Sri K . Narendra Reddy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :SRIKALAHASTI.

Present: Sri.K.Narendra Reddy, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti.

Monday the 20 th day of February, 2023

C.C. No.20 of 2023

Between:

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS.

Cr.No.28/2022 of B.N.Kandriga PS. ...Complainant.

And :

Dasari Mukesh @ Srinu, S/o D. Prabhudas, aged 42 years, R/o Behind Shanthi Theatre, Veera Raghavulapeta, Chirala Town, Bapatla District. Now Muthyalapadu Village, Chilakuru Mandal, Nellore District. … Accused

This case is coming on 16-02-2023for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V. Chethan Kumar Reddy, legal aid counsel for accused and this case having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga

Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 28 of 2022 for the offences punishable Under Sections 457, 380 IPC or 411 of IPC with the following allegations.

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

On 27-03-2022 in the morning hours at about 9 AM the defacto complainant who is the resident of Kothapalem village, locked her house and went along with her ill-health husband to the house of her relatives at

Srikalahasti for medical treatment and later on 30-03-2022 in the noon hours at about 12.30 PM, she along with her husband returned to their house at

Kothapalem village and noticed the lock of the house was broke opened. On that they entered in to the house and found the almirah was also broke opened. On verification of the contents of the almirah and found the golden jewellery 2 consisting of two pairs of butta kammalu, one pair of ear studs, one ring, one pair of matilu, one black beads chain, one kids chain, one ginne bottu, total weighment of 20 gms of gold ornaments missing from the almirah. Then they have realized that some unknown offenders gained entrance in to their house by break opening the lock of main door of the house and committed theft of gold ornaments i.e., two pairs of butta kammalu, one pair of ear studs, one ring, one pair of matilu, one black beads chain, one kids chain, one ginne bottu, total weighment of 20 gms of gold ornaments and escaped with booty during their temporary absence in the house. On that the defacto complainant/PW1 gave a written report to the police with regard to commission of theft of golden jewellery from her house, basing on the report of PW-1/defacto complainant, the

Sub Inspector of police, B.N.Kandriga Police Station registered a case in Cr.No. 28 of 2022 under Section 457 and 380 of IPC and then the Sub Inspector of Police,

B.N.Kandriga Police Station took up investigation and examined witnesses LW1 to LW4 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements, visited the scene of offence house and prepared rough sketch with regard to the same.

3)During the course of investigation, on 08.11.2022 at about 6.30 AM, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thottambedu Police Station apprehended the accused at Thangellapalem cross roads situated on Srikalahasti-Tada main road and seized stolen property concerned in this crime and also some other property related to Thottambedu Police Station in Cr.No.81/2022 followed by effect arrest of the accused in the said crime of Thottambedu Police Station. The police seized the golden jewellery consisting of MO1 to MO3 ie., one gold black beads chain, one minor gold chain, one gold ring from the possession of the accused pertaining to this crime under the cover of mediators report in the presence of mediators i.e., C.Muvarna(PW-2) and LW-6 K.Bhavani. Thereafter the accused was produced before the court by the B.N.Kandriga on execution of P.T.Warrant for

Judicial remand in the present crime on hand.

4)There after PW-3 Teja, Village Revenue Officer, Kukkambakam 3 village held test identification parade of seized gold items with T.Muneeswari (PW-1) under which she rightly identified her golden jewellery as MO1 to MO3 and after completion of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 457, 380 or 411 of

Indian Penal Code.

5) Furnishing Copies to the accused.

This case was taken on file for the offences punishable under

Sections 457 and 380 or 411 of Indian penal Code against the accused and after the appearance of the accused, copies of case documents as provided under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to him.

6) Examination of the accused and Framing of the charges.:

On 23-01-2023, the accused was examined under section 239

Cr.P.C., for which he denied the allegations leveled against him and claimed to be tried, after hearing both sides and on perusing the entire case record, charges for the offences punishable under section 457 and 380 IPC and an alternatively charge U/sec. 411 IPC was framed against the accused. The said charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

7)During the course of trial the prosecution has examined LW-1, LW-5,

LW-7, LW-8, LW-9 and LW-10 as PW-1 to PW-6 respectively and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-5 besides MO-1 to MO-3.

8)Examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C.

On closure of prosecution evidences, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating prosecution evidence in allegation in Telugu for which he denied the same and reported that there is no defence evidence on his behalf.

9)Heard the Arguments of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire record.

10)Now the point for determination is :

4

i) Whether the Prosecution is able to establish that on 30-03-2022 the MO1 to MO3 were stolen from the house/possession of PW-1 or not?

ii) Whether the prosecution is able to establish that MO-1 to MO-3

were recovered from the possession of the accused, beyond the reasonable

doubt?

iii) Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused had

committed lurking house trespass in night hours by house breaking, in order

to commit theft in the house of PW-1 and thereby committed on offence

punishable under section 457 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable

doubt?

iv) Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilty of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under

section 457 and 380 of IPC alternatively 411 of IPC?

11)In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined the listed witnesses LW-1, LW-5, LW-7, LW-8, LW-9 and LW-10 as PW-1 to PW-6 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-5 besides MO-1 to MO-3. PW-1 is the defacto complainant who lodged the report, Ex.P-1 is report of PW-1 dated 30-03-2022.

MO1- One gold black beads chain. MO2-one minor gold chain. MO3-one gold ring.

PW-2 is the husband of PW1, PW2 is the one of the mediator who accompanied the police at the time of arrest and seizure, PW-3 is the Village Revenue Officer who conducted test identification parade of case property and PW4 is the Sub

Inspector of Police, Thottambedu Police Station who arrested the accused and recovered the case property. PW5 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the case in this crime and took up investigation. PW6 is the successive

Investigating Officer who concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet.

Ex.P-1 is the report given by PW-1 to the police, Ex.P-2 is the attested copy of mediator report dated 08.11.2022, Ex.P-3 is the Test identification proceedings of case property dated 09.11.2022. Ex.P4 is the First Information Report registered by PW5. Ex.P5 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence house. PW- 1 is the defacto complainant in whose house theft was committed.

12)The stand of the accused is total denial. He contended by way of suggestion that police foisted a false case against him for disposal of undetected cases. No evidence was adduced on his behalf.

5

13)POINT No.I : Whether the Prosecution is able to establish that

on 30-03-2022 the M.O-1 to MO-3 were stolen from the house/possession of

PW-1 or not?

Here in the case, the unshaken evidence of PW-1/defacto complainant goes to show that on 27-03-2022 at about 9.30 AM she along with her husband and relatives proceeded to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati for medical treatment of her husband and on the evening hours of 30-03-2022 she returned back to her house and found the lock of her house was broke opened and the golden jewellery consisting of two pairs of gold ear studs, one pair of ear studs, one gold ring, one pair of matilu, one blackbeadschain, one children’s minor chain, one ginne bottu, having total weight of 28 gms of gold ornaments were found missing from the iron safe in the house. On that she realized that some unknown offenders have committed theft of said golden jewellery in her absence in the house and lodged a report to the police with regard to commission of theft of golden jewellery in her house. Her evidence further goes to show that subsequently on being informed by the police about the recovery of MO-1 to

MO-3, she identified and had taken interim custody of the same as per the orders of the court. Later PW-1 also identified MO-1 to MO-3 as the properties stolen from her house in the presence of PW3/VRO at the time of Test Identification of property proceedings. Her version before the court on oath read in conjunction with Ex.P-1, report on the basis of which FIR was emerged in this case, it discloses the fact that a theft was committed by some unknown offenders and stolen the gold ornaments kept in iron safe of their house by breakopening the same.

Though the learned counsel for accused put formal suggestions in cross examination, the evidence of PW-1 appears to be unshaken, so the court finds no reason to disbelieve their evidence, which clinchingly proves the factum of commission of lurking house trespass in their house by some unknown offenders and committed theft of MO-1 to MO-3.

14)Further more, the evidence of PW-5, the Sub Inspector of Police, 6

B.N.Kandriga Police Station goes to show about receiving of Ex.P-1 report from

PW-1 on 30-03-2022 at 6.00 PM, registering the same as F.I.R, Ex.P-4 in Cr.No. 28 of 2022 of B.N.Kandriga Police Station, under Section 457 and 380 IPC. The evidence of PW-5, the Sub Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS also shows about the examination of PW-1, LW2 to LW4, recording their Sec.161 Cr P C statements besides preparation of Ex.P-5 rough sketch of scene of offence to that effect.

There is no inordinate delay in lodging Ex.P-1 report to the police, thus the evidence of PW-5 corroborated the version of PW-1regarding the commission of theft in the house of the defacto-complainant.

15)Further the evidence of PW-3, the Village Revenue

Officer,Kukkambakam Village goes to show that subsequent to recovery i.e., on 25-11-2022 PW-1 came to Tahsildar Office, B.N.Kandriga and identified her gold ornaments (MO-1 to MO-3) from the similar gold ornaments with which MOs-1 to 3 are mixed for the purpose of test identification parade of property as such the

VRO prepared Ex.P-3 proceedings of the Test identification of case property. As from the evidence of PW-3, V.R.O., it shows that the PW-1/defacto complainant identified her property successfully in the test identification proceedings conducted by the said Village Revenue Officer in Tahsildar’s Office, B.N.Kandriga

Mandal. Though the learned legal aid counsel for accused made a suggestion that he never conducted test identification proceedings and Ex.P-3 proceedings prepared at police station and the same was denied by him.

16)More over no such significant dissimilarities were elicited by the learned legal aid counsel with regard to description of material objects (MO-1 to

MO-3) in order to suspect that MOs-1 to 3 are not the properties stolen from the house of PW-1. Further more PW-1 identified those gold items (MO-1 to MO-3) as the properties stolen from her house in the Test identification proceedings conducted by the V.R.O., and also in the court as such the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 coupled with PW-5 clinchingly established the fact that on the alleged day of the incident, MO-1 to MO-3 golden ornaments were stolen from the house of PW-1, 7 beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution has established that

MO-1 to MO-3 are stolen properties. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

17) POINT No. II. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that

MO-1 to MO-3 were recovered from the possession of the accused, beyond

the reasonable doubt?

Now, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the stolen golden ornaments i.e., MO-1 to MO-3 were recovered from the possession of the accused as alleged in the police report. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW-2 and PW-4 and got marked Ex.P-2

Arrest-cum-Seizure Mahazarnama among them PW-2 is the VRO who acted as mediator at the time of arrest and seizure proceedings carried out by the police.

PW-4 is the investigation officer who effected the arrest of accused and seizure of case property covered under MO-1 to 3 from the possession of accused.

18)According to PW-4, which he was present in the police station, he received credible information with regard to the movement of the accused and on that he secured two mediators PW-2 and LW-6 K.Bhavani and went to

Thangellapalem cross road along with his staff in police Jeep by securing the mediators PW2/VRO, on seeing the police party, one person tried to ran away and the police detained him and on enquiry he revealed his identity particulars as accused in this case and confessed the commission of theft in various places and some stolen properties relating to present crime on hand i.e., MO1 to MO3 concerned in this crime and also the other valuable property relating to the crime

No.81/2022 pertaining to Thottambedu Police Station have been seized from the accused and he confessed that those items were stolen properties and then the

Sub Inspector seized all the stolen gold items from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P-2 Mahazarnama, followed by effect of arrest of the accused in this crime in the presence of mediators. The evidence of PW-4, the

Sub Inspector of Police, Thottambedu Police Station, shows that he effected the 8 arrest of the accused, recorded his confessional statement and recovered the case property MO-1 to Mo-3 of this case and also relating to some other gold items concerned to Thottambedu Police Station under the cover of Ex.P-2 mediator report and there after the accused was remanded to Judicial custody in this case.

19)The evidence of PW-2, who is the independent mediator also goes to show that on 08.11.2022 at about 6.00 A.M.. the Sub Inspector of Police,

Thottambedu P.S. called her over phone to act as mediator and then, she along with LW6/K.Bhavani accompanied the police and they went to cross roads at

Thangellapalem situated on Srikalahasti-Tada road, where the police caught hold of the accused and seized MOs.1 to 3 related to this case and some other properties of Thottambedu PS from his possession and the said accused confessed that those items are the stolen items pertaining to this crime on hand and then the police seized those gold items and arrested accused under cover of mediator report (Ex.P2), duly attested by them and that the police also obtained the signature of accused on the said mediator report.

20) Thus the evidence of PW-2 is cogent and corroborative to the version of PW-4 as well as the contests of mediator report Ex.P-2 in all the material aspects. No serious infirmity or in consistency was elicited by the learned defence counsel in the evidence.

21)While advancing arguments, the core contention of the learned defence counsel argued that PW-4 failed to secure the inhabitants of the locality where the alleged arrest and seizure took place as required under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. and the same is fatal to the prosecution. It may be a fact that the place of seizure of MO-1 to MO-3 is a busy locality, however, it is to be noted that PW-4 went to the said place of seizure on receiving credible information. So it is quite probable and natural to secure mediators before going to the said place.

Further, the said seizure was not made in the closed premises and the time of arrest and seizure is about 6.00 A.M. In such circumstances, it is not mandatory to 9 secure mediators of that locality, more over PW-4 was accompanied by the

Village Revenue official of Thangellapalem Village who is the jurisdictional VRO of the said village acted as the mediator at the time of finding of the accused at the said place. As such the question of picking up the another local inhabitants does not arise in this case. Further more, the Ex.P-2 mahazarnama contains the signatures of mediators as well as the accused. Hence it is crystal that PW-4 took all necessary steps as the matter of prudence as well as the law and procedure, while seizing the case property. Hence, this court finds and reason to doubt the version of PW2 or PW4 with regard to recovery of MO-1 to MO-3 from the possession of the accused.

22)Another contention of the learned legal aid counsel is that PW-2 is a stock mediator to police, as discussed above, no inconsistency or infirmity was elicited in the evidence of PW-2 mediator witness as well as PW-4 Sub Inspector of Police which can create doubt in the mind of the court with regard to their presence at the time of arrest and seizure and no criminality or antipathy was attributed to PW-2 against the accused even by way of suggestion and therefore this court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-2 and as to why she would depose falsely against the accused by implanting huge case property to cook up false case against the accused. Thus, this court is of the view that the evidence of PW-2 or PW-5 can't be discarded by branding PW-2 as stock witness to police. Further PW2 being the Village Revenue official of Thangellapalem village is not a subordinate to the police officials of Thottambedu Police Station and she being the Village official of the said village having casted with a bounden duty upon her to accompany the police whenever the Sub Inspector revealed the information about the movements of the accused in her village. So I did not see any reason to discredit the evidence of PW2 on the ground that she being the

VRO used to act as the mediator at the beck and call of the police.

23)On summering up the entire evidence, the evidence of PW-4 supported by the evidence of mediator PW-2 on all material aspects with the 10 contents of Ex.P-2 Arrest-cum-Seizure Mahazarnama which clinchingly reveals that the accused had dishonestly retained MO-1 to MO-3 in his possession. As discussed above, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 are convincing cogent, credible and reliable with regard to the recovery of MO-1 to MO-3 gold items from the possession of the accused. Therefore, the court holds that the prosecution is able to establish that MO-1 to MO-3 were recovered from the possession of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is answered against the accused.

24) POINT No.III: Whether the prosecution is able to establish that

the accused had committed lurking house trespass at night in order to

commit theft in the house of PW-1 and thereby committed on offence

punishable under section 457 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable

doubt?

The evidence of PW1 coupled with the testimony of PW-5 the Sub

Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga Police Station to whom the defacto complainant preferred complaint about the commission of house burglary at night and missing of golden jewellery in her house as discussed above, would prove that theft of the property in the her house as marked under M.Os. 1 to

MO-3 by some unknown offenders and prior to the recovery of the same from the possession of the accused and the said property belongs to her and the same was duly identified by her in the presence of PW-3 who conducted test identification parade of property at Tahsildar Office,B.N.Kandriga Mandal.

However, the evidence of Defacto complainant/PW-1 who lodged the earliest report to the police is of no avail for the case of prosecution in its attempt to drive the accused for the guilt of the offence of theft u/Sec. 457, 380 IPC as any of the witnesses have not witnessed the commission of the offence by the accused in the house of the PW1 during night hours. The evidence of PW1 to

PW3 only establishes the fact that theft was committed in the house of PW1 in between 9.30 PM on 27-03-2022 and 6 PM on 30-03-2022 when PW1 was temporarily absent in her house, some unknown offenders might have 11 committed the theft of golden jewellery kept in iron safe by break opening the same and she realized the same at about 6 PM when she returned to home on 30- 03-2022 and found that the iron safe was break opened and that the golden articles kept therein were stolen. After searching here and there and when her efforts turned in vain, she reported the same to the police. Hence, there is no evidence to vouch the charge against the accused under Section 457 and 380 IPC, however the prosecution could able to prove the recovery of the stolen property

MO-1 to MO-3 said to have stolen in the house of PW-1 from the possession of the accused, for which the accused could not account for and failed to show MO1 to MO3 as his own. Further, it is pertinent to notice that the defacto complaint/PW-1 is not an eye witness to the incident and none of the prosecution witnesses did not see the house burglary committed by the accused nor present at the time of commission of theft of MO1 to MO3 by the accused.

Accordingly this point is answered.

25) POINT IV: Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilty

of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable

under section 457 and 380 of IPC alternatively 411 of IPC?

In so far as regards the recovery of stolen property from the possession of accused is concerned, let us have a glance on the relevant provisions of law u/sec.410 IPC for better appreciation. The said provision which defines the stolen property as:

Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designed as “stolen property”, whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property 12

The consequent penal provision U/Sec. 411 IPC which reads thus:

“Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

26.From the very reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the basic ingredients to prove the charge of Sec.411 IPC are (a) dishonest receipt or retention of stolen property (b) Knowledge or reason to believe at the time of receipt that the property was stolen property.

27.Thus in the case on hand, the evidence of PW2 who acted as mediator to the seizure mahazarnama coupled with the contents of Ex.P-2 goes to prove that the stolen properties covered under MO1 to MO3 belongs to PW1 were recovered from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P-2, mediator report. Further the MO1 to MO3 were identified by PW1 during test identification of property conducted by PW3. Thus the evidence of PW2 read in conjunction with Ex.P-2, goes to show that the gold items MO1 to MO3 were recovered by PW4 in the presence of PW2 and subsequently they were identified by PW1 as her own valuable property covered under Ex.P-3, test identification of property proceedings conducted by PW3 at Tahsildar Office, B.N.Kandriga

Mandal.

28.As a matter of fact, there is no explanation muchless valid reason from the accused person to say that the golden jewellery covered under MO1 to

MO3 was his own property. No such explanation offered nor had adduced any defence evidence by the accused to rebut the prosecution evidence.

29.Even from the cross-examination of the investigating officers, no serious contradictions or variations were elicited and their depositions by the defence counsel and the testimony of Investigating Officer and mediator witnesses are sufficiently corroborated with each other. Thus, they remained 13 consistent during their cross-examination as such the seizure proceedings stands proved with the testimony of the said witnesses.

30.In this case, it is proved from the evidence of PW1 that golden articles were stolen from his house and the said witness has later identified the stolen property as the property recovered from the possession of accused in the presence of PW3/VRO, who conducted property identification parade at

Tahsildar Office, B.N.Kandriga Mandal which legally established fact that has been unequivocally proved that the accused had stolen the property which was committed theft from the house of defacto complainant/PW.1. Now when once the property recovered from the possession of the accused is that of the stolen property that was committed theft in the house of the defacto complainant/Pw.1, then it is the turn to apply the presumption under illustration

(a) of Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

“The court may presume that a man who is in possession

of the stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has

received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can

account for his possession”

It is a settled principle of law in a case, the recovery of

alleged stolen property was not in dispute, it was identified to be

so by the complainant and there was no proof of its belonging to

the accused, the articles were held to be stolen property and the

person from whose possession the said stolen property was

recovered liable to be convicted.

31.In the present case by applying the above presumption as the accused have failed to account for the possession of the golden ornaments marked under M.Os.1 to 3 which were recovered from him and further, it was identified by PW.1 as that of his property, as such, the accused is liable for the offence u/sec. 411 IPC. Even though no one had witnessed the factum of 14 stealing of golden ornaments from the house of PW.1, but the accused confessed the commission of theft of gold items and subsequently the

Investigating Officer recovered the stolen gold jewellery from the possession of accused. Thus, the confession made by the accused leading to the discovery of

MO1 to MO3 is legally admissible U/Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act and the said recovery of gold items basing on the confession made by the accused fastens the accused with the criminal liability U/Sec.411 IPC. Therefore, this court can safely conclude that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge u/sec.

411 IPC with legally admissible evidence.

32.When the all the relevant facts are coupled together and for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this court convinced that prosecution has been able to bring home the guilty of the accused for the charge u/sec. 411 IPC against accused.

33.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges u/sec.

457, 380 IPC accordingly he is acquitted for the same u/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

However, the accused is found guilty for the charge u/sec.411 IPC, accordingly he is convicted u/sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Srikalahasti.

Quantum of Sentence:-

34. When questioned the accused about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on accused, he stated that he is aged about 43 years and he is a HIV patient and he is taking medicines for prior to 3 years. He further stated that his father is no more and his mother is aged 60 years suffering from diabetes and he has to lookafter his ailing mother and he is the sole bread winner of his family and if he is kept in jail further more, his health condition will be deteriorated further more, hence prayed this court to take lenient view in sentencing him.

15

35.Taking into consideration of the mercy plea of the accused and he being only earning member of his family and the possible effect of sentencing him to jail for maximum period of punishment prescribed for the offence would adverse effect on his family read in conjunction with aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case, I have also considered whether the said accused can be released on probation of good conduct but considering the nature of the crime, I refrain from giving any benefit under Probation of Offenders Act as the alleged offence is a theft of golden jewellery committed by house burglary.

However, as the accused person being the sole breadwinner of his family, considering the financial and social status and age of the said accused person, I punish him with the sentence which in my view is just and adequate.

36. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charges u/sec.457, 380 IPC accordingly he is acquitted for the same u/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

However, the accused is found guilty for the charge under sec.411

IPC and he is convicted u/sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C and sentenced the accused to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the charge

U/Sec.411 IPC. The period of detention already undergone in judicial custody by the accused from 19-11-2022 to this day i.e., on 20-02-2023 shall be set off from the period of sentence imposed as envisaged under sec. 428 Cr.P.C.

The sentence of imprisonment already imposed against the accused in CC No.963/2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Srikalahasti shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed against the accused in this case ie., CC No.20/2023 as contemplated Under Sec.427 Cr P C.

M.Os.1 to 3 as entered in CPR No.25/2023 shall be returned to PW1 after expiry of appeal time under proper acknowledgment and identification.

Accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the

Calendar and Judgment of this court. When he was asked about means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he need legal aid. Accordingly office is directed to 16 address letter along with copy of Judgment to the Secretary, DLSA for providing free legal aid to the accused.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced in open court, this the 20 th day of February, 2023.

Sd/- K. Narendra Reddy,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Srikalahasti.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

PW-1: T. Muneeswari. PW-2: P.Muvarna. PW-3: V. Teja. PW-4: B. Raghavendra, Sub-Inspector, Thottambedu PS PW-5: E. Jagannadha Reddy, Sub-Inspector, B.N.Kandriga Ps PW-6: Manjunatha Reddy, Sub-Inspector, B.N.Kandriga Ps

FOR DEFENCE

--None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1: Report given by PW1 dated 30-03-2022 to police. Ex.P-2: Mahazarnama dated 08-11-2022. Ex.P-3 : Test Identification parade of property proceedings dated 25-11-2022. Ex.P-4: F.I.R. in Cr.No.28/2022 for the offence U/sec.457 and 380 IPC dated 30-03- 2022 of B.N.Kandriga PS. Ex.P-5 : Rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE

--NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO-1: One black beads chain. MO-2: One gold minor chain. MO-3: One gold ring.

Sd/- K. Narendra Reddy,

AJMFC, Srikalahasti.

// true copy //

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Srikalahasti.

Copy of Judgment in CC No.20/2023,

Dated 20-02-2023

17

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : SRIKALAHASTI.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT in C.C.No.20 of 2023

DATE OF :-

Offence: Between 27-03-2022 and 30-03-2022 Filling: 30-03-2022 Apprehension of accused: 19-11-2022 Released on bail: In judicial custody since 19-11-2022 Commencement of trial: 25-01-2023 Close of trial: 16-02-2023 Sentence or order: 20-02-2023 Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses Name of the Complainant : The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS Cr.No.28/2022 of B.N.Kandriga PS Name of the accused :

Dasari Mukesh @ Srinu, S/o D. Prabhudas, aged 42 years, R/o Behind Shanthi Theatre, Veera Raghavulapeta, Chirala Town, Bapatla District. Now Muthyalapadu Village, Chilakuru Mandal, Nellore District.

Offence: U/sec.457, 380 IPC or in alternative under sec.411 IPC

Finding : Found not guilty for the offences U/sec.457, 380 IPC Found guilty for the offence U/Sec.411 IPC.

Sentence:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charges u/sec.457, 380 IPC accordingly he is acquitted for the same u/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C but found guilty for the charge under sec.411 IPC and he is convicted u/sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C. When questioned the accused about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on accused, he stated that he is aged about 43 years and he is a HIV patient and he is taking medicines for prior to 3 years. He further stated that his father is no more and his mother is aged 60 years suffering from diabetes and he has to lookafter his ailing mother and he is the sole bread winner of his family and if he is kept in jail further more, his health condition will be deteriorated further more, hence prayed this court to take lenient view in sentencing him. Taking into consideration of the mercy plea of the accused and he being only earning member of his family and the possible effect of sentencing him to jail for maximum period of punishment prescribed for the offence would adverse effect on his family read in conjunction with aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case, I have also considered whether the said accused can be released on probation of good conduct but considering the nature of the crime, I refrain from giving any benefit under Probation of Offenders Act as the alleged offence is a theft of golden jewellery committed by house burglary. However, as the accused person being the sole breadwinner of his family, considering the financial and social status and age of the said accused person, I punish him with the sentence which in my view is just and adequate. However, the accused is found guilty for the charge under sec.411 IPC and he is convicted u/sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the charge U/Sec.411 IPC.

18

The period of detention already undergone in judicial custody by the accused from 19-11-2022 to this day i.e., on 20-02-2023 shall be set off from the period of sentence imposed as envisaged under sec. 428 Cr.P.C. The sentence of imprisonment already imposed against the accused in CC No.963/2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Srikalahasti shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed against the accused in this case ie., CC No.20/2023 as contemplated Under Sec.427 Cr P C. M.Os.1 to 3 as entered in CPR No.25/2023 shall be returned to PW1 after expiry of appeal time under proper acknowledgment and identification. Accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When he was asked about means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he need legal aid. Accordingly office is directed to address letter along with copy of Judgment to the Secretary, DLSA for providing free legal aid to the accused.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Srikalahasti.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Chittoor.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :SRIKALAHASTI.

Present: Sri.K.Narendra Reddy, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti. FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge,Srikalahasti.

Tuesday, the 14th day of February, 2022.

C.C. No.963 of 2022

Between:

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thottambedu PS

Cr.No.81/2022 of Thottambedu PS. ...Complainant.

And :

Dasari Mukesh @ Srinu, S/o D. Prabhudas, aged 42 years, R/o Behind Shanthi Theatre, Veera Raghavulapeta, Chirala Town, Bapatla District. Now Muthyalapadu Village, Chilakuru Mandal, Nellore District. … Accused

This case is coming on 09-02-2023for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Free legal aid counsel on behalf of accused and this case having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Thottambedu

Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 81 of 2022 for the offences punishable Under Sections 454, 380 IPC Or 411 of IPC with the following allegations.

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

On 02.07.2022 at about 10.00 A.M. when the defacto complainant went to the agricultural fields by locking her house and returned to home around 3.30

P.M., she found her house lock was broke opened and also the iron safe was kept open inside the house. On verification, she found that the golden jewellery from the iron safe was found missing from the iron safe. Then she realized that some unknown offenders gained entrance by break opening the lock of main door of the house and committed theft of gold ornaments i.e., one gold bottu chain of 22 grams, one gold necklace of 32 grams, one gold long chain of 36 grams, one gold 2 ring of 2 grams , one pair of gold ear studs of 4 grams and one pair of silver pattilu worth Rs.2000/-, total 96 grams of gold and one pair of silver pattilu, all worth about Rs.1,94,000/- and escaped with booty during the temporary absence of inmates of the house. On that the defacto complainant/PW1 gave a written report to the police with regard to commission of theft of golden jewellery from her house, basing on the report of PW-1/defacto complainant,the

Sub Inspector of police, Thottambedu Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.

81 of 2022 under Section 454 and 380 of IPC on 02.07.2022 at about 3.30 P.M.

and then the Sub Inspector of Police, Thottambedu Police Station took up investigation and examined four witnesses, recorded their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements, visited the scene of offence house and prepared rough sketch with regard to the same.

3)During the course of investigation, on 08.11.2022 at about 6.30 AM, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thottambedu Police Station apprehended the accused at Thangellapalem cross roads situated on Srikalahasti-Tada main road and seized stolen property concerned to this crime and also some other property related to B.N.Kandriga Police Station, effect arrest of the accused in Cr.No.81 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC of

Thottambedu Police Station followed by seizure of stolen golden jewellery MO1 to MO3 i.e., one gold chain, one pair of gold ear studs, one gold ring from the possession of the accused under the cover of mediators report in the presence of mediators i.e., C.Muvarna(PW-4) and LW-6 K.Bhavani. Accused also admitted the commission of offence in the present case and other crime pertaining to

B.N.Kandriga Police Station. Thereafter the accused was produced before the court for Judicial remand in the present crime on hand.

4)There after PW-5 C.Venkateswara Rao, Village Revenue Officer,

Chittathur village held test identification parade of seized gold items with

Y.Meena(PW-1) under which she rightly identified her golden jewellery as MO1 to

MO3 and after completion of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police filed 3 charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 454 and 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

5) Furnishing Copies to the accused.

This case was taken on file for the offences punishable under

Sections 454 and 380 or 411 of Indian penal Code against the accused and after the appearance of the accused, copies of case documents as provided under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to him.

6) Examination of the accused and Framing of the charges.:

On 06.12.2022, the accused was examined under section 239

Cr.P.C., for which he denied the allegations leveled against him and claimed to be tried, after hearing both sides and on perusing the entire case record, charges for the offences punishable under section 454 and 380 IPC and an alternatively charge U/sec. 411 IPC was framed against the accused. The said charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

7)During the course of trial the prosecution has examined LW-1, LW-2,

LW-4, LW-5, LW-7 and LW-8 as PW-1 to PW-6 respectively and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-5 besides MO-1 to MO-3.

8)Examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C.

On closure of prosecution evidences, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating prosecution evidence in allegation in Telugu for which he denied the same and reported that there is no defence evidence on his behalf.

9)Heard the Arguments of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire record.

10)Now the point for determination is :

i) Whether the Prosecution is able to establish that on 02.07.2022 the MO1 to MO3 were stolen from the house/possession of PW-1 or not?

ii) Whether the prosecution is able to establish that MO-1 to MO-3

were recovered from the possession of the accused, beyond the reasonable

4 doubt?

iii) Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused had

committed lurking house trespass by house breaking, in order to commit

theft in the house of PW-1 and thereby committed on offence punishable

under section 454 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

iv) Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilty of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under

section 454 and 380 of IPC alternatively 411 of IPC?

11)In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined the listed witness LW1, LW2, LW4, LW5, LW7 and LW8 as PW1 to PW6 and got marked

Ex.P-1 to P-5 besides MO-1 to MO-3. PW-1 is the defacto complainant who lodged the report, Ex.P-1 is report of PW-1 dated 02.07.2022. MO-1 is One gold chain, MO-2 is one pair of gold ear studs, MO3 is one gold ring. PW-2 is the husband of PW1, PW-3 is the neighbor of PW1, PW4 is the one of the mediator who accompanied the police at the time of arrest and seizure, PW-5 is the Village

Revenue Officer who conducted test identification parade of case property and

PW6 is the Sub Insepctor of Police, Thottambedu Police Station. Ex.P-1 is the report given by PW-1 to the police, Ex.P-2 is the arested copy of mediator report

dated 08.11.2022, Ex.P-3 is the Test identification proceedings of case property

dated 09.11.2022. Ex.P4 is the First Information Report registered by PW6. Ex.P5

is the rough sketch of the scene of offence house. PW-1 and PW-2 are the wife and husband, in whose house theft was committed, PW-6 is the Inspector of police, Thottambedu Police Station who registered the report and took up investigation in this case, arrested the accused and seized the case property under the cover of Mahazarnama covered under Ex.P2.

12)The stand of the accused is total denial. He contended by way of suggestion that police foisted a false case against him for disposal of undetected cases. No evidence was adduced on his behalf.

13)POINT No.I : Whether the Prosecution is able to establish that

on 02.07.2022 the M.O-1 to MO-3 were stolen from the house/possession of

PW-1 or not?

5

Here in the case, the unshaken evidence of PW-1/defacto complainant and her husband PW-2 goes to show that on 0.07.2022 in between 12.45 P.M. and 3.30 P.M., when they were temporarily absent in their house, some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house situated at Kothakandriga

Village, Thottambedu Mandal by break opening the lock, opened the beeruva and committed theft of gold bondhu chain weighing 2 ¾ sovereigns, gold necklace weighing 4 sovereigns, gold long chain weighing 4 ½ sovereigns, one pair of gold ear rings i.e., butta kammas weighing ½ sovereign, one gold ring weighing ¼ sovereign, silver chains from the iron safe of PW1 and when PW1 returned home at about 3.30 P.M., she observed that door locks were break opened and almirah was also opened and immediately she entered into the house, where she found that the above said golden jewellery which were kept in the iron safe were stolen and she searched in and around but in vain as such on the same day i.e., on 02.07.2022 at about 8.00 P.M. she/PW-1 gave report Ex.P-1 to police. Her evidence further goes to show that subsequently on being informed by the police about the recovery of MO-1 to MO-3, she identified and had taken interim custody of the same as per the orders of the court. The evidence PW-1 and PW-2, who are wife and husband respectively, also goes in the same lines. PW-1 also identified MO-1 to MO-3 as the properties stolen from her house in the presence of PW5/VRO at the time of Test Identification of property proceedings. Her version also supported the version of PW-2 regarding commission of theft of gold ornaments in their house, by break opening the lock of the doors by some unknown offenders and committed theft of gold ornaments from iron safe. Though the learned counsel for accused put formal suggestions in cross examination, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 appears to be unshaken, so the court finds no reason to disbelieve their evidence, which clinchingly proves the factum of commission of lurking house trespass in their house by some unknown offenders and committed theft of MO-1 to MO-3.

14)Further more, the evidence of PW-6, the Sub Inspector of Police, 6

Thottambedu Police Station goes to show about receiving of Ex.P-1 report from

PW-1 on 02-07-2022 at 8.00 PM, registering the same as F.I.R. Ex.P-4 in Cr.No. 81 of 2022 of Thottambedu Police Station, under Section 454 and 380 IPC. The evidence of PW-6, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thottambedu also shows about the examination of PW-1 to PW-4, recording their statements and preparation of

Ex.P-5 rough sketch of scene of offence to that effect. There is no delay in lodging Ex.P-1 report to the police, thus the evidence of PW-6 corroborated the version of PW-1 to PW-3 regarding the commission of theft in the house of

PW-1.

15)The evidence of PW-5, the Village Revenue Officer, Chittathur

Village goes to show that subsequent to recovery i.e., on 09.11.2022 PW-1 came to Grama Sachivalayam and identified her gold ornaments (MO-1 to MO-3) from the similar gold ornaments with which MOs-1 to 3 are mixed for the purpose of test identification parade of property as such the VRO prepared Ex.P-3 proceedings of the Test identification of case property. As from the evidence of

PW-5, V.R.O., it shows that the PW-1/defacto complainant identified her property successfully in the test identification proceedings conducted by the said Village

Revenue Officer in Grama Sachivalayam. Though the learned legal aid counsel for accused he never conducted test identification proceedings and Ex.P-3 proceedings prepared at police station by way of suggestion, the same was denied by him.

16)More over no such significant dissimilarities were elicited by the learned legal aid counsel with regard to description of material objects (MO-1 to

MO-3) in order to suspect that MOs-1 to 3 are not the properties stolen from the house of PW-1. More over PW-1 identified those gold items (MO-1 to MO-3) as the properties stolen from her house in the Test identification proceedings conducted by the V.R.O., and also in the court as such the evidence of PW-1, PW- 2, PW-3 coupled with PW-5 and PW6 clinchingly established the fact that on the alleged day of the incident, MO-1 to MO-3 golden ornaments were stolen from 7 the house of PW-1, beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution has established that MO-1 to MO-3 are stolen properties. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

17) POINT No. II. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that

MO-1 to MO-3 were recovered from the possession of the accused, beyond

the reasonable doubt?

Now, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the stolen golden ornaments i.e., MO-1 to MO-3 were received from the possession of the accused as alleged in the police report. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW-4 and PW-6 and got marked Ex.P-2

Arrest-cum-Seizure Mahazarnama among them PW-4 is the VRO who acted as mediator at the time of arrest and seizure proceedings carried out by the police.

PW-6 is the investigation officer who recovered MO-1 to 3 from the possession of accused.

18)According to PW-6, which he was present in the police station, he received credible information with regard to the movement of the accused and on that he secured two mediators PW-4 and LW-6 K.Bhavani and went to

Thangellapalem cross road along with his staff in police Jeep by securing the mediators PW4/VRO, on seeing the police party, one person tried to ran away and the police detained him and on enquiry he revealed his identity particulars as accused in this case and confessed the commission of theft in various places and some stolen properties relating to present crime on hand i.e., MO1 to MO3 and also the other valuable property relating to the crime concerned to BN Kandriga

Police Station were seized from the accused and confessed that those items are stolen items and then the Sub Inspector seized all the gold items from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P-2 Mahazarnama, and effected the arrest of the accused in this crime in the presence of mediators. The evidence of PW-6, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thottambedu Police Station, shows that he effected the arrest of the accused, recorded his confessional 8 statement and recovered the case property MO-1 to Mo-3 of this case and also relating to some other gold items concerned to BN Kandriga Police Station under the cover of Ex.P-2 mediator report. and there after the accused was remanded to Judicial custody in this case.

19)The evidence of PW-4, who is the independent mediator goes to show that on 08.11.2022 at about 6.00 A.M.. the Sub Inspector of Police,

Thottambedu P.S. called her over phone to act as mediator and then, she along with LW6/K.Bhavani accompanied the police and they went to cross roads at

Thangellapalem situated on Srikalahasti-Tada road, where the police caught hold of the accused and seized MOs.1 to 3 related to this case and some other properties from his possession and the said accused confessed that those items are the stolen items pertaining to this crime on hand and then the police seized those items and arrested accused under cover of mediator report (Ex.P2)., duly attested by them and that the police also obtained the signature of accused on the said mediator report.

20) Thus the evidence of PW-3 is cogent and corroborative to the version of PW-6 as well as the contests of mediator report Ex.P-2 in all the material aspects. No serious infirmity or in consistency was elicited by the learned defence counsel in the evidence.

21)While advancing arguments, the core contention of the learned defence counsel argued that PW-6 failed to secure the inhabitants of the locality where the alleged arrest and seizure took place as required under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. and the same is fatal to the prosecution. It may be a fact that the place of seizure of MO-1 to MO-3 is a busy locality, however, it is to be noted that PW-6 went to the said place of seizure on receiving credible information. So it is quite probable and natural to secure mediators before going to the said place.

Further, the said seizure was not made in the closed premises and the time of arrest and seizure is about 6.00 A.M. In such circumstances, it is not mandatory to secure mediators of that locality, more over PW-6 was accompanied by the 9

Village Revenue official of Thangellapalem Village who is the jurisdictional VRO of the said village as the mediator at the time of finding of the accused at the said place. As such the question of picking up the another local inhabitants does not arise in this case. Further more, the Ex.P-2 mahazarnama contains the signatures of mediators as well as the accused. Hence it is crystal that PW-6 took all necessary steps as the matter of prudence as well as the law and procedure, while seizing the case property. Hence, this court finds and reason to doubt the version of PW-3 or PW-6 with regard to recovery of MO-1 to MO-3 from the possession of the accused.

22)Another contention of the learned legal aid counsel is that PW-3 is a stock mediator to police, as discussed above, no inconsistency or infirmity was elicited in the evidence of PW-3 mediator as well as PW-6 Sub Inspector of Police which can create doubt in the mind of the court with regard to their presence at the time of arrest and seizure and no criminality or antipathy was attributed to

PW-3 against the accused even by way of suggestion and therefore this court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-3 and as to why she would depose falsely against the accused by implanting huge case property to cook up false case against the accused. Thus, this court is of the view that the evidence of

PW-3 or PW-6 can't be discarded by branding PW-3 as stock witness to police.

Further PW3 being the Village Revenue official of Thangellapalem village is not a subordinate to the police officials of Thottambedu Police Station and she being the Village official of the said village casted with a bounden duty upon her to accompany the police whenever the Sub Inspector revealed the information about the movements of the accused in her village. So I did not see any reason to discredit the evidence of PW3 on the ground that she being the VRO used to act as the mediator at the beck and call of the police.

23)On summering up the entire evidence, the evidence of PW-6 supported by the evidence of mediator PW-3 on all material aspects with the contents of Ex.P-2 Arrest-cum-Seizure Mahazarnama which clinchingly reveals 10 that the accused had dishonestly retained MO-1 to MO-3 in his possession. As discussed above, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-6 are convincing cogent, credible and reliable with regard to the recovery of MO-1 to MO-3 gold items from the possession of the accused. Therefore, the court holds that the prosecution is able to establish that MO-1 to MO-3 were recovered from the possession of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is answered against the accused.

24) POINT No.III: Whether the prosecution is able to establish that

the accused had committed lurking house trespass in order to commit theft

in the house of PW-1 and thereby committed on offence punishable under

section 454 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

The evidence of PW1 and PW-2 coupled with the testimony of PW-6 the Sub Inspector of Police, Thottambedu Police Station to whom the defeacto complainant preferred complaint about the commission of house burglary and missing of golden jewellery in her house as discussed above, would prove that theft of the property in the her house as marked under M.Os. 1 to MO-3 by some unknown offenders and prior to the recovery of the same from the possession of the accused and the said property belongs to her and the same was duly identified by her in the presence of PW-5 who conducted test identification parade of property at Grama Sachivalayam. However, the evidence of Defacto complainant/PW-1 who lodged the earliest report to the police is of no avail for the case of prosecution in its attempt to drive the accused for the guilt of the offence of theft u/Sec. 454-380 IPC as any of the witnesses have not witnessed the commission of the offence by the accused in the house of the

PW1. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 only establishes that theft was committed in the house of PW1 in between 12.45 P.M. and 3.30 P.M. on 02.07.2022 when PW1 and PW2 were temporarily absent in their house and some unknown offenders might have committed the theft of golden jewellery kept in iron safe by break opening the same and they observed the same at about 3.30 P.M. when they 11 returned to home on 02.07.2022, they have seen that the iron safe was break opened and the golden articles kept therein were stolen. After searching here and there and when their efforts turned in vain, they reported the same to the police. Hence, there is no evidence to vouch the charge against the accused under Section 454 and 380 IPC, however the prosecution could able to prove the recovery of the stolen property MO-1 to MO-3 said to have stolen in the house of

PW-1 from the possession of the accused, for which the accused could not account for and failed to show MO1 to MO3 as his own. Further, it is pertinent to notice that either the defacto complaint/PW-1 or his wife PW-2 did not witnessed the house burglary committed by the accused nor present at the time of commission of theft of MO1 to MO3 by the accused.

25) POINT IV: Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilty

of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable

under section 454 and 380 of IPC alternatively 411 of IPC?

In so far as regards the recovery of stolen property from the possession of accused is concerned, let us have a glance on the relevant provisions of law u/sec.410 IPC for better appreciation. The said provision which defines the stolen property as:

Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designed as “stolen property”, whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property

The consequent penal provision U/Sec. 411 IPC which reads thus:

“Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having 12 reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

26.From this the basic ingredients to prove the charge of Sec.411 IPC

(a) dishonest receipt or retention of stolen property (b) Knowledge or reason to believe at the time of receipt that the property was stolen property.

27.Thus the evidence of PW4 who acted as mediator to the seizure mahazarnama coupled with the contents of Ex.P-2 goes to prove that the stolen properties covered under MO1 to MO3 belongs to PW1 were recovered from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P-2, mediator report. Further the

MO1 to MO3 were identified by PW1 during test identification of property conducted by PW5 with reference to PW1. Thus the evidence of PW4 coupled with the evidence of PW5/VRO read in conjunction with Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3, goes to show that the gold items MO1 to MO3 were recovered by PW6 in the presence of PW4 and subsequently they were identified by PW1 under Ex.P-3 conducted by PW5.

28.As a matter of fact, there is no explanation muchless valid reason from the accused person to say that the golden jewellery covered under MO1 to

MO3 was his own property. No such explanation offered nor had adduced any defence evidence by the accused to rebut the prosecution evidence.

29.Even from the cross-examination of the investigating officers, no serious contradictions or variations were elicited and their depositions by the defence counsel and the testimony of Investigating Officer and mediator witnesses are sufficiently corroborated with each other. Thus, they remained consistent during their cross-examination as such the seizure proceedings stands proved with the testimony of the said witnesses.

30.In this case, it is proved from the evidence of PW1 that golden articles were stolen from his house and the said witness has later identified the 13 stolen property as the property recovered from the possession of accused in the presence of PW5/VRO, who conducted property identification parade at Grama

Sachivalayam at Chittathur which legally established fact that has been unequivocally proved that the accused had stolen the property which was committed theft from the house of defacto complainant/PW.1. Now when once the property recovered from the possession of the accused is that of the stolen property that was committed theft in the house of the defacto complainant/Pw.1, then it is the turn to apply the presumption under illustration

(a) of Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

“The court may presume that a man who is in possession

of the stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has

received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can

account for his possession”

It is a settled principle of law in a case, the recovery of

alleged stolen property was not in dispute, it was identified to be

so by the complainant and there was no proof of its belonging to

the accused, the articles were held to be stolen property and the

person from whose possession the said stolen property was

recovered liable to be convicted.

31.In the present case by applying the above presumption as the accused have failed to account for the possession of the golden ornaments marked under M.Os.1 to 3 which were recovered from him and further, it was identified by PW.1 as that of his property, as such, the accused is liable for the offence u/sec. 411 IPC. Even though no one had witnessed the factum of stealing of golden ornaments from the house of PW.1, but the accused confessed the commission of theft of gold items and subsequently the

Investigating Officer recovered the stolen gold jewellery from the possession of accused. Thus, the confession made by the accused leading to the discovery of 14

MO1 to MO3 is legally admissible U/Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act and the said recovery of gold items basing on the confession made by the accused fastens the accused with the criminal liability U/Sec.411 IPC. Therefore, this court can safely conclude that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge u/sec.

411 IPC with legally admissible evidence.

32.When the all the relevant facts are coupled together and for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this court convinced that prosecution has been able to bring home the guilty of the accused for the charge u/sec. 411 IPC against accused.

33.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges u/sec.

454, 380 IPC accordingly he is acquitted for the same u/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

However, the accused is found guilty for the charge u/sec.411 IPC, accordingly he is convicted u/sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

Sd/- K.Narendra Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Srikalahasti. FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti.

Quantum of Sentence:-

34. When questioned the accused about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on accused, he stated that he is aged about 43 years and he is a HIV patient and he is taking medicines for prior to 3 years. He further stated that his father is no more and his mother is aged 60 years suffering from diabetes and he has to lookafter his ailing mother and he is the sole bread winner of his family and if he is kept in jail further more, his health condition will be deteriorated further more, hence prayed this court to take lenient view in sentencing him.

35.Taking into consideration of the mercy plea of the accused and he being only earning member of his family and the possible effect of sentencing him to jail for maximum period of punishment prescribed for the offence would adverse effect on his family read in conjunction with aggravating and mitigating 15 circumstances of the case, I have also considered whether the said accused can be released on probation of good conduct but considering the nature of the crime, I refrain from giving any benefit under Probation of Offenders Act as the alleged offence is a theft of golden jewellery committed by house burglary.

However, as the accused person being the sole breadwinner of his family, considering the financial and social status and age of the said accused person, I punish him with the sentence which in my view is just and adequate.

36. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charges u/sec.454, 380 IPC accordingly he is acquitted for the same u/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

However, the accused is found guilty for the charge under sec.411

IPC and he is convicted u/sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C and sentenced the accused to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the charge

U/Sec.411 IPC. The period of detention already undergone in judicial custody by the accused from 08-11-2022 to this day i.e., on 14-02-2023 shall be set off from the period of sentence imposed as envisaged under sec. 428 Cr.P.C.

M.Os.1 to 3 as entered in CPR No.346/2022 which are given to defacto complainant/PW1 under interim custody as per the orders in

Crl.M.P.No.2077/2022 dt.19-01-2023 shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When he was asked about means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he need legal aid. Accordingly office is directed to address letter along with copy of Judgment to the Secretary, DLSA for providing free legal aid to the accused.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced in open court, this the 14th day of February, 2023.

Sd/- K.Narendra Reddy,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Srikalahasti.

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti.

16

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

PW-1: Y. Meena. PW-2: Y. Nagaraju. PW-3: K.Ramemma. PW-4: P. Muvarna. PW-5: C. Venkateswara Rao. PW-6: B. Raghavendra, Sub-Inspector.

FOR DEFENCE

--None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1: Report given by PW1 dated 02-07-2022 to police. Ex.P-2: Mahazarnama dated 08-11-2022. Ex.P-3 : Test Identification parade of property proceedings dated 09-11-2022. Ex.P-4: F.I.R. in Cr.No. 81/2022 for the offence U/sec.454and 380 IPC dated 02-07- 2022 of Thottambedu PS. Ex.P-5 : Rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE

--NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO-1: Long Gold Chain MO-2: Gold pair of ear studs MO-3: one gold ring. Id/- K.Narendra Reddy, AJMFC, Srikalahasti. FAC PJCJ, Srikalahasti.

// true copy //

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Srikalahasti.

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti.

Copy of Judgment in CC No.963/2022,

Dated 14-02-2023

17

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : SRIKALAHASTI.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT in C.C.No.963 of 2022

DATE OF :-

Offence: 02-07-2022 Filling: 02-07-2022 Apprehension of accused: 08-11-2022 Released on bail: In judicial custody since 08-11-2022 Commencement of trial: 03-01-2023 Close of trial: 02-02-2023 Sentence or order: 14-02-2023 Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses Name of the Complainant : The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thottambedu PS Cr.No.81/2022 of Thottambedu PS. Name of the accused :

Dasari Mukesh @ Srinu, S/o D. Prabhudas, aged 42 years, R/o Behind Shanthi Theatre, Veera Raghavulapeta, Chirala Town, Bapatla District. Now Muthyalapadu Village, Chilakuru Mandal, Nellore District.

Offence: U/sec.454, 380 IPC or in alternative under sec.411 IPC

Finding : Found not guilty for the offences U/sec.454, 380 IPC Found guilty for the offence U/Sec.411 IPC.

Sentence:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges u/sec. 454, 380 IPC accordingly he is acquitted for the same u/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. However, the accused is found guilty for the charge u/sec.411 IPC, accordingly he is convicted u/sec. 248 (2) Cr.P.C. When questioned the accused about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on accused, he stated that he is aged about 43 years and he is a HIV patient and he is taking medicines for prior to 3 years. He further stated that his father is no more and his mother is aged 60 years suffering from diabetes and he has to lookafter his ailing mother and he is the sole bread winner of his family and if he is kept in jail further more, his health condition will be deteriorated further more, hence prayed this court to take lenient view in sentencing him. Taking into consideration of the mercy plea of the accused and he being only earning member of his family and the possible effect of sentencing him to jail for maximum period of punishment prescribed for the offence would adverse effect on his family read in conjunction with aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case, I have also considered whether the said accused can be released on probation of good conduct but considering the nature of the crime, I refrain from giving any benefit under Probation of Offenders Act as the alleged offence is a theft of golden jewellery committed by house burglary. However, as the accused person being the sole breadwinner of his family, considering the financial and social status and age of the said accused person, I punish him with the sentence which in my view is just and adequate.

The accused is sentenced the accused to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the charge U/Sec.411 IPC. The period of detention already undergone in judicial custody by the accused from 08-11-2022 to this day i.e., on 14-02-2023 shall be set off from the period of 18 sentence imposed as envisaged under sec. 428 Cr.P.C.M.Os.1 to 3 as entered in CPR No.346/2022 which are given to defacto complainant/PW1 under interim custody as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.2077/2022 dt.19-01-2023 shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When he was asked about means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he need legal aid. Accordingly office is directed to address letter along with copy of Judgment to the Secretary, DLSA for providing free legal aid to the accused.

Sd/- K. Narendra Reddy,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Srikalahasti. FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti.

Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Chittoor.

// true copy //

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Srikalahasti.

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti.

19 20

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SRIKALAHASTI

PRESENT:-Sri K.NARENDRA REDDY,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasti.

Tuesday, the 14th day of February, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.515 of 2020

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti I Town PS.

Cr.No.196/2015 of Srikalahasti I Town PS....Complainant

And :

1. Kalayapp Krishna, age 40 years, S/o Late Kalayappa Nelimanu Kandriga, Near Madrasroad, near reliance petrol bunk, Srikalahasti.

2. SAyadh Fazal,age 32 years, S/o Dada Hayath, D.No.5/80, Thottambedu, B.D.Colony.

3. Shaik Nazeer basha, age 54 years, S/o Meerjan Saheb, D.No.7/569, Kumaraswamy Thippa, Srikalahasti.

4. Saheb Anwar, age 57 years, S/o S.Nannesha, D.No.7-746-C, Big Mosque street, Srikalahasti. … Accused

This case coming on this day i.e., on 07-02-2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Kumar Maddu, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the documents available on record, and 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, Srikalahasti I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused A-1 to A-4 for the offence punishable U/Sec.4 (1) (C) of A.P.Lotteries Act, 1968 in Crime No.196/2015 of his station.

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

On 19-10-2015 at 7.30 Pm at Public place situated Jayarama rao street,

Srikalahasti accused A-1 to A-4 were found in possession and selling of unauthorized lottery tickets ie., 11 lottery ticket number slips belongs to Singam Kuil violet, kumaran Vishnu fire and Thangam Nallaneram fortune companies to public by saying "Rendu roopayalaku 3 lakshalu, konandi lottery lakshadi karulu kandi:. On suspicion,

LW6/Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused A-1 to A-4 and seized lottery ticket 2 number slips belongs to Singam Kuil violet, kumaran Vishnu fire and Thangam

Nallaneram fortune companies and cash of Rs.4,400/- from their possession under cover of police proceedings dated 19-10-2015 and brought the accused along with property to the police station.

Basing on Police proceedings LW6/Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.196/2015 for the offence U/Sec.4(1)(C) of AP Lotteries Act and took up investigation in this case, enlarged accused A-1 to A-4 by serving Sec.41(A)Cr P C notices.

After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-4 by selling and possessing unauthorized lottery tickets number slips in Andhra Pradesh in punishale U/Sec.4(1)(C) of A.P. Lotteries Act, 1968.

3. Furnishing copies under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

The case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/Sec.4(1)(C) of

A.P. Lotteries Act, 1968 against the accused A-1 to A-4. The copies of case documents as provided u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. were provided to the accused.

4. Examination of the accused and framing of charge

Heard both the learned counsel. The accused A-1 to A-4 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. by putting the accusation leveled against them in the charge sheet. A charge U/Sec.4(1)(C) of A.P. Lotteries Act, 1968 was framed read over and explained to the accused A-1 to A-4 and they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During course of trial the prosecution in support of its case examined

Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P3 documents and MO1.

6.Examination of the accused under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C.

The accused A-1 to A-4 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution against them, for which they have denied the same. The version of the accused is total denial of the case and replied that they were falsely implicated in this case 3 reported to the court that they have no defence evidence to be adduced on their behalf.

7.Final arguments of both APP and defence counsel have been heard.

8.Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether the accused A-1 to A-4 were found in possession of prohibited lottery tickets and selling the same to public and there by committed an offence under 4(1)(C) of A.P. Lotteries Act, 1968?

2) Whether the prosecution has proved the under 4(1)(C) of A.P.

Lotteries Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt against A1 to A4?

3) To what result?

9.Points 1 and 2: The learned A.P.P. argued that by examining P.Ws. 1 and 2 on behalf of the prosecution and by marking Exs.P.1 to P3, as the version of the prosecution witnesses are corroborative with each other and there by, the prosecution could able to prove the charges against the accused successfully and as such prays for conviction against the accused.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that accused

A-1 to A-4 were falsely implicated in this case and they are nothing to do with the offence and the said police proceedings is invented for the purpose of this case. He further argued that the independent witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution. He further contended that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 are police officials who participated in the raid and interested in their case, as such accused persons can be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt due to the latches on the part of the investigation agency and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.

11.Since above points framed for determination are inter related and inter dependant, as such they have taken up together for discussion simultaneously to avoid redundancy and for the sake of brivity.

12.Now this court proceeds to answer the point basing on the material evidence on record in accordance to the gravamen of the Sec.4 (1) (C) of A.P. Lotteries 4

Act, 1968 which reads below : The said penal provision is reproduced hereunder

before going to the appreciation of evidence on record.

Section 4. Offences in connection with lotteries: - (1) Whoever with a view to the promotion or conduct of any lottery in contravention of provisions of this

Act or in connection with any such lottery promoted or conducted or proposed to be promoted or conducted, either in this State or elsewhere-

(a) publishes any proposal to pay any sum or to deliver any goods, or to do or forbear from doing anything for the benefit of any person, on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the drawing of any ticket, lot, number of figure in the lottery; or

(b) prints any ticket or other document for use in the lottery; or

(c) sells or distributes, or offers or advertises for sale or distribution, or has in his possession, for the purpose of sale or distribution, any ticket or other documents or chances in the lottery; or (d) prints, publishes or distributes, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication or distribution

(i) any advertisement of the lottery; or

(ii) any list, whether complete or not, or prize winners or winning tickets in the lottery; or

(iii) any such matter descriptive of the drawing or intended drawing of the lottery, or otherwise relating to the lottery as is calculated to act as an inducement to persons to participate in that lottery or in the lotteries; or

(e) brings or invites any person to send into the State for the purpose of sale or distribution, any ticket or other document for use in, or any advertisement of the lottery; or

(f) sends or attempt to send out of the State, any money or valuable thing received in respect of the sale or distribution, or any document recording the sale or distribution, or the identity of the holder, of any ticket or chance in the lottery; or 5

(g) uses any premises, or permits any premises to be used, for purposes connected with the promotion or conduct of the lottery; or

(h) causes or procures or attempts to procure any reason to do any of the above mentioned acts, 2 [shall on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend upto five years and with fine which may extend upto twenty five thousand rupees].

13.When this court moved to determine the point in the spirit of above penal provision as to whether the accused A-1 and A-2 are found in possession of an unauthorised lottery tickets for the purpose of sale to the public was prohibited by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, I think it is appropriate on my part to have a glance on the synaptic outline of the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses deposed in the court during trial to reach just conclusion of the case.

14.PW1, D. Manohar, the then Police Constable, I Town PS, Srikalahasti deposed that on 19-10-2015 at about 7.30 PM he along with other PC accompanied their SI of Police, LW6/N.Praveen Kumar, to Jayaram rao street of Srikalahasti town, found accused A-1 to A-4 holding white paper slips on which lottery numbers were noted and on seeing them in uniform, accused tried to skulk away but they apprehended accused, ascertained their identity particulars. On interrogation accused confessed the offence of selling lottery tickets purchased from unknown persons belongs to Tamilnadu lottery tickets and then their Sub-Inspector Of Police, arrested accused A-1 to A-4 and seized 12 lottery slips and cash of Rs.4,400/- from them under cover of police proceedings and brought accused along with seized property to the station for further action.

In his cross examination he stated that the place of seizure and arrest is situated in busy locality. He further stated that their sub-Inspector did not ask any public members of locality to join as mediators in the arrest and seizure proceedings.

He further stated that their Sub-Inspector did not secure mediators while proceedings to the spot. He further stated that the said lottery slips does not contain the date of drawn, name of the lottery company on it.

6

15.PW2, N.Praveen Kumar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti I

Town PS, deposed that on 19-10-2015 at about 7.30 PM on receipt of credible information he along with his staff PW1, LW2, LW3, LW4, LW5 proceeded to Suoper

Gas Agency situated in Jayarama rao street of Srikalahasti town , found accused A-1 to

A-4 holding white paper slips on which lottery numbers were noted and on seeing them in uniform, accused tried to skulk away but they apprehended accused, ascertained identity particulars. On interrogation A-1 to A-4 confessed the offence of selling lottery tickets purchased from unknown persons belonging to Tamilnadu lottery tickets, then he seized twelve lottery slips and cash of Rs.4,400/- from the possession of accused under cover of Ex.P-1, police proceedings and brought accused to the Police station along with seized 12 lottery slips under Ex.P-2. On the strength of

Ex.P-1, he registered Ex.P-3, FIR as a case in Cr.No.196/2015 U/Sec.4(1)(c) of A.P.

Lotteries Act, 1968 against accused and enlarged them by serving Sec.41(A)Cr P C notices and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused .

In his cross examination he admitted that he did not ask any public members of the locality to join as mediators in the arrest and seizure proceedings and he did not secure mediators while proceeding to the spot. He further stated that he did not ask any of the inhabitants of the vicinity to act as mediators. He further stated that he didnot follow the mandatory provisions of Sec.104 Cr P C. He further stated that the lottery slips covered under Ex.P-2 does not contain the date of draw and the names of the lottery company and also the signatures of accused as well as himself on it.

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THERE OF:

16.In the backdrop of the aforementioned prosecution evidence brought n record, learned defence counsel had argued that the entire case of prosecution resting solely on testimony of PW2 and his subordinate police constable PW1 and that no independent evidence is placed on record and further argued that there are number of inconsistencies even in the police official witnesses and only for statistical purpose only, the above said case is foisted against the accused.

7

17.At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the alleged seizure of the lottery tickets and the money coupled with the alleged confession of the accused. Here the mere confession of the accused cannot be a basis to lay foundation to the prosecution case unless the seizure is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard it is observed that prosecution has not cited any public persons as mahazar witnesses. So the alleged seizure received no any corroboration from the testimony of any independent mediator witnesses as a corrolary, the prosecution was constrained to rely upon the testimony of the investigation officer and his subordinate police officials who participated in the raid. In the said circumstances, where the endeavor of the prosecution to prove the alleged seizure through the independent witnesses is failed, the court shall be very cautious in evaluating the evidence of the police officials. On perusal of Ex.P-2, it discloses that the said lottery tickets were typed slips affixed to a white paper but not having any particular date of draw issued by the said lottery companies ie., Singam Kuil violet, kumaran Vishnu fire and Thangam Nallaneram fortune companies. Moreover, no labels pertaining to the said lottery companies found in Ex.P-2. Therefore it cannot be said that the accused were in possession of the prohibited lottery tickets belongs to the above said lottery companies.

18.Further more, here in this case the arrest, seizure and investigation was took up by PW2 who is Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti I Town PS. In this regard, I feel it appropriate to refer the relevant provision with regard to the competency of the police official who is empowered to effect arrest and conduct investigation in the offences under the penal provisions of Lotteries Act. The relevant section ie., Sec.15 of A.P.Lotteries Act, 1968 which reads as follows :- "Any Police Officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police may arrest without warrant any person found, or reasoably suspected of committing an offence under clause (a) clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of Section 4 in any public street, or thoroughfare or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access." 8

Here, in the present case, the Investigating Officer/PW6 is Sub-Inspector of Police, who detected the offence and proceeded with the investigation and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet in this case. There is a force in the contention of learned counsel for accused that as per Sec.15 of A.P.Lotteries Act, 1968

PW6 is not at all not competent to arrest the accused and conduct investigation and the same is fatal to the case of prosecution.

19.Be that as it may, it is the specific case of the prosecution as per police proceedings dt.19-10-2015 the accused persons were said to have illegally selling the lottery tickets which was prohibited in Andhra Pradesh. At this juncture, as regards the evidentiary value of police proceedings. Admittedly and undisputedly the said place of offence is situated in a busy locality having surrounded by so many residential houses and commercial establishments. Moreover the time of the offence is about 7.30 PM. If such be the case, the failure of the Investigating Officer to join the public witnesses of the locality throws a suspicion over the genuineness of the said police proceedings, basing on which the entire case rests. Therefore, it cannot be said that the

Investigating Officer observed the mandate of Sec.100(4) Cr P C which failure on the part of the Investigating Agency could not infuse confidence in the mind of the court that the said cash amount and lottery tickets were seized from the possession of the accused persons.

20.The only witnesses available on record are none other than the police officials who participated in the raid. In these circumstances basing on the sole testimony of police officials PW1 and PW2, it is not at all safe to hand down conviction against the accused who are generally interested to see conviction of the accused persons with a view to get their case success.

21.On this point, I would like to refer a decision reported in 1994 (2) A.L.T.

(Crl.) P.69 (A.P.) in between Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep.by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle, wherein it was held that the conviction cannot be given

basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by

disinterested witnesses.

9

Here in this case except the testimony of police officials, no other evidence is available from the independent source of testimony to corroborate the police version. In the absence of evidence of independent witnesses, solely basing on the evidence of police officials who are PW2 and his team ie., PW1 and another, this court feels that it is not at all safe to convict the accused.

22. For the foregoing reasons and legal principles discussed supra, there is no convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that the accused were found in possession of lottery tickets and cash amount of Rs.4400/- as alleged in Ex.P-1 police proceedings. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.4 (1) (c) r/w 4 (1) (h) of Andhra

Pradesh Lotteries Act, 1968 beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the accused A-1 to

A-4 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the points are answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused.

POINT No.3 :-

23. In the result, accused A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.4 (1) (c) r/w 4 (1) (h) of Andhra Pradesh Lotteries Act, 1968, and accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused

A-1 to A-4 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of Six months as contemplated u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 i.e., cash amount of Rs.4,400/- as

entered in CPR No.136/2020 shall be confiscated to State, after expiry of

appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 14th day of February, 2023.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Srikalahasti

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

PW-1: D.Manohar, PC. PW-2: N. Praveen Kumar, S.I.

10

FOR DEFENCE

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1: Police Proceedings dated 19-10-2015 at 7.30 PM. Ex.P-2 : Twelve lottery slips affixed to a white paper. Ex.P-3 : FIR dated 19-10-2015 in Cr.No.196/2015 of I Town PS, Srikalahasti U/Sec.4(1)(C) of A.P.Lotteries Act, 1968.

FOR DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 : Cash of Rs.4,400/-.

AJMFC, Srikalahasti.

Judgment in CC No.515/2020,

Dated 14-02-2023

11

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

SRIKALAHASTI

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No.515 OF 2020

Date of offence19-10-2015 Date of complaint or report19-10-2015 Date of Arrest19-10-2015 Date of Release19-10-2015 Date of taken of file16-12-2020 Date of apprehension (appearance

before the court)14-06-2022

Date of commencement of trial19-01-2023 Date of close of trial07-02-2023 Date of Judgment14-02-2023 Explanation for delayNo such delay was occurred. ComplainantThe State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti I Town PS. Cr.No.196/2015 of Srikalahasti I Town PS.

Name of the Father's nameAge Calling Religion ResidenceMandal accused

1. Kalayapp Krishna, age 40 years, S/o Late Kalayappa Nelimanu Kandriga, Near Madrasroad, near reliance petrol bunk, Srikalahasti.

2. SAyadh Fazal,age 32 years, S/o Dada Hayath, D.No.5/80, Thottambedu, B.D.Colony.

3. Shaik Nazeer basha, age 54 years, S/o Meerjan Saheb, D.No.7/569, Kumaraswamy Thippa, Srikalahasti.

4. Saheb Anwar, age 57 years, S/o S.Nannesha, D.No.7-746-C, Big Mosque street, Srikalahasti.

Section of Law: u/Sec.4 (1) (c) r/w 4 (1) (h) of Andhra Pradesh Lotteries Act, 1968.

Nature of offence: Illegal possession of unauthorised lottery tickets banned by Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:In the result, accused A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.4 (1) (c) r/w 4 (1) (h) of Andhra Pradesh Lotteries Act, 1968, and accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused A- 1 to A-4 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of Six months as contemplated u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 i.e., cash amount of Rs.4,400/- as entered

in CPR No.136/2020 shall be confiscated to State, after expiry of appeal time.

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class Srikalahasti. Copy submitted to The Hon`ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Prl. Sr.Civil Judge, Chittoor.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

SRIKALAHASTI

Present:- Sri K. Narendra Reddy, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasti.

Thursday, the 23rd day of February, 2023

P.R.C. No. 4 of 2023

Between :

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti II Town PS. Cr.No.112/2021 of Srikalahasti II Town PS.

.. Complainant.

And :

K. Bhaskar, age 38 years, S/o K. Meeraiah, Pedda Girijana Colony, Mannarupoluru Village, Sullurpet Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of the accused is in judicial custody and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

This is a case filed by the Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti II Town PS, against accused in Cr.No.112/2021 of Srikalahasti II Town Police Station, u/Sec.307,324, 506 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

The complainant-K. Deepa and accused both are husband and wife, got love marriage and they were blessed with one son and one daughter and after marriage of two years, their life went happily. Thereafter accused started suspecting the fidelity of his wife, addicted to drinking and started harassment, as such complainant went to her parents house at Gandla Street, Srikalahasti.

After mediations accused stayed along with complainant at Srikalahasti. After some days again accused started drinking and harassed the complainant suspecting her character, as such complainant filed a case against him in II Town

PS, Srikalahasti and for the future of children, both compromised in that case.

The complainant used to go to work at one Siddaiah house as maid and the accused raised doubt on the complainant that she is having illegal relationship with someone and asked her not to go work but she did not listen the words of accused, as such accused decided to kill his wife in any manner and as a part of his plan implementation on 24-05-2021 at about 1 PM he caught hold the neck of 2 complainant and threatened to kill her, meantime LW2 came to the spot and then accused escaped from the spot. On the same day night in between 1 AM and 2

PM while the complainant was in sleep, meantime accused wake up the complainant and asked her paramour name and started quarrel with her and with an intent to kill her he picked up knife from kitchen and caught hold her hairs to cut the throat, then she tried to escape from him, as such accused stabbed on her right shoulder for three times and when she tried to escape from his hands, received bleeding injury on her left arm index finger. On hearing the shouts, mother of complainant Varalakshmi came to the spot and tried to rescue the complainant but she also received stabs on her shoulders and on hearing her shouts, accused from the house and while escaping thrown away the knife in bushes in the darkness. Both the injured were shifted to Government Area

Hospital, Srikalahasti in 108 Ambulance for medical treatment.

Basing on the statement given by LW1/complainant, LW11-

Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.112/2021 for the offences

U/Sec.307, 324, 506 IPC, took up investigation, visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch but did not seize any crime weapon.

LW10/Dr r. Munikrishna, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital,

Srikalahasti who treated the injured LW1 and LW2 issued Wound Certificate opining that the injuries are simple in nature.

On 30-08-2021, LW12/Inspector of Police took up investigation and on 04-02-2023 at 2.30 PM arrested the accused near Auto stand, APSRTC Bus stand and sent for remand.

After completion of investigation LW12/Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/Sec.307, 324, 506 IPC.

3. This case is taken on file for the offences U/Sec.307, 324, 506 IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents, in which, the prosecution intends to relied upon, were furnished, in terms of Section 207

Cr.P.C.

5. Heard both sides.

6. Now, the point for determination is,

Whether the offences punishable U/Sec.307, 324, 506 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of sessions or not?

7. The statements of the witnesses and the material placed before the court speaks that the allegations levelled against the accused falls U/Sec.307, 324, 506 IPC. As per the schedule of the Cr.P.C., the offence punishable

U/sec.307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of sessions.

3

8. In the result, the case is committed to the Hon`ble Court of

Sessions, Chittoor Division, Chittoor, as prima-facie case is made out against the

accused u/Sec.307, 324 and 506 IPC which is exclusively to be tried by the

Hon`ble Court of Sessions. Hence the case is committed to the Hon`ble Court of

Sessions, Chittoor Division, Chittoor under Sec. 209 (a) Cr.P.C.

The accused is in Judicial custody and he is allowed to be in judicial custody till completion of the trial in the Hon`ble court of Sessions under Sec.

209 (b) Cr.P.C.

The entire case records and material objects, if any, shall be submitted to the Hon`ble Court of Sessions under Sec.209 (c) Cr.P.C.

The commitment of the case to the Hon`ble Court of Sessions,

Chittoor Division shall be notified to the Public Prosecutor as contemplated under Sec.209 (d) Cr.P.C.

The accused is questioned with regard to the means and capacity in engaging an Advocate for defending the case before the Court of Sessions for which accused stated that he is not having any means to engage an Advocate

before the Hon`ble Court of Sessions.

Accused shall be produced before Hon`ble Court of Sessions,

Chittoor on receipt of summons. Remand of accused extended till 09-03-2023.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 23rd day of February, 2023.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasti.

Appendix of evidence -NIL-

A.J.M.F.C.,

SRIKALAHASTI.,

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

Srikalahasti

P.R C. No.4 of 2023

Extract of Reg. No. 27.

1. Number of the case : P.R.C. No.4 of 2023

2. Name of the accused:

K. Bhaskar, age 38 years, S/o K. Meeraiah, Pedda Girijana Colony, Mannarupoluru Village, Sullurpet Mandal.

3. Substance of accusation:-

The complainant-K. Deepa and accused both are husband and wife, got love marriage and they were blessed with one son and one daughter and after marriage of two years, their life went happily. Thereafter accused started suspecting the fidelity of his wife, addicted to drinking and started harassment, as such complainant went to her parents house at Gandla Street, Srikalahasti. After mediations accused stayed along with complainant at Srikalahasti. After some days again accused started drinking and harassed the complainant suspecting her character, as such complainant filed a case against him in II Town PS, Srikalahasti and for the future of children, both compromised in that case. The complainant used to go to work at one Siddaiah house as maid and the accused raised doubt on the complainant that she is having illegal relationship with someone and asked her not to go work but she did not listen the words of accused, as such accused decided to kill his wife in any manner and as a part of his plan implementation on 24-05-2021 at about 1 PM he caught hold the neck of complainant and threatened to kill her, meantime LW2 came to the spot and then accused escaped from the spot. On the same day night in between 1 AM and 2 PM while the complainant was in sleep, meantime accused wake up the complainant and asked her paramour name and started quarrel with her and with an intent to kill her he picked up knife from kitchen and caught hold her hairs to cut the throat, then she tried to escape from him, as such accused stabbed on her right shoulder for three times and when she tried to escape from his hands, received bleeding injury on her left arm index finger. On hearing the shouts, mother of complainant Varalakshmi came to the spot and tried to rescue the complainant but she also received stabs on her shoulders and on hearing her shouts, accused from the house and while escaping thrown away the knife in bushes in the darkness. Both the injured were shifted to Government Area Hospital, Srikalahasti in 108 Ambulance for medical treatment. Basing on the statement given by LW1/complainant, LW11-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.112/2021 for the offences U/Sec.307, 324, 506 IPC, took up investigation, visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch but did not seize any crime weapon. LW10/Dr r. Munikrishna, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Srikalahasti who treated the injured LW1 and LW2 issued Wound Certificate opining that the injuries are simple in nature. On 30-08-2021, LW12/Inspector of Police took up investigation and on 04-02-2023 at 2.30 PM arrested the accused near Auto stand, APSRTC Bus stand and sent for remand.After completion of investigation LW12/Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/Sec.307, 324, 506 IPC.Hence the charge.

4. Complainant : The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti II Town PS. Cr.No.112/2021 of Srikalahasti II Town PS.

2

5. Name of the witnesses for complainant: 1. K. Deepa.

2. K. Varalakshmi.

3. D. Rama.

4. K. Snehalatha.

5. Usharani.

6. A.Kotaiah.

7. M.Madhavi.

8. M. Murali.

9. K.Hari Babu.

10. Dr R. Munikrishna.

11. G. Sivaramudu, Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti II Town PS

12. M. Bhaskar Naidu, Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti II Town PS

6. Name of witnesses for defence : Nil

7. Summary of facts proved or confessed : Vide committal order

8. Result of enquiry :The case against the accused is committed to take trial before the court of Hon'ble Sessions Judge Chittoor, under Sec.209 (a) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable u/Sec.307, 324 and 506 IPC.

9. Date of offence :25-05-2021

10. Date of complaint :25-05-2021

11. Date of hearing :16-02-2023

12. Date of closing of enquiry :23-02-2023

13. Explanation of delay : ---

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasti.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

SRIKALAHASTI

DIARY EXTRACT

P.R.C. No.4 of 2023

14-02-2023:Cognizance of the offence is taken for the offences U/Sec.307, 324 and 506 IPC against the accused. Inform the jail authorities to produce the accused on 16-02-2023. Remand of accused extended till 16-02-2023. 16-02-2023:Accused is produced from Sub-Jail, Srikalahasti. Copies furnished to the accused. For passing of committal orders. Call on 23-02-2023. Remand of accused extended till then. 23-02-2023:Accused produced from Sub-Jail, Srikalahasti. Orders pronounced (vide separate) in open court, In the result, the case is committed to the Hon`ble Court of

Sessions, Chittoor Division, Chittoor, as prima-facie case is

made out against the accused u/Sec.307, 324 and 506 IPC which is exclusively to be tried by the Hon`ble Court of

Sessions. Hence the case is committed to the Hon`ble Court of

Sessions, Chittoor Division, Chittoor under Sec. 209 (a) Cr.P.C.

The accused is in Judicial custody and he is allowed to be in judicial custody till completion of the trial in the Hon`ble court of Sessions under Sec. 209 (b) Cr.P.C. The entire case records and material objects, if any, shall be submitted to the Hon`ble Court of Sessions under Sec.209 (c) Cr.P.C. The commitment of the case to the Hon`ble Court of Sessions, Chittoor Division shall be notified to the Public Prosecutor as contemplated under Sec.209 (d) Cr.P.C. The accused is questioned with regard to the means and capacity in engaging an Advocate for defending the case before the Court of Sessions for which accused stated that he is not having any means to engage an Advocate

before the Hon`ble Court of Sessions.

Accused shall be produced before Hon`ble Court of

Sessions, Chittoor on receipt of summons. Remand of

accused extended till 09-03-2023.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasti.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

SRIKALAHASTI

FORM No.31

Notice of commitment by Magistrate to Public Prosecutor (Sec.209 (d) of Cr.P.C.)

P.R.C. No.4 of 2023

Cr.No.112/2021 of Srikalahasti II Town PS.

The Magistrate of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasti hereby gives notice that the accused K. Bhaskar, age 38 years, S/o K. Meeraiah,

Pedda Girijana Colony, Mannarupoluru Village, Sullurpet Mandal is committed for trial at the next Sessions and the Magistrate hereby instructs the Public

Prosecutor to Conduct the prosecution of the said case.

The charge against the accused is u/Sec.307, 324, 506 IPC.

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2023.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasti.

In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge :: Srikalahasthi 

Present : Sri.K.Narendra Reddy,

Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

Srikalahasthi.

FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Srikalahasthi.

Monday, the (13 th ) day of February, 2023

Original Suit No.458 of 2022

Between:

01. Thummagunta Bhaskar, S/o T.Narasimhulu Naidu, aged 51 years.

02. Thummagunta Lakshmi Hari Prasad, S/o Narasimhulu Naidu, aged 49 years. Both are residing at Kobaka Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.

...Plaintiffs.

01. Thummagunta Narasimhulu Naidu, S/o Late T.Sankarappa Naidu, aged 72 years.

02. Thummagunta Vidyadara Chowdary, S/o Late T.Sankarappa Naidu, aged 65 years, D­1 and D­2 are residing at Kobaka Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.

03. Ammineni Sudarsanamm, W/o Late A.Ramachandra Naidu, aged 75 years residing at D.No.16­120, Subhash Road, Srirama Papanna Naidu Street, Madanapalli.

04. Maddina Rajeswari, W/o M.Venkateswarlu, aged 60 years, residing at Kobaka Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.

05. Thummagunta Kamalamma, W/o Late T.Bhakthavatchala Naidu, aged 60 years.

06. Thummagunta Umakanth, S/o Late T.Bhakthavatchala Naidu, aged 40 years. D­5 and D6 are residing at D.No.7, Midhila Colony, Medchal, Malkajgiri District, 

07. Dr.A.Eswara Prakash, S/o not known, aged 60 years, residing at D.No. 20­3­5/E, Sivajyothi Nagar, Tirupati.

08. M.Yuvaraju, S/o not Known, aged 45 years, residing at Plot No.71, Film

Nagar, Jubilee Hills,Telangana State, Hyderabad. .. Defendants.

This suit is filed for directing the defendants to divide the schedule mentioned lands into five equal shares by taking into consideration of good and bad qualities and allot 1/5th share to the plaintiffs and the first defendant, 1/5th share each to the defendants 2,3 and 4 and 1/5th share to the defendants 5 and 6 in the schedule mentioned lands by metes and bounds and put the plaintiffs and the first defendant in separate possession of their 1/5th share and costs of the suit. This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Dasaradharami Reddy,Advocate for plaintiffs, Sri.E.Prabhakar Reddy and Sri.K.Raghunatha Reddy, Advocates for defendatns this court delivered the following: 

JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs 1 and 2 present. They filed Memo stating that they intend to not press the suit as the matter is settled out of court. Memo is allowed. In view of allowing of memo, suit is dismissed as not pressed by plaintiffs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court this the 13th day of February­ 2023.

Sd/­Sri.K.Narendra Reddy,

Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi. FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi.

Appendix of Evidence

Nil.

Sd/­Sri K.Narendra Reddy,

AJCJ,SKHT,

FAC/ PJCJ,SKHT

Fair judgment in

O.S.No.458/2022,

 dt.13.02.2023.

In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge :: Srikalahasthi 

Present : Sri.K.Narendra Reddy,

Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

Srikalahasthi.

FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Srikalahasthi.

Monday, the (13 th ) day of February, 2023

I.A.No.1204/2022

Original Suit No.458 of 2022

Between:

01. Thummagunta Bhaskar, S/o T.Narasimhulu Naidu, aged 51 years.

02. Thummagunta Lakshmi Hari Prasad, S/o Narasimhulu Naidu, aged 49 years. Both are residing at Kobaka Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.

...Plaintiffs.

01. Thummagunta Narasimhulu Naidu, S/o Late T.Sankarappa Naidu, aged 72 years.

02. Thummagunta Vidyadara Chowdary, S/o Late T.Sankarappa Naidu, aged 65 years, D­1 and D­2 are residing at Kobaka Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.

03. Ammineni Sudarsanamm, W/o Late A.Ramachandra Naidu, aged 75 years residing at D.No.16­120, Subhash Road, Srirama Papanna Naidu Street, Madanapalli.

04. Maddina Rajeswari, W/o M.Venkateswarlu, aged 60 years, residing at Kobaka Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.

05. Thummagunta Kamalamma, W/o Late T.Bhakthavatchala Naidu, aged 60 years.

06. Thummagunta Umakanth, S/o Late T.Bhakthavatchala Naidu, aged 40 years. D­5 and D6 are residing at D.No.7, Midhila Colony, Medchal, Malkajgiri District, 

07. Dr.A.Eswara Prakash, S/o not known, aged 60 years, residing at D.No. 20­3­5/E, Sivajyothi Nagar, Tirupati.

08. M.Yuvaraju, S/o not Known, aged 45 years, residing at Plot No.71, Film

Nagar, Jubilee Hills,Telangana State, Hyderabad. .. Defendants.

This application is filed to grant an ad­interim injunction in their favour of restraining the Respondents/Defendants from alienating schedule lands infavour of Respondents 7 and 8 or infavour of third parties pending disposal of the suit. This appliation is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Dasaradharami Reddy,Advocate for plaintiffs, Sri.E.Prabhakar Reddy and Sri.K.Raghunatha Reddy, Advocates for defendatns this court delivered the following: 

ORDER

Since main suit is dismissed, This petition becomes infructuous, As since this petition is dismissed infructuous. 

Pronounced by me in the open Court this the 13th day of February­ 2023.

Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi. FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi.

Appendix of Evidence

Nil.

AJCJ,SKHT,

FAC/ PJCJ,SKHT

 Draft/fair order in 1204/2022

O.S.No.458/2022,

 dt.13.02.2023.

In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge :: Srikalahasthi 

Present : Sri S.C.Raghavendra,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Srikalahasthi.

Monday, the Thirteenth (13 th ) day of September, 2022

Original Suit No.193 of 2022

Between: Kaitalam Kiran Kumar, S/o Kaitalam Ravi, aged 45 years residing at D.No. 3­36, Raja Street, Mannarpoluru village, Sullurupeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

.. Plaintiff.

Cherukunuru Venkateswarlu, S/o C.Ramachandraiah, aged 47 years, residing at Mannasamudram village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District.

.. Defendant.

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,60,000/­ with future interest and costs.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri .K.Surendra Babu, Advocate for plaintiff, this court delivered the following: 

JUDGMENT

Learned counsel from plaintiff reported matter is settled out side the court.

So Process not paid. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the open Court this the 13th day of September­ 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

 Srikalahasthi.

Appendix of Evidence

Nil.

PJCJ., SKHT

Draft/fair judgment in

O.S.No.193/2022,

 dt.13.09.2022.

In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge :: Srikalahasthi 

Present : Sri S.C.Raghavendra,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Srikalahasthi.

Monday, the Fourteenth (14 th ) day of September, 2022

Original Suit No.189 of 2022

Between:

S.Jyothi, W/o K.Kiran Kumar, aged 35 years, residing at Bharathi Nagar, Panagal, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District

.. Plaintiff.

Cherukuru Raghuramaiah, S/o C.Ramachandraiah, aged 45 years, residing at Mannasamudram village, Merlapaka post, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District.

.. Defendant.

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,61,200/­ with future interest and costs.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Surendra Babu, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri.B.V.Chalamaiah, Advocate for defendant, this court delivered the following: 

JUDGMENT

Full satisfaction Memo filed that suit is settled out of court. The same is recorded and the suit is dismissed as settled.

Pronounced by me in the open Court this the 14th day of September­ 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

 Srikalahasthi.

Appendix of Evidence

Nil.

PJCJ., SKHT

Draft/fair judgment in

O.S.No.189/2022,

 dt.14.09.2022.

In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge :: Srikalahasthi 

Present : Sri S.C.Raghavendra,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Srikalahasthi.

Monday, the Thirteenth (13 th ) day of September, 2022

Original Suit No.319 of 2022

Between: B.Niranjan Babu, S/o Late B.Purushotham, aged 51 years, residing at Mittamida kandriga village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.

.. Plaintiff.

R.Guravaiah, S/o Dasaiah, aged 55 years, residing at Mittamidakandriga village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.

.. Defendant.

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,40,487/­ with future interest and costs.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Surendra Babu, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte for defendant, this court delivered the following: 

JUDGMENT

Learned counsel from plaintiff reported that the matter is settled out of court and the suit may be dismissed. The same is recorded and the suit is hereby dismissed. 

Pronounced by me in the open Court this the 13th day of September­ 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

 Srikalahasthi.

Appendix of Evidence

Nil.

PJCJ., SKHT

Draft/fair judgment in

O.S.No.319/2022,

 dt.13.09.2022.