Sri K.prakash Babu

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI.K.PRAKASH BABU,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Tuesday, this the 20th day of June, 2016

O.S.No.519/2016

Between : Annamreddi Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Chinna Babu, Hindu, aged 45 years, R/at D.No:10-71/1/5, Pedha Rushikonda, Near Polamamba Temple, Swarna Bharathi Nagar, Visakhapatnam. …Plaintif

And : Karri Ganesh, S/o Karri Apparao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Real Estate Business, R/at D.No:9-9-109/5A, Mangapuram Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 12.06.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.S.Naidu, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri. S.R.Tulli, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- basing on a promissory note dated 18.07.2013 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief pleadings stemming out of the plaint are as follows:

The brief facts stemming out of the pleadings of the plaintif that the defendant executed two demand promissory notes on 18.7.2013 each for

Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of his business and to discharge sundry debts and executed two demand promissory notes on even date agreeing to repay along with 24% either to him or to his order. In spite of repeated demands the defendant did not pay the amount and postpone the payment with one pretext or the other. Finally the plaintif filed this suit for recovery of the amount.

3. The defendant filed Written statement filed by the defendant denying all material allegations of the pleadings line by line and word by word. The defendant submits that there is no cause of action to file this suit which was 2 invented by the plaintif and the suit is filed to grab the money from the defendant and there is no relationship between them as creditor and debtor and the suit pronote is fabricated by the plaintif for getting unlawful gain. In fact, the plaintif is native of Rampuram village of Pendurty Mandal and worked in

Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Customs Dept., in the name of his father-in-law and he left job at Dubai. Plaintif known as Dubai Srinu and he became the business partner of the defendant in the real estate business and he sold some plots to his relatives for sharing of profits the plaintif obtained alleged suit pronote which kept in the care and custody of Ex. MPTC, Rampuram village of Pendurty Mandal and later plaintif received profits int he business but, plaintif did not return suit pronote for that defendant asked many times to the plaintif. Meanwhile the plaintif got enmity with Ex. MPTC due to political vengeance filed the present suit and it is submitted that no consideration was passed under the promissory note since defendant filled amount and date only and Rampuram, Pendurty Mandal and this court has no jurisdiction. Hence, the suit is not maintainable under the law.

4. Basing on the above pleadings this Court settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

2.Whether the court got Territorial Jurisdiction to try this suit or not?

3.Whether the plaintif entitled for recovery of the suit amount or not?

4.To what relief?

5. To substantiate the case of the plaintif, the plaintif examined himself as Pw.1 and got examined Pws. 2 to 4 and got marked Exs. A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant examined as DW.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

6. Heard the counsel for the plaintif and defendant.

7.I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions of the counsel for the plaintif as well as defendants.

3

8. It is argued by the counsel for the defendant that his evidence discloses that the promissory note executed at Rushikonda of Visakhapatnam and plaintif is resident of Rampuram, Pendurty Mandal and therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to trial this case.

On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, the evidence available on behalf of the plaintifs is Pws. 1 to 4. The counsel vehemently argued that the plaintifs proved the execution of the pronote by the defendants and thereby he is entitled for decree and on the other hand, the counsel for the defendant vehemently argued that the case has to be transferred to the Junior Civil Judge

Court, Bheemunipatnam since this court has no jurisdiction as the defendant and plaintifs are residing at Rampuram village within the limits of Pendurty Mandal of

Visakhapatnam which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Bheemunipatnam. He further argued that no consideration was passed through Exs. A1 and A2 pronotes and therefore it is strongly contended that the evidence of Pw.1 clinchingly establishes the contentions of the defendant and he argued that the transaction between the plaintif and defendant in respect of house sites particularly lay outed plots. The plaintif and the defendant got lay outed property and the some plots are sold by the plaintif and some by the defendant. Whenever third party or anybody sold plots he used to pay commission. Similarly this defendant sold some plots and the plaintif fell due of commission and for the purpose fo that commission only he executed pronote. In fact, no consideration was passed and he further argued that the scribe and attestor on the both pronotes are one and the same and date of borrowal of the amount is one and the same. It throws light about the execution of pronote by the defendant on the same day. These two pronotes are only given towards commission. It is further argued that some suits filed against him by the defendants and there are some discrepancies in respect of the name of the defendant in the pronote. Therefore, the question of passing of consideration does not arise and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9. Issue no.2: Whether the court got Territorial Jurisdiction to tyry this suit or not?

As per Under Section -20 of CPC-- 4 “ other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arise- subject to limitations aforesaid every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:-

a) the defendant or each of the defendants where there are more than one at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business and personally gain”.

According to the plaintif the entire transaction was took place at

Rushikonda at his residence i.e 10-71/1/5 of Peda Rushikonda near Polamamba temple. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of the plaintif that he is resident of Peda Rushikonda and transaction is take place. The defendant is residing at D.

No:9-9-124, Mangapuram Colony, Kalabharathi Dari, Visakhapatnam. In the evidence affidavit also the defendant furnished his residential address as above.

Therefore, if the contentions of the defendant counsel that the suit is not maintainable here and it fells within the jurisdiction of Jr. Civil Judge,

Bheemunipatnam cannot be accepted as per Sec.20 of the CPC,1908 clearly says that the suit has to be instituted for recovery of amount where defendant resides.

Here in the present suit on hand the defendant is resident of Visakhapatnam within the jurisdiction of this court there fore, this court has ample jurisdiction to try this case.

10. Issue:1:Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

As could be seen from the evidence of the plaintif, it is nothing but replica of the pleadings and he was cross examined at length to elicit that no consideration was passed. As could be seen from the evidence of Pw.1 the defendant is also hails from the village of the plaintif and the plaintif worked in

Milk Co-operative society in the Rampuram village and later, eh went to Dubnai.

Exs. A1 and A2 pronotes filled by him and he admitted that some discrepancies in the digit 18 in Exs. A1 and A2 pronotes and there is no dispute that the attestors to the Exs. A1 and A2 pronotes are one and the same and G. Tatarao scribed these pronotes. In support of his contention the attestors of the pronotes and scribe of the pronotes were examined.

It is settled law that whenever a pronote is executed by a person the initial 5 burden to discharge is on the shoulder of the plaintif who come tot he court and obtained a decree in his favour. Here in the present suit on hand, the plaintif examined himself as WP.1 and he placed Exs. A.1 and A.2 pronotes for the consideration of the court to believe that the defendants executed two pronotes on 18.7.2013 by borrowing amount of RS.50,000/- on each pronote. In support of his contention, he examined two attestors and one scribe and the both attestors categorically deposed that they were present at the time of execution of prontoes by the defendant and they witnessed the borrowal of the amount of Rs.50,000/- on two occasions from the plaintif. Both Pws. 2 and 3 were cross examined at length and it is their evidence and particularity during the cross examination of

Pw.2, he deposed that in the year 2013 and in the month of July, the transaction took place. But he could not remember the date of transaction and he was present at the place of transaction at the instance of defendant. Later, the plaintif also called him to act as an attestor. The defendant tried to elicit that

Pw.2 never present at the time of transaction for that he further cross examined that he is the resident of Rampuram village and at present he is working in a post office in the place of his wife . It is suggested that in fact, he is not working in the said post office. It is also suggested that the said Sri Ramulu conducted private chits and managed to conduct those chits on behalf of ZPTC who is none other than the counsel for the plaintif who is his cousin. He admitted for the suggestion that in general for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only one pronote would executed.

On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence of PW.2 nothing was elicited contrary to the pleading of the defendant that this attestor is not present at the time of transaction. Another attestor PW.3 also deposed that he was present at the time of transaction and it was suggested that he is sympathizers of Telugu Desam

Party where the defendant is YSR party. Thus, the suit pronote was brought into existence. He also deposed that he is also resident of Rampuram village and during cross examination he categorically deposed that the transaction is for

RS.50,000/- each pronote and himself, plaintif and others were present. It is his evidence that the another attestor Srinu working as Post master at present and he could not remember the date of transaction and at the time of transaction six 6 persons were present and he disagreed his real statement immediately he stated 5 persons were present. Therefore it is clear from the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3 and the scribe of the pronote I.e Tatarao nothing was elicited and the counsel for the defendant mainly harped upon that the place of suit transaction is within the limits of the Bheemunipatnam jurisdiction. As could be seen from the entire evidence coupled with the Pws. 1 to 4 it was clear that the transaction was placed in the presence of Pws. 1 to 4 and the defendant and consideration of Rs.50,000/- was passed under Ex. A.1 and A2 where Pws. 2 and 3 stood as attestors and they attested their signatures and Pw.4 scribed pronotes and during cross examination he categorically admitted that the plaintif is his partner in the real estate business. He did not give any notice to plaintif though pronotes were kept with him and he did not admitted to give any police complaint to get ridden these pronotes when he held that the malafide intention of the plaintif when he intending to cheat. He also admitted that he used to give pronotes some times and execute agreements some times in favour of the his partner who are invested into venchers. Except writing amount in Exs. A1 and A2 the remaining writings are not that of him including his signature. As could be seen from the evidence of the defendant and the evidence of the plaintif it is clear that the transaction was taken place at the house of the plaintif and execution of two pronotes by the defendant on 18.7.2013. for the purpose of mentioned therein.

The defendant himself admitted that only amount mentioned in Exs. A1 and A2 are writtened by him but, the reasons best known to him without giving any notice in advance to the plaintif for returning tow pronotes now taken a plea. No doubt, the defendant has every right as many as pleas but he has to stick to the plea that was to dismantle the case of the plaintif.

Here in the present suit on hand, the case of the defendant that hen ever borrowed any amount from the plaintif and the pronote which was entrusted by him is for the sake of security and he is in the habit of giving such pronotes or execute agreements tot he partners with whom he lay ventures in connection with his real estate business. The defendant is contended that Exs. A.1 and A2 are such pronotes. They were given only lieu of guarantee for the for the investment 7 made by the other partners. So it is clear from his evidence that the plaintif are defendant did joint business otherwise it is viewed that the plaintif invested being investor in the venture. It is also admitted fact that some plots were sold by the defendant and some by the plaintif since they together laid lay out. Even otherwise, a consideration passed to the defendant and he only defending that the pronote is not executed in the presence of attestors and scribe and it is after thought of the plaintif. As per Negotiable Instrument Act, whenever a pronote was given in blank also entitled to fill up the said pronote by filling the blanks however a notice is contemplated. It is not the case of the plaintif that defendant entrusted blank pronotess. The plaintif is contended that pronote executed in the presence of Pws. 2 to 4 when there is no reburtable evidence since the burden is shifted tot he defendant as the plaintif discharged his initial burden. In the absence of any rebuttable evidence, the court cannot believe that the defendant never executed any pronote. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of the plaintif and the evidence of the defendant that the suit prontoe is true valid and binding on the defendant and accordingly this issue is answered.

11. Issue No:3- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount or not?

Here in the present suit, the suit is filed basing on the pronote which is

Negotiable Instrument. As already the plaintif substantially proved the execution of the suit pronote by examining himself and three witnesses, the recitals of pronote was proved. When suit is filed basing on a pronote and when it is proved by the plaintif that the consideration was passed to the defendant and when the defendant failed to disprove the said fact in issue I.e non receipt of consideration then the plaintif is entitled for recovery of the said pronote amount. Therefore, here in the present suit, the plaintif categorically proved lending amount of to the defendant in the presence of attestors and scribe under Ex. A.1 and A.2 pronotes and subsequently he failed to discharge the same. Therefore, the plaintif is entitled for recovery of the suit amount and accordingly this issue is answered against the defendant.

8

12.Issue No: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy two thousand only) with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on the 20th day of June,2017.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: PW.1: A. Srinivasa RaoDW.1: K.Ganesh Babu Pw.2: V.Sriramulu Pw.3: V.Simhachalam PW.4:G. Tatarao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1- Demand Promissory note dt.18.7.2013. Ex.A2- another demand promissory note dt.18.7.2013 Ex.A3- Compared copy of aadhar card.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

9

Date of Presentation :18.7-2016 Date of filing :18.7.2016

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI.K.PRAKASH BABU,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Tuesday, this the 20th day of June, 2016

O.S.No.519/2016

Between : Annamreddi Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Chinna Babu, Hindu, aged 45 years, R/at D.No:10-71/1/5, Pedha Rushikonda, Near Polamamba Temple, Swarna Bharathi Nagar, Visakhapatnam. …Plaintif

And : Karri Ganesh, S/o Karri Apparao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Real Estate Business, R/at D.No:9-9-109/5A, Mangapuram Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. … Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- basing on a promissory note dated 18.07.2013 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,72,000/- and a court fee of Rs.4,226/- is paid Under Article 1 (b) & (c), Schedule-I and Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit valuation Act 1956.

This suit is coming on 12.06.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.S.Naidu, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri. S.R.Tulli, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order :

D E C R E E

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy two thousand only) 10 with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization ; and ;

2. that the defendant also do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.10,228/- (Rupees ten thousand two hundred and twenty eight Only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 20th day of June,2017.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintif: For Defendant: Stamp on vakalat : Rs. 2-00 costs memo not filed Stamp on plaint : Rs. 4,226-00 Stamp on precess : Rs. 60-00 Process fee : Rs. 100-00 Advocate fee : Rs. 5,640-00 Type charges : Rs. 200-00 ------------------ Costs Allowed : Rs. 10,228-00 -------------------

I AJCJ / VSP 11

1

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI K.PRAKASH BABU

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM

TUESDAY THE 27th DAY OF MARCH,2018

C.C.253/2012

This case coming on 12.03.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence Smt. K.Sudha Rani, learned Advocatefor the complainant and of Sri. B.K.R.Naidu learned Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

a.The Serial No. of the case:C.C.No. 253/12 b.The date of offence:Prior to 04.02.2014 c.The name of the complainant:Boda Venkata Lakshmi wife of Bodda Venkata Suri, hindu, aged 32 years, House wife, residing at 15-56, RH colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam d.The name of the accused:A1. Bodda Venkata Suri, son of late Jogulu, Hindu, aged 35 years, employee in Steel Plant, residing at 30-75-28, RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam. A2. Smt.M.Jyothi, C/o Badagala Pentayya, Hindu, aged 35 years, residing at 30-75-28, RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam. (A2 Dismissed on 17-8-2011) A3. Badagala Pentayya, son of Appalanarasimhalu, aged 45 years, employee in Steel Plant,residing at 30-75-28, RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam. (A3 abated on 27-5-2005) A4. Smt.Badagala Kondamma, W/o Pentarao, Hindu, aged 40 years, residing at residing at 30-75-28, RH Colony,Vadlapudi,Kanithi, Visakhapatnam.

5. Badagala Suryanarayana Son of Appalanarasimhulu, hindu, aged 43 yearss, residing at 30-75-29,residing at 30-75-28, RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam.

6. Smt. Badagala China Kondamma, aged 40 years, House wife, residing at residing at 30-75-28, RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam.

7. Pragada Satyanarayana, son of Bayyanna, hindu, aged 40 years residing at RH Colony, Vadlapudi, 2

Kanithi, Visakhapatnam.

The offence complained of:Punishable u/sec.494, 120-B of IPC. f.The plea of the accused & his:Pleaded not guilty examination, if any

This complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under section 494, 120-B of IPC .

1.The matrix of the the case of the complaint is as follows:

The accused is the legally wedded husband of complainant. The complainant is the resident of Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam, within the jurisdiction of Gajuwaka Police Station. Accused A3 to A7 are also relatives of the accused, all are residence of the Vadlapudi village, accused No.2 was married with A1 by the date of the filing of the complaint, the said marriage is said to be bigamy. The marriage of the complainant with A1 performed in the year 1988 according to Hindu right and customs. Accused is none other than son of complainant’s maternal aunt, and after marriage complainant along with her husband lived in her parents house till 1998. As the accused A1 is edicted bad vices drinking habit and maintaining illicit relating with other women, the father of the complainant warned A1 to mend his way. The A1 bore grudge for the above admonition of set off separate with complainant house. But continuing his illicit relations with other women and started neglecting the complainant, and did not even pay the house rent. On that complainant filed maintenance case in O.S.12/2000 against the accused No.1 before the judgment family Court Visakhapatnam and the same is pending.

2.A1 used to live with A3 and A4 family and moving with A5 and A6 family, as such they all developed some hat-redness toward who was the family of the complainant. In this connection father of the complainant warned them not to give support of A1. On that A1 threatened the complainant that he go for 2nd marriage so also A3 to A6 are expressed their intention to perform 2nd marriage to A1.

3

3.That 2nd week of January, A1, A3 to A6 along with some other strangers assembled at the house of A3 and conspired about the 2nd marriage to A1 with

A2, and “Nichithardham” also performed inorder to perform of marriage with A1 with A2 . The offence is not committed at that time, and it is further submitted by the complainant that the complainant received a postal cover on 07-05-2004 from the Local post man addressed to A1 from the said cover is opened and she found a LIC Policy of her husband and to her surprise the name of A2 was nominated in the said policy. On that her father asked A3 about A2 on that A3 deliberately proclaimed that A1’s marriage performed with A2 on 04-02-2004 at

Allivaram temple Etchrala Mandal, Srikakulam District. And further told that they all mediated the said marriage and the said marriage was performed by intentionally. The above information was furnished by A3 under a drunken stage, the father of the complainant did not believe and he went to Allivaram

Village and eqnuried about the 2nd marriage of A1 and A2. Some of the Village people who admitted the same and A1 made a declaration while he is taking LIC policy by nominating of A2 as his wife, by giving consent to deduct amount of policy from his salary.

4.Therefore the complainant submits that A1 and A2 committed offence under section 494 of IPC and A3 to A7 conspired together and abated accused

No.1 to contract 2nd marriage. Therefore prays to punish them according to law.

5.Basing on the complaint after sworn statement of complainant, one

Jalluru Satyanarayana recorded, basing on those statements this court took the cognizance of the this case for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC against the accused and the case is dismissed against A2 on 17-8-2011 and A3 on 27-5-2005.

6.Case was taken on file under sections u/sec.494, 120-B of Indian Penal

Code. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge was framed for the Offence under section u/sec.494, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and the same was read over and 4 explained to him in Telugu for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To prove the case of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to PW.5 were examined and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P14. And After closure of evidence of prosecution the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, all the incriminating material appearing against the accused was put to him and he denied the same and

D.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.D1 and D2.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the points for consideration are:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.494, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

10. Point :

It is for the better appreciation of evidence on the record it is better to defied Section 494 of IPC.

Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.—Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(Exception) —This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.

The essential ingredient for the offence punishable are the accused must have contracted first marriage.

II) He must have married again during the life time of first wife iii) the first marriage was subsisting.

Herein this present case on hand it is to be weighed that the evidence let in the complainant that whether satisfying the above ingredients.

5

11. It is evidence of the complainant that which is nothing but replica of the complaint. The complainant no where stated in her complaint and deposed during her evidence that the 2nd marriage was performed in accordance with the cast and custom of them. Because section 494 requires proof of 2nd marriage and the said marriage was recognized as per the law. Herein this present case on hand according to the prosecution the marriage was performed on 04-2-2004 at Allivaram temple Etcharla Mandal. In support of that contention the complainant examined P.W.2 Jallu Satyanarayana who is friend of accused A1 and it is his evidence that he attended marriage at Allivaram Village there at Allivaram the marriage was performed and followed customprevailing in their cast that by placing “ Jeelakarra Bellam” (an auspicious material which is prepared with cumin seeds and Jaggery ) and he further disposed that he was present at that time and he visited the marriage function at the instance of accused No.1 only.

12.The other witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 are independent witness and their evidence is nothing but circumstantial evidence particularly P.W.3 is at first stayed as A2, and she admitted A1 is her husband they blessed with two children, studied in Narayana School and she admitted that their marriage was performed at Suryanarayana temple, Srikakulam. P.W.5 father of the complainant deposes that he visited Allivaram where he enquired about marriage of A1 with A2 and also he observed that A2 and A1 lived in Srikakulam by taking house on lease when he observed some time they left the place and it was at the instance of information of A4 hear.

13.On careful scrutiny the above evidence on record there is no doubt that the accused A1 performed marriage with P.W.3, and she also admitted that during her cross examination he contract marriage with A1. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the section 494 of IPC, the evidence of proof required to bring the accused as guilt, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that all ceremonies which are performed to bigamy shall valid one.

That is necessary ceremonies required by law or by custom have been actually performed and strict proof valid marriage is necessary for basing conviction under Section 494 of IPC . A statement of the accused is not suffice, or mere 6 admission of 2nd marriage of accused cannot be a proof for the offence of bigamy. The burden is to establish the accused married another person lawfully in according with the Hindu law. Since in this case the parties are governed by

Hindu law only. Herein this present case on hand P.W.2 Satyanarayana deposes that in his presence marriage of A1 performed with A2 but he did not deposed about ‘Homam and Saptapadhi’ which are essential condition for the purpose of a valid Hindu marriage.

14.Moreover complainant did not placed any evidence the manner of ceremony that were held while performing or contracting 2nd marriage of A1 with

A2. Herein this presence case on hand the accused No.1 and 2 gave birth to two children which amount to only evidence of fact that the P.W.3 had legitimate or illegitimate of sexual relation ship with man, it may be a circumstances to support the other evidence to bigamous of marriage if it exists.

15.Accused A1 examined As D.W.1 and he filed two documents one is the marriage card and a declaration issued by the E.O of endowment department of ‘Sri.Sri.Sri Suryanarayana Swamy vari Devastanam’ which was marked as Ex.D1 and in the said certificate the executing office categorically certified the marriage of A1 was performed with P.W.3 on 8-5-2009. By that time dated 16-3-2009 the Honourable Judge family court, Visakhapatnam granted decree divorce between complainant and accused No.1. On the date of marriage is 8-5-2009, it is clear from the evidence that is Ex.D2 the certified copy decree of FOP vide No 145/2002, marriage between P.W.1 and accused

No.1 not subsisting which was granted on 16-3-2009. Where as the marriage was performed on 8-5-2009 according Ex.D1, evidence coupled with Ex.D1 and

D2 the earlier marriage of complainant and the accused is not subsisting.

Therefore complaint failed to prove that her marriage was subsisting by the date of the marriage with P.W.3 with A1. As such complaint is miserably failed to prove that A1 is contracted 2nd marriage with P.W.3.

16.Even view from another angle or any other angle the complainant failed to prove that all the necessary ingredient to bring the accused for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC, since she failed to place any evidence, that the 2nd marriage was in according with the law or recognized by 7 any law. Moreover her marriage is subsisting at the time of second marriage.

Therefore the complainant miserably failed to bring the accused for the guilt of offence punishable under section 494 of IPC. So for as section 120-B is concern the evidence let in by the prosecution is not suffice to bring the accused under

Section 120-B of IPC.

17.In the result, the accused (A1, A4, A5 and A6) are found not guilty for the offence under section 494, 120 (B) of IPC with which they are charged and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr. P.C. their bail bonds and sureties if any shall stand canceled.

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of March, 2018.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED: FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Bodda Venkata Lakshmi D.W.1: B.Venkata Suri P.W.2: Janulu Satyanarayana P.W.3: B.Lavanya P.W.4: B.Santhoshi P.W.5: Danaappalnaidu EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: LIC Police bearing No.692639104 Ex.D1: Wedding card Ex.P.2: Encumbrance on property Ex.D2 : OP 145/02 order copy Ex.P3: Sale deed Ex.P4: LIC GWK (A1) Ex.P5: LIC GEK (A2) Ex.P6: LIC Letter Ex.P7: Mee – seva Ex.P8: Application form of Venkata Sai Revanth Ex.P9: Progress report of Venkata Sai Revanth Ex.P10: Diary of Venkata Sai Revanth Ex.P11: Personal detail of Revanth Ex.P12: renewal application form Ex.P13: Progress report of Purnodaya Sai Ex.P14: personal diary of Purnodaya Sai

M.Os. Marked:

NIL

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM

8

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT :: VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.NO.253/2012

Date of offence:04.02.2004

Date of Filing:25-05-2004 Date of Apprehension:06-02-2017 Date of commencement of trial:14-02-2017 Date of Close of trial:19-03-2018 Date of Sentence or Order:27-03-2018 Explanation for delay:Delay due to non-appearance of accused and witnesses. No witness is detained beyond three days. C.C.No.253/2012on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, For Railways, Visakhapatnam

The name of the complainant :Boda Venkata Lakshmi wife of Bodda Venkata Suri, hindu, aged 32 years, House wife, residing at 15-56, RH colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam The Name of the accused:A1. Bodda Venkata Suri, son of late Jogulu, Parentage & ResidenceHindu, aged 35 years, employee in Steel Plant, residing at 30-75-28, RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam. A2. Smt.M.Jyothi, C/o Badagala Pentayya, Hindu, aged 35 years, residing at 30-75-28, RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam. (A2 Dismissed on 17-8-2011) A3.BadagalaPentayya,sonof Appalanarasimhalu, aged 45 years, employee in Steel Plant,residing at 30-75-28, RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam. (A3 abated on 27-5-2005) A4. Smt.Badagala Kondamma, W/o Pentarao, Hindu, aged 40 years, residing at residing at 30-75-28, RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam.

5. Badagala Suryanarayana Son of Appalanarasimhulu, hindu, aged 43 yearss, residing at 30-75-29,residing at 30-75-28, RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam.

6. Smt. Badagala China Kondamma, aged 40 years, House wife, residing at residing at 30- 75-28, RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam.

7. Pragada Satyanarayana, son of Bayyanna, hindu, aged 40 years residing at RH Colony, Vadlapudi, Kanithi, Visakhapatnam. Offences:Punishable u/sec.494, 120-B of IPC. Finding:Accused found not guilty Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 326 of IPC with which he is charged and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr. P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal or appeal time is over.

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM

9

Dt.27.03.2018

Accused present (A1, A4, A5, A6 and A7)

Judgment pronounced (VSJ).

In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence 10 under section 494, 120(B) of IPC with which they are charged and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr. P.C. The bail bonds and sureties if any, shall stand canceled.

III MM/VSP 11

In view of main is allowed, this petition is infectious

Accused produced from

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

PRESENT: K.PRAKASH BABU

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

FAC II Metropolitan Magistrate,

for Railways, Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, this the 07 th day of March, 2018

C.C.No: 48/2014

This case was coming on 24.01.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.S.K.T.Suryanarayana, leaned Advocate for the complainant and Sri S.S.Vasu & Smt.Daradevi, learned Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

Serial No. of the Case C. C:48/2014

Date of Commission of Offence02.05.2012

Name of the ComplainantKonatala Varaha Sangha Krishna Tulasi Suryanarayana @ Krishna, S/o of late Chinnarao, Hindu, aged 38 years, business and cultivation, residing at Door No.3-2-75, Durga Lodge Street, Narasingarao Peta, Anakapalle-531 001.

Name of the AccusedMohammed Ismail, s/o Sayyed Mohammed Ghani, aged about 40 years, Managing Director of High Power Elevators Pvt. Limited, D.No.4- 9-16/11, Flat No.403, Aishwarya Enclave,LalithaNagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

Offence complained ofUnder Sec. 138 of NI Act

Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty

Judgment:

This complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. for the dishonour of the cheque bearing No.085155, dated 28-11-2011 for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and 085160, dated 30-11-2011 for Rs.4,00,000/- .

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows :-

The complainant is resident of Anakapalli and accused is resident of

Lalitha Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam, that the accused on 9-9-2011 executed an agreement in favour of the complainant in respect of land covered under S.No.117/1, Tunglam Village, Gajuwaka, for cancellation of sale agreement of the complainant with Sampathirao Jayalakshmi and others. And in respect of the above land there the accused purchased.

3.Thereafter accused fail to pay any amount on demand of the complainant, the accused issued two cheques 085155 dated 28-11-2011 for

Rs.20,00,000/- and 085160, dated 30-11-2011 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on ING

Vysya Bank limited. Which are belong to the accused company towards the part payment of the complainant due.

4.The said two cheques are presented on 02-5-2011 by the complainant into his account ING Vysya bank Limited, Anakapalli Branch and both the cheques were returned and unpaid. The accused issued those cheques knowing fully well no sufficient funds in his account to Honour the cheques.

On that the complainant got issued a notice calling accused to pay the cheque amount which were return and unpaid on 28-5-2012 within 15 from the date of the receipt of the notice. The accused received the legal notice on 01-6-2012 and got issued a reply notice with all false allegations.

5.Therefore complainant prays to punish the accused as per the law since the accused issued a cheques which were dishonoured knowing fully well that he do not got sufficient funds in his account.

6.Basing on the complaint a process was issued to the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and after appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him.

7.The complaint was taken on file for the offence U/sec. 138 of NI Act and the copies of case documents furnished to the accused. The accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. for which he denied the offence and claims to be tried.

8. During the course of trial, the complainant himself examined as Pw.1 and in support of his contention one Goli Venkata Rao/P.W.2examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 are marked i.e., cheque bearing No: 085155 for

Rs.20,00,000/- dt. 28.11.2011 is marked as Ex.P1, cheque bearing No.085160 for Rs.4,00,000/- dated 30-11-2011 is marked as Ex.P2, return endorsement

dated 2-5-2012 is marked as Ex.P3, the office copy of Lawyer’s Notice dated

28-5-2012 is marked as Ex.P4, the postal receipt dated 30-5-2012 is marked as

Ex.P5, the acknowledgement card of legal notice dated 1-6-2012 is marked as

Ex.P6, the reply lawyer’s notice dated 8-6-2012 is marked as Ex.P7.

9. After closure of evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.

for which he denied the incriminating material available against him and reported no evidence.

10.Heard arguments for both sides.

11.Now, the point for consideration is :-

Whether the complainant is able to bring home the guilt of

the accused U/Sec.138 of NI Act beyond reasonable doubt or

not ?

12.POINT :

It is argued by the counsel for the complainant that on 9-9-2011 an agreement was executed between complainant and accused as collateral purpose and said document was not marked which neither willful nor deliberate. The land referred in agreement was given position to the accused

before registration and basing on the registered document, accused also got

private funding of nearly Rs.4 Crores in Sri Ram Chits Union Finance Limited,

Dwarakanagar branch, Visakhapatnam and it was also published in a public notice in news paper when accused became defaulter of said amount.

13.Complainant further submits that he is not an attestor to the registered document, in fact the agreement has to be signed by Sampathirao

Jayalakshmi and to others but not the accused. The non judicial stamp purchased by the name of the complainant as such the complainant stolen the non judicial stamps does not arise. It is further argued that Sampathirao

Jayalakshmi issued receipt for Rs.60 lakh as such the contention of the complaint is proved i.e, in the agreement also mentioned the Sampathirao

Jayalakshmi and two others as to be paid the same amount. On the agreement which was entered between the accused and complainant is tri party agreement the original land owners are Sampathirao Jayalakshmi and two others at the time of the execution of the sale agreement an amount was paid to them. When accused requested the complainant to sell the land, the complainant handover the said agreement. At the time of the execution of agreement the accused promised that which was returned the amount which was paid by the complainant to Sampathirao Jayalakshmi and two others within four months, four installments with a good will of Rs.40 lakhs to a tune of 1.4 crores, failing which it was agreed to pay interest. There is no question of income tax since this complaint is filed basing on the agreement and also relied on the judgement reported in 2014 (5) ALT 608 between M.All Baig

and others Vs. Kottala Sanjeeva Reddy and others & 2017 (4) ALT 488

between R.Chenna Kesava Rao Vs.P.Laxmi Narasaiah land another are not applicable to the complainant that he fail to show the alleged debt, in his income tax returns.

14.He further argued that the case of the complainant is total different one. Even the income tax returns are filed, it does not goes to income tax department and it is alleged that 8 cheques of the accused was stolen by the complainant out of which four cheques were presented to the Bank for clearance for which the accused issued instructions to stop payment to the banker with regard to the four cheques but the accused failed to produce the statement or any particulars in support of his stop payment and the documents which were marked on behalf of the accused no way helpful to the accused and accused failed to produce any evidence and he further argued that the accused failed to rebutte the evidence placed by the complainant therefore prays to convict the accused.

15.On the other hand the counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there is no iota of truth the case of the complainant except concreted story of the complainant. The agreement which was said to be entered between the complainant and accused is totally false document and he is not the owner of the land that was said to be entered into an agreement the accused purchased property by entering into an contract of sale deed to the original owners by paying valuable consideration. The complainant is no way concern with the said property. He further argued that the complainant completely agreed to that agreement which was said to be entered was not filed before the court and he admitted that the agreement which was entered in between himself, Jayalakshmi and Ch.Suryanarayana Raju along with

Madhavarao one part and the accused is the other party. Which is tri-party accused. And he also admitting that Jayalakshmi and others did not execute any agreement to collect amount in respect of Ac.0.98 cents from the accused.

And he also admitted that there is no agreement between Jayalakshmi and two others of the accused and accused is directed to pay amount to the complainant. And he further argued that the judicial stamp papers missed and those papers were misused by the complainant by filing this false complaint.

Therefore he prays to dismiss the complaint.

16.On careful scrutiny of evidence of the record, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Herein this present case on hand the offence charged against the accused under section 138 of NI act. Whenever a case is based on dishonoured cheque, the complainant has to prove the following ingredients to bring the accused guilt for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act they are 1) There exists a legally enforceable debt between accused and complainant.

2) in discharging the said debt the accused ought to have been issued a cheque out of the account maintained by him. 3) On the presentation of the said cheque, the said cheque was dishonorued or unpaid. 4) a notices has to be issued within 15 days from the date of knowledge of dishonoure of cheque or information from the banker. Demanding the bounced cheque amount from the accused by a registered post with acknowledgement due.

17. When accused is received the said notice failing compliance of the said notice then the accused said to be committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, as cause of action arise.

18. Here in this present case on hand, whether the above said ingredients proved by the complainant or not to be weighed and appreciated.

For appreciation of the evidence on record the complainant himself examined as P.w.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 wherein in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are dishonoured cheques, Ex.P.3 is return endorsement, Ex.P.4 is Office copy of

Lawyer’s Notice, Ex.P6 is the acknowledgement card of legal notice, Ex.P7 is the reply lawyer’s notice, and in support of this contention Goli Venkata Rao as P.W.2 examined. According to the P.W.1/complainant, that the accused owed amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- but he did not placed any evidence before the Court, how the accused owed such amount during the cross examination, he categorically admitted that an extent of Ac.050 cents land was transferred in the name of Chekuri Suryanarayana Raju and one K.Madharvaro, from

Manchpalli Bangaramma and her family members under a GPA in the year 2007. The said GPA is marked as Ex.D1 and remaining 48 cents of Ex.D1 fell to the share of Sampathirao Jayalakshmi which is marked as Ex.D2.

A registered sale deed infavour of Sampathrao Jayalakshmi and he also admitted that Chekuri Suryanarayana Raju and K.Madhavarao executed a registered sale deed of Ex.D3 and the complainant is one of the witness to the sale transaction. Under 48 cents of remaining land was transferred by

Sampathirao Jayalakshmi in favour of the accused under registered regular sale deed which was Ex.D4 wherein complainant is one of the attestor to the said deed. And he also admitted that the vendors of the accused got right and title from 2007 till 2011, and he also admitted that he did not filed any agreement before the court. He further admitted that K.Arunakamari is his wife and the cheques bearing No.085152 and 085151, and the said cheque 085152 stood in the name of his wife and 085151 stood in the name of his cousin brother and the said cheques are marked as Ex.D5. He also admitted that a reply notice also given by the accused but he did not know the contents of the said reply notice. Except the oral evidence of the complainant there is no document to show that their exists legally enforceable debt between complainant and accused.

19.Even if otherwise viewed the case of the complainant, the said cheques were issued Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 dated 28-11-2011 and 30-11-2011 the government of India represented the Reserve Bank of India about the misuse of cheques, pay orders, demanders etc., having powers under Section 35-A of

Banking Regulation Act, the Reserve Bank of India has issued a circular stating that the cheque which were submitted for collection on or after 01-04- 2012 the validity is 3 months only and the bank were instructed not to Honour, the cheque whichever presented beyond 3 months from that date. If the cut of date is calculated to the first April, 2012 the cut of date will be 1st January 2012 and if any cheque prior to 01-01-2012 it is beyond period of validity i.e., 3 months.

20.Herein this present case on hand the complainant presented the cheque Ex.P1 and P2 which are dated 28-11-2011 and 30-11-2011 beyond 3 months which are not valid under law. Since section 138 of NI Act, cheque has to be presented within a period of 6 months or within the limits of period of validity. The period of validity was fixed by the Reserve Bank of India is 3 months . Even otherwise considered the case of the prosecution the cheques which are dishonoured and cheques are beyond its validity period i.e., the cheques are not valid under Banking Regulation act.

21.Therefore, for the forging reasons the complainant failed to prove that their exists legally enforcible debt between him and accused and also the cheque which were dishonored are invalid cheques. Thus complainant failed to bring the accused with the ring of the guilt for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Ni Act

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr. P.C. His bail bonds and sureties in any, shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 07th day of March, 2018.

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

FAC II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

(for Railways), VISAKHAPATNAM.

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution: For defence : Nil PW.1: Konatala Varaha Sangha Krishna Tulasi Suryanarayana @ K.Krishna

P.W.2: Goli Venkata Rao

No. of Exhibits Marked

Ex-P.1/28-11-2011 : bearing No.085155 for Rs.20,00,000/- Ex.P2/30-11-2011 : bearing No.085160 for Rs.4,00,000/- Ex-P.3/2-5-2012: The returned endorsement Ex.P.4/28-5-2012: The office copy of Lawyer’s Notice Ex.P5/30-5-2012: The postal receipt Ex.P6/1-6-2012: The acknowledgement card of legal notice Ex.P7/8-6-2012: The reply lawyer’s Notice

For Defence : Ex.D1: GPA sale agreement Ex.D2: GPA sale agreement Ex.D3: Registered sale deed Ex.D4: Registered sale deed Ex.D5: Xerox copies of cheques

No of MOs Marked. --NIL-

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

FAC II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

FOR RAILWAYS, VSAKHAPATNAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Date of Offence02.5.2012 Date of Report/Complaint13.07.2012 Date of Commencement of trial 22.03.2017 Date of closure of trial 06.03.2018 Date of sentence or order 07.03.2018

Calendar and Judgment Case No. 48/2014

Name of the Complainant Konatala Varaha Sangha Krishna Tulasi Suryanarayana @ Krishna, S/o of late Chinnarao, Hindu, aged 38 years, business and cultivation, residing at Door No.3-2-75, Durga Lodge Street, Narasingarao Peta, Anakapalle-531 001.

Name and address of the accusedMohammed Ismail, s/o Sayyed Mohammed Ghani, aged about 40 years, Managing Director of High Power Elevators Pvt. Limited, D.No.4-9- 16/11, Flat No.403, Aishwarya Enclave, LalithaNagar,Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

Section of Law Under Sec. 138 of NI Act

Finding of Court Accused found not guilty

Sentence or Order of Court In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr. P.C.

His bail bonds and sureties if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VSAKHAPATNAM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI K.PRAKASH BABU

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Thursday the 19th day of APRIL,2018

D.V.C: 07/2014

Between: Gaddai Pushpalatha, W/o G.Rameshkumar, Aged 23 years, D.No:39-11-67, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner

And:

1. Gaddai Rameshkumar, S/o Vasu, D.No:5-51-1/3, DAR Nagar, Kothapalem, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam.

2. Gaddai Vasu, D.No:5-51-1/3, DAR Nagar, Kothapalem, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam.

3. Gaddai Rambai, W/o Vasu, D.No:5-51-1/3, DAR Nagar, Kothapalem, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam.

4. Gaddai Suresh Kumar, S/o Vasu, D.No:5-51-1/3, DAR Nagar, Kothapalem, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam.

5. Gaddai Naresh Kumar, S/o Vasu, D.No:5-51-1/3, DAR Nagar, Kothapalem, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. …Respondents.

This petition coming on for final hearing before me in the Presence of Sri M.Harimehar, Advocate for Petitioner and Sri S.Jogarao, Advocates for the respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 12 of the protection of women from Doemstic Domestic Violence Act by the petitioner who is the wife of the 1st respondent seeking the following reliefs.

I)Order for prohibiting the respondents from committing any act of domestic violence and causing violence; 2

II) direction to the respondents to pay rent of Rs.6,000/- per month for the accommodation;

III) direction to return the possession of the ocmplainant her stridhan/saresaman and other properties left with the respondents;

IV)direction to the respondents to pay compensation and damages of

Rs.10 lakhs to the mental torture caused by the respondents;

V) direction to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-; and

VI) directing the respondents to pay medical expenses Rs.1,000/- per month.

2.The brief averments stemming out of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the first respondent and their marriage was performed on 2.2.2012 at her in-law’s house in Kothapalem,

Visakhapatnam. AT the time of marriage the parents of the petitioner gave

Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry, one tula gold ring and cash of Rs.10,000/- and also gave RS.30,000/- to the first respondent by way of FDR as joint account on the names of the petitioner and the first respondent.

It is further submitted that the first respondent started harassing her from the first night itself stating that she has married him for a lesser dowry of Rs. 3 lakhs and pinched her asking the name of her lover if any and that she was unable to bear his torture and in psychologically depressed mood, the first respondent used to take videos to record their conversation in the bed room to show to his maternal uncle Baburao and to his parents and brothers as a proof of her non cooperation on the bed. The first respondent got job in APSRTC after marriage and the disputes are also raising as expected and predicted by astrologer the first respondent wanted to take divorce from her to get more dowry by marrying another girl.

It is submitted that the complainant was not allowed to got to her parents 3 house after the marriage and she was ill treated by the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents i.e., her mother-in-law and brother-in-laws and they used to throw out the food cooked by the complainant on her body to cause insult to her and the first respondent used to demand the complainant to convince her parents to go for divorce as if she is not interested to live with him. When the mother of the petitioner and her maternal aunt came to her in-laws house to take her for

Ashadam, the first respondent forced her to keep all her articles and dresses ready in baggage as if she was permanently standing off from their house and that they also checked her baggage suspecting if any of their articles are kept in her bag while she was leaving the house for Aashadam and that they intended to get rid of her permanently.

It is further submitted that the petitioner informed about the harassment to some caste elders viz. M.Srinivasarao, G.Srinivasarao and S.Guruvulun Naidu etc., and on request, they conducted mediators for which the first respondent along with 2nd and 3rd respondents did not accept their advises and refused to take the complainant to their house and that when her parents want to invite the first respondent for Pongal, her in-laws insulted her parents and refused to send the first respondent to her parents house as they are not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage.

It is further submitted that the respondents demanded her to bring

additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs or to leave the matrimonial home permanently by

taking divorce. On 16.6.2013 the first respondent beat the petitioner severely at the instigation of respondents 2 to 5 and necked out her and due to unbearable pain on her spinal card due to beating of the first respondent, the petitioner escaped from her in-laws house and took shelter in neighbours house on the night and the same was informed to her brother Dilleswarrao who was in Tirupathi along with her parents. As they could not attend immediately they requested one

G. Srinivasarao to attend for the complainant for rescue and that the said

Srinivasarao came to the neighbours house and kept t he complainant in the safe 4 custody of one G. Lakshminararyana till her parents arrived on 20.06.2013 . The complainant took medical treatment at Jyothi clinic at Kothapalem on 17.6.2013 for pains and that her parents arrived on 20.6.2013 from Tirupathi and took her to her in-laws house and on questioning for their assaulting on 16.6.2013, the first respondent along with 4th and 5th respondents beat her parents with sticks and attempted to attack again on the complainant. Thereafter she brought to her parents house. Hence the petition.

4.The case was taken on file in DVC against the respondents 1 to 5.

5.Notices were served on them and they made their appearance, copies furnished. Counter filed by the 1st respondent denying all the material allegations mentioned in the petition line by line and word by word except the marriage with the petitioner.

It is submitted by the first respondent that the petitioner joined with him in the matrimonial home after the marriage and on the first night the petitioner expressed her dis-interest and she stated that she married the first respondent at the instigation of her parents. The first respondent waited for along time but, the petitioner did not change her attitude and she did not allow him for sexual intercourse and finally she left the matrimonial home on 12.6.2012.

It is further submitted that during her stay at the matrimonial home, the petitioner used to raise quarrels with the first respondent and his parents at the instigation of her mother and that the first respondent at the intervention of the elders the petitioner joined matrimonial home on 12.6.2013 and stayed only a day and then she left the matrimonial home without any intimation to the first respondent or his parents. Thereafter the first respondent personally went to the petitioner’s parents house and requested her to come and join the matrimonial home but, she refused to come and join the conjugal fold of the first respondent.

The first respondent also send his parents and mediators to the parents house of 5 the petitioner and by that time also the petitioner and her parents did not heed the advise of the elders.

It is submitted that the first respondent is an employee in APSRTC on contract basis and he also issued lawyer’s notice dt. 19.8.2013 to the petitioner calling upon her to come and join the matrimonial home but, the petitioner having received the said notice on 22.8.2013 did not come and join the matrimonial home and after receipt of the legal notice she lodged a complaint at

Kancharapalem Police Station. Even after lodging of the complaint by the petitioner, the respondent approached the petitioner and requested to come and join the conjugal society but, she refused for the same. The respondent further submitted that he is drawing a very meager salary which is not even sufficient to maintain himself and his parents as such, the respondent is not in a position to pay any amount as maintenance and hence prays to dismiss the petition.

6.The petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got examined Pw.2 on her behalf and the first respondent examined himself as RW1 and got examined

Rws. 2 and 3 on his behalf.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents .

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner was subjected to any domestic violence and if so whether she is entitled for reliefs as prayed for?

The petitioner filed her evidence by way of examination in chief affidavit which is nothing but replica of her pleadings.. It is the evidence of the petitioner that she was subjected to harassment and during her cross examination she could not place any harassment that was made by her in the hands of the respondent. It is her evidence that at the time of her engagement, the respondent no.1 is working as Mechanic in SRMT Organization and thereafter 6 the Respondent no.1 used to visit the house of the petitioner and at the instigation of the parents of the petitioner their engagement was performed on 12.12.2010 and she admitted that prior to the marriage herself and respondent no.1 have no proper understanding and she also admitted that she does not know whether respondent no.1 is a good person or not prior to the marriage and their marriage has performed with a consent of her parents. Except this evidence nothing was placed by her that she was subjected to harassment subsequent to her marriage. The entire pleadings which are pleaded by her not supported by any independent witness since PW.2 who is the mediator tried to corroborate in respect of presenting dowry and other articles. During in his cross examination he admitted that he was not present at the time of presentation of dowry and articles and other things. According to him the petitioner and respondent no.1 lead conjugal life for a period of three months only. He deposed that the petitioner escaped from in-laws house as she necked out by the respondent and took shelter in neighbour’s house and as her parents went to Tirupathi, at the request of her parents, he kept the complainant at the safe custody of one G. Lakshminarayana till her parents arrive from Tirupathi but, the said Lakshminarayana was not examined for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Except the said fact, there is nothing elicited from his evidence.

When coming tot he evidence of RWs. 2 and 3 who are neighbours to the respondents, RW.2 has deposed in the same lines of RW.1 and it is his evidence that the petitioner used to bite the first respondent on his shoulder and raised quarrel with him went to outside and entered into his house and that himself and one Annapurna tried to convince the petitioner and also told that not to raise quarrels with the first respondent and not to spoil conjugal life but, she did not heard their words and went to her parents house. During his cross examination, she categorically deposed that the complainant filed this case in respect of some disputes and they are relatives to him and the respondent no.1 is son by courtesy and he deposed that he do not know the fact that whenever the respondent no.1 taking the petitioner into his fold she used to bite 7 his hand. The evidence of RW.2 also vague in its nature. The other witness RW.3 whose evidence is in similar lines of RW.2 but, her evident is no way helpful to the respondent.

On careful scrutiny of the evidence on the record, there is nothing suggesting on behalf of the petitioner that she was subjected any abuse as defined under Domestic Violence Act in respect of that since how long the petitioner resided in her in-laws house and lead conjugal life and the same was neither deposed by her in her pleadings nor reduced into evidence. Importantly neither of the parents of the petitioner examined before the court to support the contention of the petitioner.

As could be seen from the evidence of the petitioner, there is exchanging of notices much prior to the filing of this complaint. In support of her contention only the FIR was marked. The contents of FIR which are submitted to the V Town police Station are nothing but replica of her pleadings. She failed to establish about the overt acts of each of the respondent. By the time of alleged incident, the respondent no.3 is undergoing treatment in KG Hospital and the same was elicited from her cross examination. She do not know the reasons for which the complainant came on the road at 7.30 p.m. soon after the marriage within 3 or 4 months and she is the neighbourer to the respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and first respondent held on 2.2.2012 and according to the petitioner the disputes were arose in between them and in the month of June, 2013 she was necked out i.e., on 6.6.2013. The evidence of RW.3 corroborating otherwise with the evidence of Pw.2 and according to Pw.2 he went to the house of the respondent on the date of necked out of the petitioner by the respondents along with one Vasudevarao and kept the complainant at safe custody of one G.

Lakshminarayana but, the said Lakshminarayana was not examined. Thus, the evidence of the petitioner is not inspiring. If really Pw.2 went to the house of the respondent on the date of incident he could have been deposed the same. RW.3 8 who is an independent witness and neighbourer to the respondent has deposed in a fair manner and her evidence is trustworthy and no one witnessed the harassment and by the time she observed, the petitioner was already outside of the respondents house but she did not observe any quarrel between the petitioner and respondent no.1. So, except the petitioner was not maintained by the respondent no.1 nothing was elicited in the entire case pleadings. Therefore, though, the petitioner filed the complaint for various reliefs, as the respondent no.1 neglected to maintain her she was entitled for maintenance.

Since there is no abuse as defined under section 20 of DVC

Act, whereas the evidence suggesting that she herself left the conjugal home as such, she is not entitled for any reliefs and more over the respondent is ready and willing to take her to his fold and therefore, the petition is partly allowed .

In the result, the petition partly allowed without costs.The first respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner towards maintenance from the date of this order and so far as the remaining reliefs which are sought by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. The case against A2 to A5 is hereby dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of April,2018.

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Petitioner/Complainant Respondents/Accused PW.1 – G.PushpalathaRW.1- G.Rameshkumar PW.2- G.SrinivasaraoRW.2-G.Koteswarrao RW.3- M. Annapurna

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Petitioner/ComplainantRespondents/Accused

NILNIL

III MM/VSP 9 10

Orders pronounced (VSO)

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

IInI MM/VSP

1

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI. K.PRAKASHABABU,

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Wednesday, the 14th day of March, 2018

Calendar Case No.53/2015

Between:

The state Represented by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Investigation Cell, CCS, Visakhapatnam City.

...Complainant.

And:

Mahanthi Rajesh Babu, S/o Late Venkata Ramana Murthy, aged 26 years, caste by Brahmin, Prefessional car driver residing at Door No.44-166, Maharajupeta, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District.

...Accused

This case is coming on 07-03-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of P.P. for Prosecution and of Sri G.S.V.S.Damodara Rao, Advocate

for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this

day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Investigation Cell, CCS

Visakhapatnam City has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.182, 186, 505 and 507 of IPC & U/s 66A of I.T.Act 2008 -2008 of GRP Station, Visakhapatnam in Crime No.152/14 .

The case of the prosecution is nut shall that:

2.While P.w.1 Ch.Sravan Kumar is discharged his duty in the ‘A’ shift at 7.00 AM to 2.00 PM at about 1.30 PM Visakhapatnam City Control

Room Railway station, he received a phone call dial 100 that bomb was placed in Prasanthi Express, vide train No.18463, phone No.9494526224.

On that he immediately informed to the Sub Inspector, and he registered the same on 24-5-2014 at about 6.15, Sub Inspector who registered the case and transferred to the P.W.5/K.Satyanarayana who is Sub Inspector, 2

Cyber Crime Cell, CCS, Visakhapatnam through proper channel on 3-9- 2014 to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law & Order,

Visakhapatnam City for investigation.

3.On 04-09-2014, P.W.5 the Inspector, Cyber Crimes investigation cell, addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of

Police, Law and Order, Visakhapatnam City with request to furnish the CDR and CAF for offensive cell number 9494526224 the purpose of further investigation.

4.On 5-11-2014 PW.5 further addressed a letter to the Deputy

Commissioner of Police to trace out of IMEI number, accordingly he received offensive cell number and sim number and trace out the name of person i.e., Sripathi Durga Prasad Sharma, S/o Prabhakar Sarma, Door number 2-130, Chinna Street, Turumamidi Village, Mukkava Mandal,

Vizianagaram , the name of the accused is ascertained and established as

Mahanthi Rajesh babu, S/o late Venkata Ramana Murthy, of Bobbili,

Vizianagaram. The investigation and the details obtained clearly established that Mahanthi Rajesh Babu is the accused in this case.

5.P.W.6 served notice to him to appear before the Inspector of

Police, Cyber Crime Investigation Cell, Visakhapatnam, the accused complying with the notice appeared on 07-11-2014, he was questioned in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 mediators, and accused handover his mobile which was use for commission of offence, on that they found IMEI numbers i.e., 1) 357078051303811 and 2) 3570790513203819 in which the offensive sim card 9494526224 which is used for making hoax call and later P.W.6 verified and and identified the Samsung company make Silver colour cell phone with the above IMEI numbers, which was used for the commission of the offence and seized them in the presence of P.W.2 and

P.W.3. Later the accused confessed in the presence of mediators and 3 drafted the same.

6.That the investigation revealed that on 24-5-2014 the accused along with his friend Shankar Rao started in Bobbili to Visakhapatnam City to purchase a pet dog puppy for Shankar Rao. The started on two wheeler of Shankar Rao told the accused that buses will stop at any place when passengers give hand signal and how trains will stop as they don’t stop on hand signal. Then the accused said to Shankar Rao that trains will also stop for half an hour with single phone call. The accused made the hoax call from 9494526224 to dial 100, on 24-5-2014 at 12.44 hours and told them that bomb was planted in Prasanthi Express going to Bangalore from

Visakhapatnam. When they reached Gajapathinagaram the accused contracted dial 100 and informed them that sorry for the wrong information given to them and there is no bomb planted in Prasanthi

Express and it is hoax call made by him and said sorry for the inconvenience. The accused committed the offence with malafide intention to cause threat criminal intimidation, fear, annoyance and inconvenience to the passengers in particulars and the public in general with his anonymous communication. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Government Railway Police.

7.This case was taken on file for the offence 182, 186, 505, 507 and under 66A of Information and Technology Act. 2000.

8.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr. P.C. He was examined under sec.239 of Cr. P.C. explaining the accusation made against him for the offence under section 66 A of Information and technology Act read over to him and explained in Telugu. For which, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

4

9.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.w.1 to P.W.6 are examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 are marked and Mo.1 i.e., cell phone is marked from the prosecution evidence.

10.After the evidence of prosecution was closed, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

11. Heard, the arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

12. The point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused fortheoffence U/Sec. 182, 186, 505 and 507 and under Section 66 A of Information technology act 2000-2008 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

13. P O I N T :

The counsel for the Government Railway Police i.e., learned Public prosecutor argued that the accused is a person intentionally call to the

Visakhapatnam City Control room of the Railway Station and he state that there was a bomb in the Prasanthi Express, on 24-5-2014 when he received the same.Herein this present case on hand it is the duty of the GRP/Inspector inview of the call whether Prasanthi Express was stopped immediately or not, while it was in running and no such information was placed before the Court by the prosecution.

5

14.Herein this present case on hand it is the duty of the prosecution that if at all they want to prove the call made by the accused only it has to proved call data of mobile No.9494526224, they did not placed said data before the Court, and secondly the accused voice was not recorded. Moreover as per the investigation it reveals that cell phone number 9494526224 with two sim numbers i.e., one is Samsung silver color cell phone and another is BSNL sim is in the name of one

K.Satyanarayana except confessional statement of the accused to corroborate the evidence of accused nothing was placed positively and cogently in support of the case of the prosecution. Therefore it is clear no doubt there is a call from the mobile phone number 9494526224 to dial 100 except confessional statement of the accused, nothing was placed

before the court to corroborate the same. Even as per the evidence Act

confessional statement was recorded by the Inspector and corroborated in the offence of the confessional statement is record is fetal to the case of the prosecution.

15.On the other hand the counsel for the accused argued that

Section 182, 186 of IPC which are false as per the definition

Section 182 in The Indian Penal Code 186 [182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.—Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant—

(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or

(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Illustrations

(a) A informs a Magistrate that Z, a police-officer, subordinate to such Magistrate, has been guilty of neglect of duty or misconduct, knowing such information to be false, and knowing it to be likely that the information will cause the Magistrate to dismiss Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(b) A falsely informs a public servant that Z has contraband salt in a secret place knowing such information to be false, and knowing that it is likely that the consequence of the information will be a search of Z’s premises, attended with annoyance to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(c) A falsely informs a policeman that he has been assaulted and robbed in the neighbourhood 6 of a particular village. He does not mention the name of any person as one of his assistants, but knows it to be likely that in consequence of this information the police will make enquiries and institute searches in the village to the annoyance of the villages or some of them. A has committed an offence under this section.] Section 186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions. —Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. Under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. no court shall take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 of IPC except the complaint by competent authority. However there is settled judgement law that if any offence which is cognizable in nature coupled with the offence under

Section 173 to 188 of IPC, Court can take cognizance.

Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

16.Herein this presence case on hand Section 186 of IPC as defined supra and the prosecution has to prove the case separately with support the evidence. Since there is no evidence that due to the false information of the accused the train was stopped and passengers were faced some inconvenience and annoyance in such situation. This court cannot come to conclusion, the prosecution is proved ably the accused committed the offence.

17.In which that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused is ownership of mobile vide No.9494526224, since the prosecution itself described that it is in the name of the Sharama and the entire prosecution of the rest upon the confessional statement of the accused besides information covered by Cyber crime Information, but the cyber crime information failed to produce the call data reported before the Court for its 7 consideration, except the railway evidence. There is no documentary proof which is required proof the evidence alleged against the accused.

18.Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, this court come to conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 182, 186, 505 & 507 of IPC under Section 66 (A) of Information and Technology Act 2000 and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr. P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal or appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court, this the 14th day of March, 2018.

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION SIDE :FOR DEFENCE SIDE : PW.1-Ch. Sravan Kumar NONE PW.2- S.Chiranjeevi PW.3- P.Srinivasarao PW.4- K.Srinivas Rao PW.5- K.Satyanarayana PW-6- K.Venugopal

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION SIDE :

Ex.P1- Report Ex.P2- letter addressed to the commissioner of Police Ex.P3- Letter addressed to Deputy commissioner of Police Ex.P4- The mediator report Ex.P5- FIR

FOR DEFENCE SIDE : NIL

M.Os marked :

Mo.1: Cell phone

III Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC II Metropolitan Magistrate, For Railways, Visakhapatnam.

8 9

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM

Calendar Case No:53/2015 tried by Sri. K.Prakasha babu, III Metropolitan

Magistrate, FAC II Metropolitan Magistrate, For Railways, Visakhapatnam.

Date of offence24.05.2014

Date of report or complaint24.05.2014

Date of filing of complaint24.05.2014

Date of apprehension of the10.02.2016 accused Date of release on bail-

Date of commencement of trial01.04.2016

Date of close of trial07.03.2018

Date of sentence on order14.03.2018

Explanation of delay or remarks-- Explanation for delay in submitting -- Calender and Judgment

Name of the complainant :

The state Represented by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Investigation Cell, CCS, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused and full particulars:

Mahanthi Rajesh Babu, S/o Late Venkata Ramana Murthy, aged 26 years, caste by Brahmin, Prefessional car driver residing at Door No.44-166, Maharajupeta, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District.

OFFENCE: U/Sec. 182, 186, 505 and 507 and under Section 66 A of Information technology act 2000-2008

FINDING:Found not guilty.

RESULT:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 182, 186, 505 & 507 of IPC under Section 66 (A) of Information and Technology Act 2000 and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr. P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal or appeal time is over.

III Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC II Metropolitan Magistrate, For Railways, Visakhapatnam.

10