22 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
Thereafter the accused promised him that they will pay the said amount within two days, but they did not pay the same. He along with other farmers who sold away the paddy bags and who were cheated by the accused, gave report to the police. During cross examination he stated that, he cannot say the survey number and boundaries of his lease hold property. Further he stated that, A2 purchased the paddy bags, weighed the same and loaded into the lorries as commission agent. But the entire case of the prosecution is that, A2 supplied the lorries to A1 for loading the purchased paddy bags. No one was stated that,
A2 purchased the paddy bags. Further he stated that, he cannot say the father name and address particulars of the accused. Further he admitted the contradictions in his previous statements in comparing with his chief examination stating in different versions with regard to the received amount and balance of sale consideration which has to be received. Further he stated that he did not give any report to the police which is contradictory to his statement in chief examination.
52. PW.26 who is also said to be one of the victim deposed that, he sold away 150 paddy bags to A1 through A2 is the mediator. He received some amount. The accused promised him that they will pay the remaining amount of
Rs.20,000/- within two days, but they did not pay the same. Then he along with other farmers who sold away the paddy bags to A1, gave report to police. At once they went to the office of accused. But the accused were not present in their office.
53. During cross examination he could not say the survey number and boundaries of his lease hold agricultural land. He does not remember the date when he sold away the paddy. Further, he could not say the name of the other two persons who purchased the paddy bags along with A1 and their names except Abburao. He could not say how much amount he has received towards paddy sale consideration and how much amount he has to receive from the accused with regard to the transaction. Further during cross examination he stated that, usually he sold away the paddy to PW.19 and he used to weigh and load the same into the lorries. It is also admitted that, PW.19 used to look after 23 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 the selling of paddy as a commission agent. Further, he categorically admitted that, he used to demand PW.19 for the remaining amount. He did not give any report to the police against the accused. Therefore, as per the version of
PW.26, he demanded PW.19 for remaining balance amount, but not to the accused. Had really, he went to the office of the accused for demanding for balance amount, why he does not know the address of the office of accused.
Had really, he went to the office of accused and the accused is having office in
Kovvur, definitely PW.26 would say the said office address particulars.
54. PW.27 who is said to be one of the victim deposed that, in the year 2017 he sold away 307 paddy bags to A1 and A2 and he received
Rs.2,46,000/-. The accused promised that they will pay the remaining amount of
Rs.45,000/- within 4 or 5 days. He has waited for some period and went to the office of the accused in Kovvur. But it was found locked. During cross examination it is elicited that, he used to sale the paddy bags through PW.2 and
PW.19. He could not say the name of the complainant who gave report to the police in this case. Further he stated that, approximately 500 farmers were present along with them at police station by the time of giving report. But it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused cheated 500 farmers. So that,
PW.27 deposed his evidence in exaggerated version. Further he does not know who gave report in this case, even though he was present at the time of giving report to the police.
55. PW.28 who is also said to be one of the victim deposed that, in the year 2017, he sold away 109 paddy bags to A1 and A2, as he got acquaintance with them through PW.19. he received advance amount of Rs.70,000/- and the accused have to pay Rs.1,03,000/- and odd. The accused promised that they will pay the said amount within one week. But they did not pay the said amount.
He waited for one month and gave report.
56. During cross examination of PW.28 it is elicited that, he could not say the boundaries and R.S. number of his agricultural land. Further he stated that,
PW.19 is the mediator for purchasing paddy. He does not know about the 24 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 residence of A.1 and A.2 and also about their native places and their fathers’ names respectively. Further he categorically admitted that, he did not state in his earlier statement that they went to the office of A1, situated in Kovvur. He did not give any police report to police. Further he categorically stated that, he did not request A1 and A2 for remaining amount at any point of time and he only requested PW.19 for the remaining balance amount of sale proceeds.
Further he categorically admitted that the paddy bags were taken away by
PW.19 from them and PW.19 has given the advance amount at that time and the accused No.s 1 and 2 are no way connected to the present case. Therefore, as per the evidence of PW.28, it is clear that, A1 and A2 are no way connected to the present case and that they did not purchase any paddy bags from PW.28 directly and they never given any advance amount to him. So that, there is no question of promising for payment of remaining balance amount.
57. PW.29 who is also said to be one of the victim in this case deposed that, in the year 2017 he sold away 133 bags of paddy to somebody as he got acquaintance with them through PW.19. He received Rs.61,000/- towards advance amount and that the persons who purchased the said paddy bags promised that they will pay the remaining amount within 4 days. But they failed to pay the said amount. Then he gave report to police. Therefore, as per his version, he sold away the paddy bags to somebody. But not to the accused.
58. Duringhis cross examination he stated that, PW.19 came to him and talked about the rate of paddy bags. PW.19 got weighed the paddy bags and loaded into the lorries. PW.19 paid Rs.61,000/- towards advance amount to him. Subsequently, he demanded PW.19 for remaining amount. Further he stated that, PW.19 was indebted for the remaining sale amount. He did not give any report to the police. He could not say the address particulars of the office of
A1, residence and father name and native place of A1 and A2. Surprisingly he stated that, A1 and A2 are no way connected to the present case. Therefore, as per the evidence of PW.29, it is established that, A1 and A2 did not purchase any paddy bags from PW.29 and that, they did not pay any amount to him and so that, there is no question of cheating PW.29 by the accused.
25 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
59. PW.30who is said to be another victim deposed that, he sold away 228 paddy bags to A1 and A2 and received Rs.1,14,000/- towards advance amount.
They promised that, they will pay the remaining balance amount within 4 or 5 days. But they did not pay the said amount. On that he went to the office of the accused in Kovvur along with other farmers. During cross examination he stated that, PW.19 talked about the price of paddy bags with him and after purchasing the same, those bags loaded in the lorry. PW.19 has taken the amount of
Rs.2,16,000/- from the accused and given the same to him. He requested
PW.19 for balance sale consideration. He did not give any report to the police personally and he did not sign on Ex.P1. It was given through PW.3. He cannot say the date, month and year when PW.19 has taken away his paddy bags. He does not know the native place of A2, his father name and his address particulars. Further he admitted that, he did not state in his earlier statement about the extent of the agricultural land which is cultivating by him.
60. PW.31who is also one of the victim in this case stated that, he sold away 240 paddy bags to A1 and A2 through PW.19. He received Rs.1,93,000/- towards advance amount. He waited for one month, but the remaining amount was not paid to him. Then, he along with other farmers went to the office of accused. But it was found locked. Thereafter they gave report to the police.
During cross examination it is elicited that, PW.19 came to them and talked about the rate of paddy bags. PW.19 got weighed the paddy bags and loaded into the lorries. The advance amount of Rs.1,93,000/- was paid by PW.19.
Thereafter PW.19 stated to them that he will pay the remaining amount within 4 days. He used to ask PW.19 about the remaining amount. Further he stated that, he does not know the residence of accused and their father name. He could not say the date when he went to the office of A1 at Kovvur. He did not give any police report personally. He never met A1 and A2 and never asked them about remaining amount personally. Further he admitted that, he sold away the paddy bags on the assurance given by PW.19. Therefore, as per the evidence of PW.31 it is clear that, he has received the advance amount from
PW.19 and thereafter PW.19 made promise that, he will pay the remaining 26 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 amount within 4 days. Hence there is no question of cheating of PW.31 by the accused.
61. PW.32 who is also said to be one of the victim in this case stated that, he sold away 270 paddy bags to A1 and A2 through PW.19 and he received
Rs.1,30,000/- towards advance amount and they promised to pay the remaining amount within one week. But they did not pay the said amount. He waited for 40 days and he along with other farmers went to the office of accused to ask about the said amount, but it was found locked. Then they gave report to police.
During cross examination of PW.32, he stated that, PW.19 got weighed the paddy bags and loaded into the lorry. He demanded PW.19 for payment of the remaining amount. He did not give any report to the police personally. He could not say when he went to the office of A1 at Kovvur and he could not say what is the native place of the accused and their fathers’ name respectively.
62. PW.33 who is also said to be one of the victim in this case stated that, he sold away 384 paddy bags to A1 and A2 and received Rs.2,05,000/- towards advance amount. The accused stated to him that, they will pay the remaining amount within 10 days. But it was not paid to him. He waited for 10 days and went to the office of A1 for asking about the said amount. But it was found locked. Then he gave report to police after 45 days. During cross examination it is elicited that, he could not say the date when he went to the office of A1 and he could not say the house door number of the office of A1. He cannot say the surname, father name and address particulars of A1 and A2. He did not give any report to the police.
63. PW.34who is also said to be one of the victim in this case stated that, in the year 2017 he sold away 390 bags of paddy to A1 and A2. Two days after purchasing the said paddy, they paid Rs.2,44,000/- and they promised that the remaining amount of Rs.1,30,000/- will be paid after two days. But they did not pay the said amount. He waited for 40 days and requested the accused for remaining amount over phone. On that the accused postponing the same. Then he along with other farmers went to the office of accused and found locked.
27 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
Then they gave report to police through PW.3. During cross examination it is elicited that, approximately 30 members went to the police station to give report.
Further it is admitted that, he has no personal acquaintance with A1 and A2 and there is no documentary proof to show that, he is having Ac.1.14 cents of agricultural land and he sold away the paddy bags to A1 and A2. Further he stated that, he could not say the phone number of the accused. He could not say the door number of the office of the accused.
64. PW.35who is also said to be one of the victim in this case stated that, one mediator namely Sattibabu brought A1 and A2 to purchase the paddy bags and then he sold away 309 paddy bags to A1 and A2. For that, they paid
Rs.1,90,000/- by promising that, they will pay the remaining amount within 4 days. But it was not paid by them. He waited for 30 or 40 days and he along with other farmers went to the office of accused, but it was found locked. Prior to that, he requested the accused for the said payment over phone. As per his evidence, approximately 15 to 20 members went to the police station to give report. During cross examination it is also elicited that, A1 and A2 were introduced to him by PW.19 and on that, he sold away the paddy bags to accused through PW.19. All the transaction was done by PW.19. PW.19 paid the said amount to him after taking his commission. The advance amount was given to him by PW.19. he demanded PW.19 for remaining balance amount.
Further he stated that, he does not know whether the accused is having office in
Kovvur. PW.19 informed the same to him. Therefore as per his evidence all the transaction of sale and purchasing the paddy bags of PW.35 was done by
PW.19 and part of sale proceeds amount was paid by PW.19.
65. PW.36who is also one of the victim in this case stated that, he sold away 92 paddy bags to the accused and on the same day he received
Rs.60,000/- approximately. The accused promised that they would pay the remaining amount within one week. Thereafter he requested for the remaining amount and the accused postponed the same for two months. Then he along with other farmers 20 in number went to the office of the accused in Kovvur to ask about the remaining amount, but they were not present there. Then they 28 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 approached the police. During cross examination, he deposed that, PW.19 who is the resident of their village doing commission paddy business and acting as a mediator for selling the paddy by taking commission. Further he stated that
PW.19 used to bargain the price of the paddy bags on behalf of the purchasers.
On the date of alleged transaction, PW.19 bargained the rates of paddy bags with him. Further it is elicited that, the advance amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid by PW.19 to him and he requested some time for payment of the remaining amount. He did not give any report to the police personally. PW.3 gave report to police. He does not know the father name of the accused and their address particulars. He never seen A2 at any point of time. He did not give any report against A2 by accompanying with others. Further he stated that, PW.19 purchased the paddy bags from him and so that, he is liable to pay the remaining amount to him. Therefore as per the evidence of PW.36, the transaction for the sale of the paddy bags took place between PW.36 and
PW.19, but not in between himself and accused and the accused never made any promise to him for payment of the remaining amount.
66. PW.37 who is also said to be one of the victim in this case stated that, he sold away 244 paddy bags to the accused and on the same day he received
Rs.1,70,000/- and odd. When he used to request the remaining amount, the accused dragged on the matter and thereafter they absconded. Then he went to
Office of accused along with other victims and found locked. So that, they approached the police. During cross examination he stated that, he used to sale the paddy bags since 10 to 15 years through PW.19. For that PW.19 secured the coolies for loading the paddy bags into lorry. There is no documentary proof to show that, he sold away the paddy bags to the accused and about receiving the advance amount from them. The amount which was received by him was paid by PW.19 and PW.19 is the responsible for the remaining amount also.
Hence, it is clear in the evidence of PW.37 that, no offence made out in the evidence of PW.37 about committing alleged cheating by the accused.
67. PW.38 who is also said to be one of the victim in this case stated that, he sold away 304 paddy bags to the accused and on the same day he received 29 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
Rs.1,94,000/. When he used to request the remaining amount, the accused dragged on the same by saying that they will pay the said amount within 20 days and absconded. Thereafter they went to the office of accused and found locked. Then they approached the police. During cross examination, he stated that, A1 is aged about 60 years and A2 is aged about 55 years. But as per the case of the prosecution, A1 is aged about 53 and A2 is aged about 43 years.
Further he stated that he does not know about the residence of A1. He does not know the phone number of the accused. Further he stated that the office of the accused is situated in one apartment. But as per the evidence of PW.37, the accused’s office is situated in the individual house. Further it is elicited that, he got acquaintance with PW.19 for 10 or 15 years and used to sell the paddy bags through PW.19. Like that, he sold away the paddy bags to the accused through PW.19. Therefore, in view of the contradictions in his evidence with the case of prosecution, his evidence is not free from suspicion.
68.(i) PW.39 who is the investigation officer deposed that, on 09.06.2017, at about 9.00 Pm., when he was present in the police station, he received Ex.P1 from PW.1 and on that, he registered the case as in Cr.No.53/2017 and issued
FIR/Ex.P2 to all concerned authorities. He examined PW.1 to PW.4 at their
Police Station and recorded their statements. Basing on the investigation, he added A2 in this case. On 10.06.2017, he visited the Peddevam village of
Tallapudi Mandal and secured the farmers who are the victims in this case and examined PW.5, PW.7, PW.8 and PW.11 and recorded their statements. On 14.06.2017 he again visited Peddevam village of Tallapudi Mandal and secured the farmers who are the victims in this case and examined PW.6, PW.15,
PW.16 and LW.10/Siddamsetti Subhash Chandra Bose and recorded their statements. On 30.06.2017, he again visited Peddevam village of Tallapudi
Mandal and secured the farmers who are the victims in this case and examined
PW.9, PW.10, PW.12 and PW.13 and recorded their statements.
(ii) PW.39 further deposed that, on 10.07.2017, he again visited Peddevam village of Tallapudi Mandal and secured the farmers who are the victims in this case and examined PW.11, PW.14, PW.18 and recorded their statements. On 30 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 17.07.2017, he released A1 on anticipatory bail obtained from the Hon’ble IX ADJ
Court, Kovvur, on furnishing the solvencies. On 30.07.2017, he examined PW.19,
PW.21 who came to our police station and recorded their statements. On the same day, he visited Ravurupadu village, secured PW.23 and LW.23/P.Suribabu and recorded their statements. On 05.08.2017, he visited Ravurupadu village and secured PW.22, PW.24 and LW.24/Sidda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, examined them and recorded their statements.
(iii) PW.39 further deposed that, on 12.08.2017, he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to A2 on his surrender and obtained compliance report. On 16.08.2017, again he visited Ravurupadu village and secured PW.20, PW.25 and LW.28/Pupala
Nagaraju, examined them and recorded their statements. On 25.08.2017, again he visited Ravurupadu village and secured PW.37, LW.30/Y.Peddabbai and
LW.31/G.Veerababu, examined them and recorded their statements. On 10.09.2017, he visited Peddevam village and secured PW.26, PW.28,
LW.34/G.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana and LW.36/Meka Veeranna, examined them and recorded their statements. On 04.10.2017, again he visited Peddevam village and secured PW.29, PW.34, PW.35 and PW.38, examined them and recorded their statements. On 07.11.2017, he visited Ravurupadu village and secured PW.27, PW.30 and LW.43/Sidda Satya Sai, examined them and recorded their statements. On 30.11.2017, he visited Malakapalli Village and secured
PW.31, PW.32 and LW.46/Ragu Chandra Rao, examined them and recorded their statements. On 04.12.2017, PW.33, PW.36 and LW.47/Ambati Satyanaryana came to our police station and then he examined them and recorded their statements.
(iv) PW.39 further deposed that, he gave vide publicity regarding the offence alleged in the present case who got knowledge about the alleged offences to know about other victims. Basing on the statements of witnesses, A1 and A2 collected paddy bags rice and cheated the amount of Rs.38,47,208/- and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
69. During cross-examination of PW.39, he deposed that, PWs.1 to 4 together came to the police station to give Ex.P1. But Ex.P1 only reflects the 31 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 signature of PW.3. As per the contents of Ex.P1, it was given by PW.3 only. But from the evidence of PWs. 1 to 38, they deposed that, all of them went to the police station to give report along with PWs.1 to 4. The investigation officer admitted that, PW.3 brought the written report and submitted to him. There is 2 inches gap in between the last line of Ex.P1 contents and signature of PW.3 on it.
PW.3 did not mention the date along with his signature on Ex.P1. Further he admitted that, the word in the contents of Ex.P1 “Maa badulu” seems to be over writing. Therefore, as per the admissions of the investigation officer, which are contradictory with the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, giving of Ex.P1 by all the victims to the police is also creates suspicion. Further the investigation officer/PW.39 stated that, during his investigation, it reveals that, A1 is resident of
Kapileswarapuram village of Mandapeta mandal. But all the witnesses of the prosecution stated that, A1 is resident of Kovvur and he maintained the office in
Kovvur. But the investigation officer did not investigate into, whether A1 is resident of Kovvur and whether he maintained any office in Kovvur.
70. Further, PW.39 admitted that, as per the table mentioned in the chargesheet, no amount mentioned in Serial No.2 and 20, across the victims columns and so that, the victim No.2 and 20 are not the victims. But the investigation officer mentioned their names as victims in this case. There is no explanation on the part of the prosecution, for mentioning their names in this case as victims. Further during his cross examination, PW.39 admitted that, the rice bags will be transported with weigh bills through check posts. But PW.39 did not investigate into in which voyage, the rice bags were transported from the victims places. He did not collect any documentary proof to show that, A1 and A2 used to do rice business by the relevant time. Further he admitted that, Ex.P1 does not disclose about the involvement of A2 in the alleged offence. Further he categorically admitted that, all the victims did not produce any documentary proof to show that they sold away the paddy bags to the accused and received part of the sale consideration from the accused and that the accused promised to pay the remaining amount to them.
32 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
71. On perusal of the entire evidence and material on record, except the self- serving statements and bold assertion of the witnesses, there is no convenient and acceptable evidence to implicate the accused in this offence.
72. It is pertinent to note that all the witnesses of the prosecution, attributing the accused that, the accused purchased the paddy bags from the all farmers i.e.
PWs.1 to 38 and induced them to sell away the said paddy bags. As regard to the complicity of the accused, there is no sufficient and cogent proof that, A1 and A2 purchased the paddy bags from all the prosecution witnesses and the accused used to do petty business. Admittedly, there is no piece of paper filed before this court to show that, the accused induced PWs.1 to 38 and purchased the paddy bags from them and committed default in payment of the sale consideration. In view of the information elicited from PWs.1 to 38, the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted to implicate the accused in this case.
The investigation officer categorically stated that, none of the witnesses furnished any document relating to the selling of paddy bags to the accused and receiving part of consideration of the same from the accused. PW.39, who is the
Investigation Officer, categorically stated that, Ex.P1 does not disclose the specific overt act of the accused No.2, who is one of the accused in this case and against whom the present case was registered.
73. The learned defense counsel has also submitted that, the first information statement is not fool proof to arrive at a conclusion and there must be a sufficient material to show that, the accused had cheated them.
74. PWs.1 to 38, who are the material witnesses in this case, stated with one voice that, they sold away the paddy bags to the accused and received part of sale consideration. But during cross-examination of PWs.4 to 38, categorically deposed that, they sold away the paddy bags to PW.19 and they received the part of sale consideration from PW.19. They also stated that, they demanded PW.19 for balance sale consideration. Surprisingly, they all stated that, PW.19 promised to them for payment of remaining balance amount of sale consideration, so that, it is clear in the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that, the accused did not 33 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025 induce any of the former nor PWs.1 to 38, for selling the paddy bags to the accused and there is no material to show that, they made promise and on that by believing the words of the accused, they sold away their paddy bags to them.
75. This court perused the entire record, as there is no piece of paper or material showing that, the accused used to do paddy business and purchased the paddy bags from PWs.1 to 38, except the oral assertions and bald statements.
76. As regards to the evidence for offence under Sec.420 IPC, as observed above and the settled preposition of law with regard to element of cheating required to be established in the instant case. There is no documentary proof or at least convincing evidence showing that the accused cheated all the prosecution witnesses and the accused used to do paddy business and purchased the paddy bags by inducing all the farmers i.e. PWs.1 to 38 with a dishonest intention and willfully failed to pay the sale consideration of paddy bags under the guise of paddy business. Therefore, the accused cannot be held liable for the offence under
Sec.420 IPC. Furthermore, similarly there is no positive evidence to show the entrustment of paddy bags and selling of paddy bags to the accused by promising that they will pay the remaining amount within short time and that they failed to pay the said amount. Even to that extent, there is no documentary proof at all. Hence the accused cannot be roped for the offence under Sec.420 IPC. Further, all the prosecution witnesses stated that, they all together went to the police station and gave report to the police. But except PW.3 none were signed on Ex.P1.
Furthermore, the contents of Ex.P1 does not disclose about the names of all the victims i.e. PWs.1 to 38 and their details and when they sold away the paddy bags and for which amount they sold away the said bags and how much amount defaulted by the accused. So that, in the absence of these details, the veracity of
Ex.P1 is also doubtful. Furthermore, PWs.1 to 38 stated in their chief examination in different version with regard to the selling of paddy bags and how much amount they received and how much amount, the accused defaulted in payment of sale consideration. Their previous statements are contradictory with their evidence and not inconsistent with their evidence with regard to the selling of paddy bags and receiving of part of the sale consideration.
34 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
77. Therefore, cumulating all these circumstances, uncorroborated testimony
PWs. 1, 2, 4 to 38 with the evidence of PW.3, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.
78. In the result, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of both the accused and their sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months in view of section 437-
A of Cr.P.C. There is no property seized and produced in this case, hence no property order is passed.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and
pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 19 th day of December, 2025.
Sd/- Smt.K.Naga Lakshmi,
II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate,
Kovvur.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined
On behalf of Prosecution : On behalf of accused :
PW.1 : M.Nageswara Rao, PW.2 : Mylavarapu Radha Krishna, PW.3 : A.Satyanarayana, PW.4 : Naralasetti Veera Venkata Rao, PW.5 : Naralasetti Veerababu, PW.6 : Mylavarapu Venkateswara Rao, PW.7 : N.Chinni Krishna, PW.8 : A.V.V.Satyanarayana, PW.9 : Bandaru Aravalaraju, PW.10 : N.Durga Rao, PW.11 : S.Narasimha Murthy, PW.12 : T.Rambabu, PW.13 : P.Satyanarayana, PW.14 : B.Surya Rao, PW.15 : Singuluri Venu, PW.16 : N.Venugopala Krishna, PW.17 : P.Rama Rao, PW.18 : Avula Venkateswara Rao, -NIL- 35 C.C.No.340/2019 II AJFCM, KVR Dt.19.12.2025
PW.19 : Koyya Satyanarayana, PW.20 : A.Venkateswara Rao, PW.21 : Tota Ganapati, PW.22 : M.Pedakapu, PW.23 : Cheekatla Koteswara Rao, PW.24 : S.Satyanarayana, PW.25 : M.Ramesh, PW.26 : Javvadi Srinu, PW.27 : Sidda Srinivasa Rao, PW.28 : Thota Subbarao, PW.29 : Yerramsetti Nageswara Rao, PW.30 : Dandamudi Satyanarayana, PW.31 : Muthina Radha Krishna, PW.32 : Ragu Satyanarayana, PW.33 : Muthina Chiranjeevi, PW.34 : Nadipalli Apparao, PW.35 : Katru Srinivasa Rao, PW.36 : Ganta Bhargava Naga Kishore @ Kishore, PW.37 : Devareddy Srinu, PW.38 : Sidda Somaraju, PW.39 : K.Ashok Kumar.
Exhibits marked
On behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1 :: Report given by PW.3, Ex.P2 :: FIR.
On behalf of Defence:
Ex.D1 : Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.D2 : Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5. Ex.D3 : Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5. Ex.D4 : Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.19. Ex.D5 : Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.30. Ex.D6 : Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.33.
[Note: While marking exhibits, my predecessor in office assigned Ex.D1 to the two exhibits. Hence same is rectified and given serial numbers as Ex.s D1 to D6 respective to Ex.D1, Ex.D1 to D5 respectively.]
Material Objects marked: NIL
Sd/- Smt.K.Naga Lakshmi,
II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kovvur. Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.