Sri.K.S.Koteswararao B.Com , B.L

JUDGMENT

CIVIL JUDGE:: PIDUGURALLA

CALENDAR AND

IN.FHE COURT OF JUNIOR /201O 359

C.C. I

Dale of Commen Closure Release Result cement of trial

Dfence Filing Appearance

of trial don bail 6 7 1 2 11-12-12 16-07-13 24-10-13 11-05-09 08-02-10 15-09-11

Between:

..Complainant

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla

And

1, Shaik Abdulla S/o. Mohammad John, 35 yrs, Hayath Nagar, Muslim, China Garlapadu now at Hyderabad. 2.. Shaik Jaheera Begum Wlo. Sattar. 33 yrs, Muslim, Hayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

3. Shaik Khathiza Bi W/o. Mohammad John, 50 yrs, Muslim, Tumrukota (V), Rentachintala Mandal.

4. Shaik Abdul Rahim S/o. Mohammod John, 40 yrs,

Muslim, Vasantha Nagar, Nizamabad. .. Accused

Nature of Offence Punishable U/s. 498-A IPC Plea of the Accused Not guilty. Finding of the court A1-Guilty, A2 to A4 not guilty

Sentence or Order:

Accused A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC and they are acauitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Hence. A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.498-A IPC and he is convicted U/s.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accused is convicted for the offence U/s.498-A IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and also a pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine. the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The remand period if any undergone by the accused shall be set off Uls.428 (2) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time. The Crl.M.P.1878/2013 is allowed and sentence is suspended till 15-11-2013.

Explanation for the delay:

In this case, copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 15-09-11 and they are examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. on 31-01-2012. PW.1 examined on 11-12-2012, PW.2 examined on 14-06-13. PVW.3 examined on 21-06-13, PWs.4 and PWs.5 were examined on 12-07-2013, Pw.6 examined on 16-07-13. The accused examined Uls. 313 Cr.PC on 31-07-13. Heard

arguments and Judgment pronounced on 24-10-2013. Hence, thg delay.

JäNIÖR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA.

Copy submitted to: The Honble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE : PIDUGURALLA.

Present: K. S. Koteswara

Rao., B. CCom., B.L.,

Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla.

Friday, this the 24" day October, 2013

9.C.359 2010.

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Pidugurala

..Complainant

And

1. Shaik Abdulla Slo. Mohammad John, 35 yrs,

Muslim, China Garlapadu now at Hayath Nagar,

Hyderabad.

2. Shaik Jaheera Begum Wlo. Sattar, 33 yrs, Muslim,

Hayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

3. Shaik Khathiza Bi W/o. Mohammad

Muslim, Tumrukota (V), Rentachintala John, 50 yrs,

4. Shaik Abdul Rahim Slo. Mohammod I John, 40 yrs, Mandal.

Muslim, Vasantha Nagar, Nizamabad.

... Accused

This case coming on 23-10-2013 ior hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor and of Sri K. Surya Raju, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDG MENT

The Inspector of Police. Piduguralla filed charge sheet against the accused

for the offence U/s.498-A IPC.

2 The brief facts of the charae sheet contents are that the accused A1 is

native of Tumrukota village, Karempudi Mandal.

In the year 1995 he married LW.1 as per Muslim caste custom at Janapadu village. At the time of marriage father of LW.1 paid all formalities to the accused as required by A1 and sent LW.1 with A1 to Tumrukota village for conjugal life. About one year only they both lived at there together with mother of A1. Later, A1 and LW.1 shifted and lived a short period at Macherla. From where hailed to Hyderabad lived in a rented house at

Hyath Nagar beside the house of A2 who is elder sister of A1. During their wed lock, they have blessed two children. A3 mother of A1 and A2 was lived in the houses of A2 at Hyathnagar, Hyderabad. A2 and A3 are frequently used to the house of A1 and they both maintained the family of A1 as he is habitual drunkered. Now and then, A4 elder brother of A1 also used to visit the house of

A1 and they all got suspicion on the fidelity of LW.1 began harassment both pan to deove away LW 1 with an

A or getting more dowry and thereby

aat

itertu pew, sd

all oasitble ways On knowing aboA chaldren o Jananadu village on since then hey are living at there

Again on 1105-2009 a the accused AT to Ad cAme upon the house of

LW2 picked up qure abusad LWn Athy language and forcibly taken away nbearable harasSment and fear of the two children to Hyderabad accused A1 to A4 LW1 fled a report before the Hon ble court through her advocate and it was endorsed to SHO Piduguralla PS U/s 156 (3) CrPC for investigation

On 25-11-2009 at 10 30 a m. Leysiered the report of LW 1 as a case in CrNo 264/2009 U/s 498-A IPC and took up investigation During the course of investigation, LW7 examined as many ds o wnesses and recorded their

Statements U/s. 161 CrP in his part l CD LW7 who received reliable information, he arrested the accused A1 on 26-ll-2009 and sent him for iudicial custody along with remand report.

While causing enguiries about the absconding accused A2 to A4 in this case, LW.7 fish out clues and arrested A2 to A4 on 30-12-2009 in Swarna

Pitchaiah street, Pidugurla and sent them for judicial custody along with remand report. Thereafter, LW.8 took up investigation and after completion of his investigation, LW.8 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. On 08-12-2010 the case was taken on file cognizance of the offence under

Section 498-A IPC taken against the acCUsed and summons were ordered against the accused.

4 On appearance of the accused. the copies of relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Ciminal

Procedure Code.

On 31-01-2012 accused was under section 239 of CrPC for

5 Oxaminod

the offence U/s.498-A IPC, for which. ccused oleaded not guilty and claimed to

be tried.

6 During the course of trial, on behall of the prosecution, prosecution examined PWs.1 to PWs.6 and Exs..FP1 to Exs. P3 a are marked. The prosecution given up the evidence of LWs.3 and 8.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by

PWs.1 to PWs.6. Accused denied the same and they did not choose to examine any of the defence witness on their behalf and the defence of the accused is total denial.

8 Heard the learned A PP and the counsel for the aCCUsed.

9 Ihe learned counsel for the acc 1Sed filed written arguments on behalf of the accused.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the evidence of PW.1 victim is cogent and corroborated with EX.P1 complaint and further corroborated with the evidence of PW.2. PWs.4 and PWs.5 are also stated about the incident taken place at her parent's house Janapadu and their evidence also further corroborated with the evidence of PWs.1 and PWs.2. The prosecution established the arrest of the aCcused, scene of offence and time of offence beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused are liable for Conviction.

On the other hand, the learned cOunsel tor the accused submitted that the 12 evidence of PW I is totally inconsistent and contradictory with her statement and

PW2 is the tather of PW 1. his evidence is not

also Ex P complaint

and the evidence of PW 1 The evidence of Corrobot ated with Ex P1 complant omissions and Contradictions PWs 4 and PWs 5 PWs 1 and 2 suffers matenal who are the eye witnesses and their evidenc� IS also contrary to their statements

before police and the evidence of PW4 and 5 in any way not useful to the case

of the prosecution to prove the charges. The prosecution fails to establish the

Scene of offence. time offence and the accUsed are entitled for acquittal by of

awarding benefit of doubt.

13 To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined the victim

Shaik Ranjan

Bi as PW.1. She categorically stated in her evidence that her marriage was performed with A1 in the year 1995, 24th May at Janapadu at her

parent's house.

After marriage she joined with A1 to lead conjugal life in her in laws house at Thumrukota of Macherla. She further stated that herself and her husband shifted her residence to Hyath Nagar, Hyderabad in a rented house and the said house is situated by the side of AZ house. PW.1 further stated that A2 is elder sister of A1 and she used to insist her to attend daly house hold duties in her house and when she failed to attend the house hold duties, A2 instigated A1 to beat her and at the instigation of A2 her husband A1 started harassment physically and mentally and beat her in a rented house situated at Hyderabad,

Hyathnagar.

PVW.1 further stated that on one day, A1 demanded her to bring

Rs.2,00,000/- from her parent's house for the purpose of purchasing of car and

thereby

A1 harassed PW.1 physically and mentally. She further stated that A1 used to beat her by demanding money and on one day her father came to

Hyathnagar and when she informed the demand of Rs.2,00,000/- by the accused for purchase of car. When her father questioned A1 about the demand of money and expressed his inability to pay the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to A1. Then, all the accused forcibly sent PW.1 along with her father with a warning if she fails to bring an amount of Rs 2.00 000. from her paront's house, A1 may perform 2nd 73

marriage by taking more money

She further slated that due to harassment of

the accused PVW 1 came to Janapadu

vllage along with her father and children

PW.1 further stated that on 11-05-

2009 al the Accused came to her parents

house abused her by saying

Lanjadana Dabulu Themante Thakunda Ikade

Unnavu.

So, the accused threanted

her to face dire consequences and try to

beat her.

She further stated that when the accused tried to beat her demanding money, her father came to her rescue, then, all the acCcUsed also by threatened her father to face dire Consequences and beat her father with hands

by demanding mnore money.

She further stated that Lw.3 � Rasool, Lw.5 - Srinu, LW6� Galib and some other persons witnessed the incident. She further stated that she went to police station on the same day and gave a report against the accused about the harassment. But, police did not taken any action and then, she filed private complaint against the accused on the file of this court.

according to the case So, of the prosecution and as per the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P1 complaint, PW.1 presented Ex.P1 complaint only the offence committed by the accused on 11-05-2009 at her parent's house.

The learned counsel for the accused cross examined PW.1 at length with regard to the harassment made by the accused which was alleged to have been taken place in a rented house of PW.1 situated at Hyath Nagar, Hyderabad etc.,

But, the counsel for the accused did not cross examined for the incident which was taken place at the parent's house of PW.1 on 11-05-2009.

14. On the other hand, PW.4 is an eye witness to the incident, he stated in his evidence that he know A1 and Pw.1 for the last 4 years. Further stated that about 4 years back on one day at about 10.30 or 11 a.m., A1 and PW.2 altercating to each other at the house of Pw.2, then, he went there and

admonished PW.2 and A1 why unnecessarily quarrel with each other. Thereafter,

PW.1 presenteda report against the accused.

15. PW.5 is also an eye witness to the incident. He stated in his evidence that about two year ago on ono day wtule ho is going to hospital and noticed some

house of PW2 and several persons were gathered

galata was going on at the

happened in that galla who are altercating to each

But, he did not know what other

eidence of ps.4 and PWs5 some galata is going

16 So, according to the

According to pW4, PW2 and A1 altercating to each

on at the house of PW.2 other

As can seen from the evidence of PW.2 the father of PW.1. 17 He also categorically stated in his evidence that A1 is his son in law. A2 to A4 are relatives of A1. The offence took place about 4 or 5 years ago at his house about 12 noon or 1 pm He further stateu Yedis ago on one day pW 1 informed him that A1 beat her and haassed her physically and mentally by demanding money and then, he went to Hyderabad along with his son and questioned A1 about the harassment. he iutner stated that he took Pw 1 to bie house from Hyderabad due to harassiment of A1. He further stated that subsequently on one day the accused and (Wo other persons came to his house and threatened him and his daughter Pv.1 to face dire consequences and the accused threatened PW.1 to bring additional dowry. In the mean while, neighbours came to the scene of offence, then, accused and two other persons went away. Subsequently, accused did not come to the house and PW.1 went to police station and presented a report.

18. As per the evidence of PW.2. the accused A1 and two others came to

Janapadu and threatened PW.1 by demanding to bring money for purchase of car and abused her in filthy language and tried to beat her. The evidence of

PW.2 further establishes that the accused A1 and two others tried to beat him and threatned PW.1 to face dire conseguences by demanding to bring money.

The evidence of Pw.2 corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 with regard to dowry demand of A1 and harassment of A1 to PW.1.

PWs 4 and PWs 5, they ato not an interested

19

case, but, (hey stated that a galata ws witnesses to the prosecutioh

going on between PW 2 and A1 and

pw2 admonished

A1 with regard to the galta and then, they left the scene

offence

The evidence of PWs 4 and PWs 5 also further corroborated with the

of

evidence of PW 1

20 PW6 is the Investigating

Officer. he stated in his evidence that on 25-11-2009 at 11 a.m. he received CFR from Hon ble court for investigation and

report and registered the same

.26412009 for the offence

a case in Cr.No as

Uls 498-A IPC Rw.34 IPC. He further stated that he arrested A1 on 26-11-2009

at Thumrukota village and also arrested

30-11-2009 near Swarna

A2 to A4 on

Pitchaiah street, Piduguralla and sent them for judicial Custody along with

remand report.

21. On a perusal of Ex.P1 complaint. PW.1 presenied tne complaint against

the accused on 24-08-2009.

As per the complaint, IS mentioned that on 11-05-2009 the offence was taken place at her parent's house Janapadu and she went to police station and presented a report against the accused, but, police did not take any action, then, she filed a private complaint against the accused on the file of this Court on 24-08-2009.

22. As per the evidence of PW.1 and as per EX.P1 complaint, PW.1 presented the present case against the accused for the offence committed by the accused at her parent's house on 11-05-2009. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and PWs.2 and Ex.P1 complaint, the accused A1 to A4 came to Piduguralla to the house of

PW.2 and demanded money to PWs.1 and PWs.2 for purchase of car and threatened PW.1 to face dire consequences and abused her in filthy language.

23. PWs.4 and PWs.5 also supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the material aspects and according to PVWs.4 and PWs.5 a galta was going on the date of the incident in the house of PW.2 between A1 and PW.2 and PW.4 rushed to the scene of offence and admonished A1 and then, accused lert the

Scene of offence and then, PW I went lo police station and presented a report.

The evidence of PWs 4 and PWs 5 further supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident that was take place on 11-05-2009 at the house of

PW.2. PW.1 also admitted during the cciirSe of crosS examination that she did not gave any report against the accused for the offence took place at Hyderabad,

Hyath Nagar where she resided along wila, A1 in different houses on rental basis and also she did not gave any report agai:ist the accused A1 to A4 for demand of

Rs.2,00,000/-at Hyderabad. But, PW1 filed this present case against the accused that the accUsed came down to Janapadu to her parent's house on 11- 05-2009 and abused her and threatened her to face dire consequences and tried to beat her by demanding Rs.2,00,000/-.

24. As per the evidence of PWs.1 ana PvWS.Z they only specifically attributed allegations against A1 only, PW.2 stated in nis evidence that A1 and two others came to Janapadu village and threatened nim and PW.1 by demanding money and PW.1 also stated that accused came to Piduguralla and threatened her to bring money and abused her in flthy language. But. PVW.1 did not state specifically any overacts against A2 to A4 and there is no cogent evidence against the accused A2 to A4 deposed by PWs.1 and PWs.2. So there are no specifical overacts attributed against A2 to A4 by PWs.1 and 2.

25. Under the aforesaid discussion, on careful scrutiny of the evidence of

PWs.1, PWs.2, PWs.4 to PWs.6 coupled with Ex.P1 complaint, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution established the case against A1 only for the offence U/s.498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused A1 is liable for conviction.

26. In the result, the accused A2 to Ad are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC and they are acauitted under section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C.

27. In the result, accused A1 is fouund guity for the offence punishable

U/s.498-A IPC and he is convicted U/s 248 (2) of Cr.PU.

and ranscribed by him, corrected and on this, the 24" day of October, 2013.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant

pronounced by me in open court

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

PfDUGU RALLA.

asked the accused about the quantum of sentence that A1

28. When children and his old aged mother out his represented that he has to maintain his sentence. earnings and pleaded mercy in awarding circumstances of this case, the nature of the

29. Having regard to the facts and offence there are no mitigating circumstances to take a lenient view in awarding sentence to the accused.

30. Hence, accused is convicted for the offence U/s.4S8-A IPC and sentenced to SuTer simple imprisonment for 6 months and also a pay a Tine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simole imprisonment for 15 days. The remand period if any undergone by the accused snall be set off U/s.428 (2) of Cr.P.c. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Dtaled t�: the Personal Assistant and transcribed by him, corrected and

me in open court on this, the 24" day of October, 2013

JUNIOR CVIL JUDGE.

ÉIDUGU RALLA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For proseucton:

For AcCused None

P.W.1- Shaik Ramjan Bi PW.2 � Gurazala Saida Saheb PW.3� Rayudu Seethaiah PW.4 � Balusupati Srinu PW.5 � Pattan Galib PW.6 �D. Narasimha Rao

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution:

Ex.P1- Private complaint filed by PW.1 dated 24-08-2009.

Ex.P2 -161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P3 � Original FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

DA qu9

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

2q|0|1>

PIDUGURALLA.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PIDUGURALLA.

Present: K. S. Koteswara Rao., B. Com., B.L., Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla. Friday, this the 22nd day November, 2013.

C.C.321 /2011.

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S. ...Complainant

And

1. Bethapudi Ramesh S/o. Satyanarayana, 52 yrs, Fair price shop dealer No.10, Piduguralla.

2. Pedineedi Koteswara Rao S/o. Chalamaiah, 50 yrs, Owner of lorry No.AP 16 W 5700, Piduguralla.

3. Miriyala Srinivasa Rao S/o. Perumallu, 30 yrs, Telaga, Tummalacheruvu (V), Driver No.AP 16 W 5700 … Accused

This case coming on 20-11-2013 for hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor and of Sri K. Kasiviswanadham, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.403, 406, 409, 420 IPC and Sec.7 of EC

Act.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet contents are that on 14-12- 2010 LW.2 who received credible information, immediately he and LW.3 rushed to Piduguralla where they have secured LW.1 together with

LWs.5 to LWs.8 and raided to the fair price shop of A1 at 4 a.m. on 14- 12-2010 noticed that LW.4 and his men were loading white bags of PDS rice by changing from gunny bags in to lorry No.AP 16 W 5700 which belongs to A2 in order to divert the same into black market for clandestine business without distributing to eligible card holders to get personnel gain. They have counted and found that the stock is of 133 white bags each containing 50 kgs. LWs.1 to LWs.3 also verified the 2 fair price shop of A1 at the same time noticed that 64 bags of PDS rice each weighing about 50 kgs, 120 kgs of sugar, 50 kgs of redgram dall, 504 plackets of pamoil and 940 liters of kerosene without maintaining proper record by A1. thereby they have seized two stocks in one mediatornama along with lorry No.AP 16 W 5700 duly attested by LWs.5 to LWs.7 in the presence of LWs.2, LWs.3 and LWs.8. Later, they have handed over seized rice to LW.9 and other seized stock in the fair price shop of A1 to LW.10 under proper acknowledgments for safe custody. LWs.1 to LWs.3 were examined and came to know that

A1 with instigation of A2 changed PDS rice from gunny bags into white bags without identification by any one for diverting the stock into black market by using the lorry of A2 and its driver A3 for clandestine business.

On 14-12-2010 at 4 p.m., LW.1 sent a report along with original mediatornama by handing over the empty seized lorry AP 16 W 5700 and A1 and A3 with a request to launch criminal case against the accused A1 to A3. LW.11 registered the report of LW.1 together with original mediatornama as a case in Cr.No.294/2010 U/s.403, 406, 409 and 420 IPC and Sec.7-1 of EC Act of Piduguralla PS and took up investigation. LW.11 examined the witnesses as LWs.1 to LW.10 in different dates and recorded their detailed statements in his part II CD.

During the course of investigation, LW.11 arrested A1 and A3 at 7.30 p.m. in the PS and sent them for judicial custody along with remand report. During the course of investigation, on 28-12-2010 LW.11 arrested A2 and sent him for judicial custody along with remand report.

After completion of investigation, LW.11 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s. 403, 406, 409 and 420 IPC and Sec.7-1 of

EC Act.

3

3.On 30-11-2011 the case was taken on file cognizance of the offence under Section 403, 406, 409 and 420 IPC and Sec.7-1 of EC Act taken against the accused and summons were ordered to be issued against them.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

5.On 27-11-2012 accused were examined under section 239 of

Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s. 403, 406, 409 and 420 IPC and Sec.7-1 of

EC Act framed against the accused, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to PWs.7 and Exs.P1 to Exs.P7 are marked. The prosecution given up the evidence of LWs.2, LWs.4 and

LWs.5 and LWs.10.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by P.Ws.1 to PWs.7. Accused denied the same and they did not choose to examine any of the defence witnesses on their behalf and the defence of the accused are total denial.

8.Heard the learned A.P.P. and the counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:- 4

Whetherthe prosecution has to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 403, 406, 409 and 420 IPC and Sec.7-1 of

EC Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The learned A.P.P. submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 and

PWs.3 are cogent and corroborated with each other and their evidence further corroborated with Ex.P1 mediatornama. The prosecution established the seizure of PDS rice from the lorry AP 16W 5700 in front of fair price shop of the accused under cover of Ex.P1 mediatornama.

The prosecution established the arrest of the accused A1 to A3, time of offence, scene of offence beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence,, accused are liable for conviction.

11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW.1 MPDO is the Revenue Official and PW.3 is also Civil Supplies,

Tahasildar, Piduguralla and he is also Revenue Official and their evidence inconsistent and contradictory with Ex.P1 mediatornama.

The independent mediators PWs.6 and PW.7 did not support the case of the prosecution and they completely turned hostile. The prosecution given up the evidence of LW.5 - Krishna Reddy VRO – I,

Piduguralla who has been acted as mediator for the reasons best known to the prosecution.

Counsel for the accused further submitted that PW.2 is not an eye witness, as per the prosecution case and as per Ex.P1 mediatornama, but, the Investigating Officer PW.5 mentioned in the charge sheet that

PW.2 was also participated in the raid and he was also an eye witness to the offence. As per the mediatornama, PW.2 is not participated in 5 the raid and he is not an eye witness to the offence. Except the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.3, absolutely, there is no documentary proof to establish that PWs.1 and PWs.3 in the presence of PWs.6 and

PWs.7 and other mediators LW.5 – Krishna Reddy seized PDS rice from the lorry of A2 in front of fair price shop of A1 on 14-12-2010 under cover of Ex.P1 mediaotrnama. The account books were not seized and the prosecution also fails to follow the necessary provisions contemplated U/s.100 of Cr.P.C in search and seizure of the property.

Counsel for the accused further contended that PWs.1 to PWs.3 are the Revenue Officials and they are very much interested to the prosecution and the independent mediators PWs.6 and PWs.7 did not support the case of the prosecution and they completely turned hostile. Absolutely, there is no other evidence to establish that the search and seizure of PDS rice in front of shop of A1 from the lorry of

A2. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal by awarding benefit of doubt.

12.As can seen from the evidence of PW.1, he admitted in his cross examination that at the time of conducting raid, he verified the fair price shop of A1 and verified the account books maintained by A1 and seized the books under cover of mediatornama. Further admitted that he did not mentioned about the seizure of account books from the shop of accused in Ex.P1. He did not mentioned in Ex.P1 mediatornama how much quantity of PDS rice was allotted to the accused shop during that relevant month and how much quantity of

PDS rice, A1 distributed to the card holders by the date of their visit and the person who participated in the raid are all official mediators.

He further admitted that PWs.6 and PWs.7 are the independent mediators. He further admitted that he did not prepare any list of articles, properties that was seized from the shop of the accused 6 including account books. If really, PW.1 seized account books from the shop of the accused in order to establish how much quantity of rice found excess in the fair price shop of the accused by the date of their visit, the prosecution would have produced the same before this court, except the oral evidence of PW.1, no documentary evidence placed

before this court to prove that the accused A1 without distributing the

PDS rice diverting the same by changing the PDS rice in FCI label bags into ordinary bags.

13.On a perusal of Ex.P1 mediatornama, PWs.6 and PWs.7 and LW.5 – Krishna Reddy VRO – I of Piduguralla acted as mediators. PWs.6 and

PWs.7 did not support the case of the prosecution and they completely turned hostile and the prosecution did not choose to examine LW.5 –

Krishna Reddy VRO – I to establish the seizure of PDS rice from the shop of the accused for the reasons best known to the prosecution.

14.PW.3 is the Deputy Tahasildar, Civil Supplies, Piduguralla he stated in his evidence that PW.1 himself and mediators, LWs.5 to LWs.7 surprised the fair price shop of the accused on 14-12-2010 and on verification 133 bags of PDS rice each bag containing 50 kgs was loaded in a lorry belonging to A2 bearing No.AP 16W 7500. He further stated that PW.1 verified the shop of A1 and found 64 gunny bags of rice each bag containing 50 kgs, 120 kgs of sugar, 42 cases of pamoil boxes each box containing 12 packets and also found 50 kgs of redgram dall, 940 liters of kerosene oil found in the shop of A1 at the time of their visit. He further stated that PW.1 scribed the mediatornama and he put his signature on the mediatornama.

15.On a perusal of Ex.P1 mediatornama and as per the evidence of 7

PW.1, PW.2 is not participated in the raid and he is also Deputy

Tahasildar, Piduguralla, he presented Ex.P1 report to police, after PW.3 handed over the same to him. The evidence of PW.3 is inconsistent and contradictory with Ex.P1 mediatornama. PW.3 further stated that the seized property was handed over to K. Rama Rao and obtained receipt to that effect. The said K. Rama Rao examined as PW.4, he did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile.

16.During the course of cross examination, PW.3 admitted that PW.1 verified the stock register and other registers maintained by A1 at the time of inspection. On a perusal of Ex.P1, it is not mentioned that PW.1 seized account books and stock register from the shop of A1 and also

PW.3 did not deposed that PW.1 seized stock register and other account books maintained by A1 from his shop. Except the oral evidence of PWs.1 and PWs.3, absolutely there is no documentary proof to establish that the accused A1 to A3 diverting the PDS rice in a lorry with an intention to do clandestine business. There is no evidence that how much quantity of PDS rice was handed over to accused A1 shop during that month and how much quantity of PDS rice

A1 distributed to the Civil Supplies card holders. In the absence of that evidence, it can not be said that there is an excess of PDS rice found in the shop of the accused. PW.3 admitted during the cross examination that there is no difference between PDS rice and the ordinary rice and the said rice easily available in the market.

17.PW.5 is the Investigating officer, during the course of cross examination, he admitted that he did not seized any record pertaining to the fair price shop of A1, PWs.1 and PWs.2 did not handed over any record maintained by A1. Basing on the mediatornama and the 8 statements of the witnesses LWs.1 to LWs.3, he arrested the accused and filed the charge sheet against the accused, after completion of investigation. So, the Investigating Officer also did not seized any record from the shop of the accused and also did not seized ‘C’ book and trip sheet and other diverting license of the accused A3 during the investigation.

18.PWs.1 to PWs.3 are the Revenue Officials except their evidence, absolutely there is no other independent evidence and according to the prosecution case, the raid was conducted on 14-12-2010 at 4 a.m. at the fair price shop of the accused and the fair price shop of the accused situated in a residential locality and no independent witnesses secured by the Investigating Officer, PW.1 to establish that the search and seizure. Even as per the evidence of PW.1, he did not prepare any list of the articles that was seized from the shop of the accused including the seizure of the lorry and the rice bags thereby PW.1 did not follow the mandatory and statutory provisions contemplated

U/s.100 of Cr.P.C.

19.The Investigating Officer PW.5 did not recorded the statements of the Civil Supplies card holders that was allotted to the shop of the accused A1 in order to establish that A1 is without distributing PDS rice to the card holders and diverting the said rice to black market for doing clandestine business. The civil supplies card holders are the proper witnesses to prove the above fact. PW.1 also did not choose to examine any of the civil supply card holders during the time of search and seizure of the property.

20.In the present case, accused charged for the offence U/s.403, 406, 409 IPC, but, in the present case, there is no evidence on record 9 how much quantity of PDS rice was entrusted to A1 fair price shop dealer for distribution of the same to civil supply card holders during that relevant month and how much quantity of PDS rice, the accused distributed and how much quantity of PDS rice was diverted into black market for doing clandestine business is not there. In the absence of the said evidence, it can not be said that the accused A1 committed the offence U/s.403, 406, 409 IPC. There is no recorded evidence placed before this court to establish that accused with a dishonest intention induced the civil supply card holders without distributing the

PDS rice diverting the said PDS rice to black market for doing clandestine business and in the absence of the said evidence, it can not be said that the accused A1 committed the offence U/s.420 IPC against A1.

21.Under the aforesaid discussion on careful scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.1 to PWs.7 and Exs.P1 to Exs.P7, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution fails to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 403, 406, 409 and 420 IPC and Sec.7-1 of EC Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused A1 to A3 are entitled for acquittal by awarding benefit of doubt.

22. In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 403, 406, 409 and 420 IPC and Sec.7- 1 of EC Act and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

10

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this, the 22nd day of November, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

PIDUGU RALLA.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution:For Accused None P.W.1 – G. Srinivasa Rao (MPDO) PW.2 – K.V. Prasad (Tahasildar) PW.3 – G. Kodanda Ramaiah PW.4 – K. Rama Rao PW.5 – Md. Mastan Vali (SI) PW.6 – K. Bhaskara Reddy PW.7- V. Sai Kumar

Exhibits Marked For prosecution: Ex.P1 – Mediatornama dated 14-12-2010. Ex.P2 – Receipt obtained from K. Rama Rao. Ex.P3 – Receipt obtained from G. Kameshwari. Ex.P4 – Signature on Ex.P2. Ex.P5 – FIR. Ex.P6 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6. Ex.P7 - 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7.

For accused: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

PIDUGURALLA.

11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PIDUGURALLA

C.C. No.321 /2011. Date of ReleasCommeClosur OffencAppearanc Filinged on ncemene of Result ee bailt of trialtrial 1234567 14-12-1030-11-1106-08-12--12-02-1312-07-1322-11-13

Between: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S.

...Complainant

And

1. Bethapudi Ramesh S/o. Satyanarayana, 52 yrs, Fair price shop dealer No.10, Piduguralla.

2. Pedineedi Koteswara Rao S/o. Chalamaiah, 50 yrs, Owner of lorry No.AP 16 W 5700, Piduguralla.

3. Miriyala Srinivasa Rao S/o. Perumallu, 30 yrs, Telaga, Tummalacheruvu (V), Driver No.AP 16 W 5700 … Accused

Nature of Offence : Punishable U/s. 403, 406, 409 and 420 IPC and Sec.7-1 of EC Act Plea of the Accused: Not guilty. Finding of the court: not Guilty.

Sentence or Order:

A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 403, 406, 409 and 420 IPC and Sec.7-1 of EC Act and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Explanation for the delay:

In this case, copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 06-08-12 and they were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. on 27- 11-2012. During the course of trial, PW.1 was examined on 12-02- 2013, PW.2 was examined on 21-03-13, PW.3 was examined on 26-04-13, PW.4 was examined on 03-05-13, PW.5 was examined on 08-07-13 and PW.6 and PWs.7 were examined on 12-07-13. The accused examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C on 07-11-13. Heard arguments and Judgment pronounced on 22-11-2013. Hence, the delay.

JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

12

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PIDUGURALLA.

Present: K. S. Koteswara Rao., B. Com., B.L., Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla. Saturday, this the 23rd day November, 2013.

C.C.88 /2010.

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S. ...Complainant

And

1. Battula Srinivasa Rao S/o. Kasaiah, 26 yrs, Yadava, Karempudi (V), Managing Partner of Sri Balaji Rice and Industries, Janapadu.

2. Challa Venkata Ravi S/o. Venkateswarlu, 25 yrs, Vaddera, Karempudi (V), Driver of Maxi truck No.AP7Y 2864. … Accused

This case coming on 20-11-2013 for hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor and of Sri D. Chennaiah, Advocate

for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day,

this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s. 409, 420 IPC and Sec.7-1 of EC Act.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet contents are that on 19-09- 2009 on receipt of reliable information LW.5 rushed to Piduguralla where he secured the presence of LWs.2 to LWs.4 and inspected Sri Balaji Rice Industries situated in Janapadu road, Piduguralla and on their checking they have found some irregularities of mixing PDS rice into original rice and also over stock without showing in the register and thereby LW.5 seized 2228 bags of PDS rice each bag containing 50 kgs including 135 bags of PDS rice in the lorry No.ADQ 5067 and also seized 42 bags of BPT rice, 111 quintals of paddy, 77 quintals of bran and 90 quintals of broken under cover of mediatornama duly attested by LWs.2 to LWs.4. LWs.2 to LWs.5 concluded that A1 is habituated to purchase PDS rice from various places on cheaper rate transport the same to his mill where it was mixed into common rice and sold them to the public on higher rate to get illegal profits with the assistance of A2 and thereby cheated the public. The entire seized stock was handed over by them to LW.6 under acknowledgment for safe custody.

On 21-09-2009 LWs.2 to LWs.5 handed over one empty maxi truck No.AP 7Y 2864 together with empty lorry NO.ADQ 5067 to Pidugurlala PS on 21-09-2009. On the same day at 12 a.m., LW.1 gave a report and it was registered by LW.8 as a case in Cr.No.225/09 U/s.409, 420 IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act of Piduguralla PS at the same time and submitted copies to all concerned officers. On receipt of the copy of FIR, LW.9 took up investigation and examined LWs.1 to LWs.8 in different dates recorded their detailed statements in his part II CD. LW.9 obtained original mediatornama from Vigilance Authorities and it was submitted to the Hon’ble court along with a memo.

2

During the course of investigation, LW.9 arrested the accused A1 and A2 on 21-09-09 and sent them for judicial custody along with remand report. On 17-02-2010 according to the directions of MRO, Piduguralla the lorry AP 7Y 2864 was handed over to the accused under proper acknowledgment. After completion of investigation, LW.9 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.409, 420 IPC and Sec.7-1 of EC Act.

3.On 15-04-2010 the case was taken on file cognizance of the offence under Section 409, 420 IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act taken against the accused and summons were ordered to be issued against them.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.On 17-08-2011 accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s. 409, 420 IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act framed against the accused, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to PWs.7 and Exs.P1 to Exs.P3 and Ex.D1 are marked. The prosecution given up the evidence of LWs.3 to LWs.5 and LW.7 reported dead.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by P.Ws.1 to PWs.7. Accused denied the same and they did not choose to examine any of the defence witnesses on their behalf and the defence of the accused are total denial.

8.Heard the learned A.P.P. and the counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 409, 420 IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The learned A.P.P. submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 and PWs.4 are cogent and corroborated with Ex.P1 meidatornama. The prosecution established seizure of PDS rice from the shop of the accused and also the prosecution established that the purchase of PDS rice from various places and mixed the PDS rice into ordinary rice with an intention to sell the same for higher price thereby cheated the public and committed offence U/s.7-1 of EC Act and also violating the rules contemplated U/s.3 of EC Act.

The learned APP further submitted that the prosecution established arrest of the accused, seizure of PDS rice, scene of offence, time of offence beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused are liable for conviction.

11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that PWs.1 and PWs.4 did not follow the procedure contemplated U/s.100 of Cr.P.C in search and seizure of PDS rice from the rice mill of 3 the accused. Except the oral evidence of PWs.1 and PWs.4, no documentary evidence placed before this court. The prosecution did not seize stock register to prove the offence. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal by awarding benefit of doubt.

The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the prosecution did not secure any of the independent, disinterested and respectable persons of that vicinity to act as mediators in order to prove search and seizure of PDS rice from the shop of the accused and the mediators LWs.3 and LWs.4 who are the VRO -1 of Piduguralla and VRO of Janapadu did not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. The alleged mediators LWs.3 and LWs.4 are also the revenue officials and they are very much interested to the prosecution case. The prosecution did not secure any of the independent, disinterested persons to act as mediators and the watchman of the mill who was examined as PW.7 and he did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile. PW.2 is not a direct witness to the incident and presented Ex.P1 report along with covering letter against the accused and his evidence in any way not useful to the case of the prosecution to prove the charges. PWs.5 and PWs.6 are the Investigating Officers and except inconsistent and contradictory evidence of PWs.1 and PWs.4 absolutely there is no other evidence to prove the charges. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal by awarding benefit of doubt.

12.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined MPDO, Vigilance and Enforcement, Guntur who conducted raid along with Deputy Tahasildar, Civil Supplies, Piduguralla examined as PW.4. As can seen from the evidence of PW.4, he received a credible information on 19-09-2009 at 9 a.m and secured the presence of LW.5 and PW.1, LW.3 and LWs.4 proceeded to Balaji Rice Industries Janpadu and found one truck bearing No.AP 7Y 2864 and when questioned the driver about this presence he stated that his name is Venkata Rao driver of the truck and they brought 20 bags of PDS rice with gunny bags from Karempudi village to Sri Balaji Rice Mill, Janapadu in his vehicle and with a direction of Mallikharjuna Rao. He further stated that he inspected Balaji Rice Mill and found a person and when he questioned him he stated that his name is Bathula Srinivasa Rao who is the partner of the rice mill. In the mean while, they found another lorry bearing No.ADQ 5768 stationed near the rice mill and found 133 bags of PDS rice in original FCI gunny bags. Later, they verified the stock in the rice mill and found 1135 quintals of rice, 111 quintals of paddy, 77d quintals of brown and 90 quintals of broken rice in the said mill and after verifying the ‘B’ register of the rice mill they found shortage of 179 quintals of rice between book balance and ground balance. He further stated that they came to a conclusion that the rice mill owner and truck driver are indulged clandestine business of diversion of PDS rice into black market illegally. Then, he instructed to PW.1 and seized the entire stock in the rice mill and the truck AP 7 Y 2864 and also the lorry bearing NO.ADQ 5768 along with PDS rice of 135 bags under cover of mediatornama. He further stated that the seized stock was handed over to Poornachandra Rao PW.3 under acknowledgment for safe custody.

During the course of investigation, LW.4 admitted that he can not say the boundaries of the Balaji Rice Industries. He further admitted that hamalies load the rice in his presence, but, he can not say the names of the hamalies. He further admitted that he did not mentioned the mediatornamaa that Hamalies load the rice. According to PW.4 4

Hamalies were also present at the time of the seizure of the rice mill, but, the prosecution did not figured them as witnesses in this case who are the real and probable witnesses to the offence. The non examination of the hamalies who load the rice at the instance of PWs.1 and PWs.4, it creates a genuine doubt as to the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case.

13.PW.4 who conducted raid and who verified the account books, stock register etc., did not seized the account books and stock register maintained by the Balaji Rice Industries to prove the shortage of rice of 179 quintals. Except the oral evidence of PW.4, there is no documentary proof to prove the shortage of 179 quintals of rice in the Balaji Rice Industries by the time of his visit.

14.PW.1 is the Deputy Tahasildar, Civil Supplies, Piduguralla. He admitted in his cross examination that he secured the presence of LWs.3 and LWs.4 from the rice mill of the accused over phone. The said Balaji Rice Mill is situated at a distance of 4 per long left to Janapadu road. He further admitted that except the accused no.2 and he did not observed any other persons in and around the rice mill at the time of their inspection. He further admitted that he can not say how much quantity of rice kept on the ground floor and how much quantity of the rice kept in the gunny bags. Even as per the evidence of PW.1, he stated in his chief examination at the direction of PW.4 he seized the entire sock situated in the Balaji Rice Industries,, but, he did not seized the stock register and other relevant account books in order to establish the shortage of the PDS rice.

15.The evidence of PWs.1 and PWs.4 are inconsistent and contradictory with Ex.P1 mediaotrnama. PWsl.1 and PWs.4 are the Revenue Officials, they are very much interested to the prosecution case.

16.PW.2 is not an direct witness to the offence and he presented Ex.P1 report against the accused and his evidence is not useful to the case of the prosecution to prove the charges.

17.The prosecution examined PW.3 who is a person who received and seized stock and admitted in his cross examination that he did not posted any watchman for safe custody to watch the rice and he did not personally verified the stock before he took delivery of the same. PW.3 stated in his evidence that the seized stock was kept in Balaji Rice Industries for safe custody with lock and key and posted PW.7 as watchman, whereas, PW.3 stated before police that he kept seized stock in Vamsadhara Rice Mill, Piduguralla and the said Vamasadhara Rice Mill belonging to PW.3.

18.The learned counsel for the accused suggested PW.3 that the said rice was kept in his rice mill by name Vamsadhara Rice Industries, Piduguralla for safe custody. But, PW.3 denied that suggestion and it was marked as Ex.D1. The evidence of PW.3 suffers material omissions and contradictions and his evidence also in any way not useful to the case of the prosecution to prove the charges.

19.PW.5 Head Constable who registered the crime stated in his evidence that on 21-09-2009 at 12 noon while he was present in the police station, PWs.1 and PWs.2 came to police station and PW.2 gave a report and he registered the mediatornama as a case in Cr.No.225/09 U/s.420, 409 IPC and Sec.7-1 of EC Act. According to the prosecution case, the offence took place on 19-09-2009, but, the report was given to police on 21-09-2009 at 12 noon and there is a delay of nearly 3 days in presenting Ex.P1 report against the accused and the 5 prosecution did not explained the reason for the delay in presenting Ex.P1 report and it is an abnormal delay in presenting Ex.P1 report, it creates a genuine doubt as to the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case.

20.PW.6 is the Investigating Officer, he stated in his evidence that he took up investigation from Head constable and recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused and sent them for judicial custody along with remand report. After completion of his investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

21.The evidence of the Investigating Officers PWs.5 and PWs.6 are only useful to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution established the seizure of PDS rice from the rice mill of the accused. PWs.1 and PWs.4 are the persons who conducted raid in the Balaji Rice Industries and seized PDS rice in the presence of the mediators under Ex.P1 mediatornama. But, PWs.1 and PWs.4 did not prepared any list of quantity of rice and variety of rice seized from the rice industry of the accused and also did not prepare any list of the vehicles seized near rice industry on that day and did not serve any copy of the list of the articles thereby PWs.1 and PWs.4 did not follow the mandatory and statutory provisions contemplated U/s.100 of Cr.P.C.

22.PWs.1 and PWs.4 also did not secure the presence of the independent and disinterested persons of that vicinity to act as mediators thereby PWs.1 and PWs.4 did not follow the mandatory provisions contemplated U/s.100 of Cr.P.C at the time of search and seizure of the property.

23.Under the aforesaid discussion on careful scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.1 to PWs.7 and Exs.P1 to Exs.P3 and Ex.D1, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution fails to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 409, 420 IPC and Sec.7-1 of EC Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal by awarding benefit of doubt.

24. In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 409, 420 IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this, the 23rd day of November, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

PIDUGU RALLA.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution:For Accused None P.W.1 – Padavala Nageswara Rao (Dy. Tahasildar) PW.2 – N.C. Subrahmanyam (Tahasildar) PW.3 – Chinthalapudi Poornachandra Rao PW.4 – Ganji Srinivasa Rao (MPDO) 6

PW.5 – N. Ram Prasad (HC) PW.6 – B. Narasimha Rao (CI) PW.7- K. Nagaiah

Exhibits Marked For prosecution: Ex.P1 – Mediators report dated 19-09-2009. Ex.P2 – Covering letter of PW.2 given to police dated 20-09-09. Ex.P3 – FIR in Cr.No.225/09 of Piduguralla P.S dated 21-09-09.

For accused:

Ex.D1 – A portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 dt. 21-09-09.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

PIDUGURALLA.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PIDUGURALLA

C.C. No.88 /2010. Date of ReleasCommeClosur OffencAppearanc Filinged on ncemene of Result ee bailt of trialtrial 1234567 19-09-0915-04-1010-08-10--21-08-1211-11-1323-11-13

Between: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S.

...Complainant

And

1. Battula Srinivasa Rao S/o. Kasaiah, 26 yrs, Yadava, Karempudi (V), Managing Partner of Sri Balaji Rice and Industries, Janapadu.

2. Challa Venkata Ravi S/o. Venkateswarlu, 25 yrs, Vaddera, Karempudi (V), Driver of Maxi truck No.AP7Y 2864. … Accused

Nature of Offence : Punishable U/s.409, 420 IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act Plea of the Accused: Not guilty. Finding of the court: not Guilty.

Sentence or Order:

A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 409, 420 IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Explanation for the delay:

In this case, copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 10-08-10 and they were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. on 17- 08-2011. During the course of trial, PW.1 was examined on 21-08- 2012, PW.2 was examined on 24-08-12, PWs.3 to PWs.5 were examined on 03-09-12, PW.6 examined on 17-10-12, PW.7 examined on 11-11-13. The accused examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C on 19- 11-13. Heard arguments and Judgment pronounced on 23-11-2013. Hence, the delay.

JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PIDUGURALLA

Present: Sri. K. S. Koteswara Rao., B. Com., B.L., Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla. Saturday, this the 30th day of November, 2013.

M.C.No.10 /2012.

Between:

1. Kommavarapu Bharathi W/o. Maria Dasu, Aged 25 yrs, Christian, house wife, R/o. Nakarikalu, Nakarikal Mandal.

2. Kommavarapu Anvesh S/o. Maria Dasu, Christian, Aged 3 years, R/o. Nakarikal, Nakarikal (M). … Petitioners

And

Kommavarapu Maria Dasu S/o. Arlaiah, Christian, Aged 30 yrs, Mallavolu, Machavaram Mandal. … Respondent

This petition is coming on 28-11-2013 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt., G. Annamma, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri D. Mastan, advocate for the respondent, upon hearing and considering the material on record and the same having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent U/s.125 of Cr.P.C claiming monthly maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- p.m each to the petitioners 1 and 2 from the date of filing of the petition and with costs.

2.The brief facts of the petition contents are that 1st petitioner and the respondent legally wedded wife and husband of the marriage took place on 23-05-2004 at Christian church at Mallavolu, as for Christian rights and customs at the time of marriage, 1st petitioner parent’s gave dowry Rs.10,000/- and house hold articles and one gold chain, ear studs was presented to the respondent both are leaving happily marital life a period of 1 and ½ years they wedded lock period 2nd petitioner was born after that the respondent addicted to bad vices, like drinking, gambling and debauchery and also started harassment of additional dowry from the parent’s of the 1st petitioner. So many times, the respondent beat the 1st petitioner without any reasonable cause and harassed both physically and mentally, later, the respondent beat both petitioners and necked her out from his house. The petitioners reached her parent’s house. Then, the parent’s of the 1st petitioner lead mediation through the respondents and his family members, but, the mediation is in vain. The respondent doing labour contract work, he is earning Rs.300/- per day and he is having one house and 1.00 cent land at Mallavolu, as such, the respondent having sufficient means to maintain both petitioners, but, the respondent willfully neglected the petitioners. The petitioner has no means to maintain themselves, the parent’s of the 1st petitioner is also not in a position to maintain the petitioners. Hence, she filed this petition.

3.On appearance of the respondent, the respondent filled his counter denying all the material allegations made in the petition and contended that 1st petitioner is not interested to live with the respondent and she did not prepared even food also for the respondent whenever he gone for the coolie work and she did not take of the infant child and also the 2 1st petitioner is having extramarital relation with other person at her parental house, she used to go to her parental house frequently even without information to the respondent. whenever the respondent used to go to the parental house of the 1st petitioner and the petitioner picked up a quarrel with the respondent and her father and other relatives of the 1st petitioner of attacked on the respondent and openly declared that the 1st petitioner will not come to the house of the respondent and if the respondent wants the company of the 1st petitioner, the respondent have to go to her parents house and put family in the parental house of the 1st petitioner under this circumstances, the respondent have issued legal notice for the conjugal life with the 1s petitioner hewn the 1st petitioner received the notice with in no time file this petition with false allegations even now the respondent is read too join with the 1st petitioner. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, the 1st petitioner herself examined as PW.1 and she got examined PW.2 and no documents were marked on her behalf. On behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent.

5.Heard, the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

6. Now the points for determinations are:

1. Whether the respondent neglected or refused to maintain the petitioner without any reasonable cause?

2. Whether the respondent has got sufficient means to maintain the petitioner?

3. If so, to what relief?

7. POINT NO.1: Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent. At present, the petitioner is living at her parents’ house. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent is not paying any maintenance to the petitioner.

To prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner herself examined as PW.1, she categorically stated in her evidence that her marriage was performed about 9 years ago in a Christian church at Mallavolu at the time of their marriage Rs.10,000/- paid to the respondent besides house hold articles. Immediately, after the marriage, she joined with the respondent and her marriage was consummated herself and the respondent lived together happily for two years. During their wedlock, she blessed one male child. She further deposed that the respondent is having bad vices like drinking and womanizing and came to the house late night by consuming alocohol and suspected her character. So many times, the respondent beat her and left from the house for so many times. She further deposed that the respondent on one day beat her and necked her out and her son. Then, herself and 2nd petitioner came to her parent’s house and informed about the harassment of her mother. Then, herself and her mother and elders went to the house of the respondent and raised a dispute before panchayat in the presence of her mother and relatives. She further deposed that the respondent did not agree to lead conjugal life with her and beat her and left from the house, accordingly, panchayat was failed since then,, she have been residing at her parent’s house. She further deposed that the respondent is an employee in Ramco cement factory and getting Rs.400/- per day. The respondent owns one acre of land and residential house at Mallavolu village. She further deposed that she is a house wife and unable to do any work and her mother is maintained herself and her son. She further deposed that the respondent is having sufficient means neglected her and deserted her and refused to maintain her without any reasonable 3 cause.

8.The learned counsel for the respondent did not choose to cross examine PW.1 in spite of giving sufficient opportunities for cross examination and the cross examination of PW.1 is closed.

9.To support the case of the petitioner, the petitioner also examined PW.2. She also categorically stated in her evidence that the marriage of the petitioner is performed with the respondent about 9 years back according to their caste customs, Mallavolu. After the marriage PW.1 leads marital life to the house of the respondent. At the time of marriage, PW.1 parents gave Rs.10,000/-. She further deposed that three or four years PW.1 and the respondent lived together happily. She further deposed that the respondent three years after the marriage addicted to bad vices like drinking and used to consuming alcohol and tortured PW.1 physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry. On one day PW.1 came to the parent’s house and then parent’s of the petitioner raised panchayat before elders and himself and elders of panchayat went to the house of the respondent. at the instance of elders they left the petitioner at the house of the respondent with a direction to lead conjugal life with love and affection. Again the respondent necked out PW.1 after 10 or 15 days thereafter PW.1 came to parent’s house as the respondent beat her by demanding additional dowry, since then, PW.1 stayed her parent’s house. She further deposed that the respondent is working in Ramco Cement Company, Jaggaiahpet and he is getting Rs.300/- to 400/- per day by way of wages. She further deposed that the respondent is having house at Mallavolu and having cash and he is having sufficient means by paying separate maintenance.

10.The learned counsel for the respondent did not choose to cross examine PW.2, hence, the cross examination of PW.2 is closed.

11.PWs.1 and PWs.2 categorically stated that the respondent harassed PW.1 physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry to bring her parent’s house and they categorically and clinchingly establishes that the respondent necked her out petitioners without any reasonable cause and refused to maintain her. Thereby the respondent neglected and deserted the petitioner and refused to maintain her without reasonable cause. Accordingly, issue no.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner as against the respondent.

12. POINT NO.2: PW.1 categorically stated that she has no any source of income and she has unable to maintain herself and her parent’s are maintaining her with meager earnings. The respondent is having one acre of land and residential house at Mallavolu. The respondent is working as an employee in Ramco Cement Company and getting Rs.400/- per day. She further deposed that the respondent is having capacity to maintain her and her son and separate maintenance. The respondent himself neglected her and deserted her and refused to maintain her.

13.PW.2 also stated in her evidence that the petitioner is not having any source of income to maintain herself. The respondent is working as an employee in Ramco Cement Company, Jagaiahpet and getting Rs.300/- to 400/- per day and also he is having house at Mallavolu and cash. The respondent is having capacity to maintain the petitioners by paying separate maintenance.

4

14.The evidence of PWs.1 and PWs.2 clearly and clinchingly proves that the respondent is working as an employee in Ramco Cement Company at Jaggaiahpet and getting Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day by way of wages and having house at Mallavolu and one acre of land. Admittedly, the respondent is not paying any maintenance to the petitioner ever since from her desertion and also the respondent is not paying any maintenance to the petitioner during the pendency of the petition.

15.Considering the potential earnings of the respondent, 1st petitioner requires Rs.2,000/- p.m. towards her monthly maintenance. The respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. each to the petitioners 1 and towards their monthly maintenance. Admittedly, the respondent is not paying to the petitioners during the pendency of the petition. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to claim the maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. The respondent further directed to pay monthly maintenance to the petitioners from the date of filing of the petition. The point is answered in favour of the petitioner and as against the respondent.

16. ISSUE NO.3 : To What relief? In the result, petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- p.m. each to petitioners 1 and 2 towards their monthly maintenance. The respondent further directed to pay monthly maintenance to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition i.e., 31-05-2012. The respondent further directed to pay monthly maintenance to the petitioner on or before 5th of every succeeding month. The respondent further directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards costs of the petition.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of November, 2013.

Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:

PW.1 –Kommavarapu Bharathi PW.2 – Mammidi Santha Kumari

For Respondent: None.

Exhibits Marked -- N I L –

J.C.J. PDRL.,

5 6 7

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PIDUGURALLA.

Present: K. S. Koteswara Rao., B. Com., B.L., Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla. Monday, this the 18th day November, 2013.

C.C.173 /2012.

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S. ...Complainant

And

Amaravathi Bujji S/o. Hassan Ahamad, 38 yrs, Muslim, Pinnelli village, Machavaram (M). … Accused

This case coming on 12-11-2013 for hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor and of Sri K. Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.353, 506 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet contents are that LW.1 is working as Asst. Engineer, Operation, APSPDCL, Dachepalli and also holding additional charge of Machavaram Mandal. On 22-03-2012, LW.1 conducted a special drive along with his staff LWs.2 to LWs.6d at Pinnelli village to collect the arrears of electricity bill charges. During the process, LWs.1 to LWs.6 went towards the house of accused and asked him to pay his due amount of Rs.2,000/- which is under arrears of electricity charges, but, the accused rejected to pay the amount. As such, LW.1 get fuse removed by his staff and gave time to the accused until 3.30 p.m. on the same day to pay the bill, as the accused did not pay any amount till 3.30 p.m. LW.1 again went towards the house of accused and instructed his staff to remove the service wire of accused from the electrical pole. Subsequently, LW.3 climbed the electrical pole to remove the service wire of the accused. Consequently, the accused abused LWs.1 to LWs.6 in filthy language and hurled stones on LW.3 while LW.3 was removing the service of accused from the electrical pole in order to deter LW.3 from discharging of his official duties. The accused further threatened that he would hack the hands if LW.3 if LW.3 removes the service wire of the accused from the electrical pole. LWs.7 and LWs.8 witnessed the occurrence. Thus, the accused assaulted and deterred the public servants from discharging of their duties and threatened with dire consequences. LW.1 came to Machavaram PS along with LWs.2 to LWs.6 and presented a report on 22-03-2012 regarding to the occurrence.

LW.9 registered the report of LW.1 as a case in Cr.No.34/2012 U/s.353, 506 IPC on 22-03-2012 at 7 p.m. and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.9 examined LWs.1 to LWs.6 at the police station and recorded their detailed statements in his part II CD and inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch.

2

LW.9 examined LWs.7 and 8 on 23- 03-12 at Pinnelli village and recorded their detailed statements in his part II CD. LW.10 was transferred to Machavaram PS took up charge to the police station on 02-04-2012 and took up investigation in this case on the same day. During the course of investigation, LW.10 arrested the accused on 17- 04-2012 and sent for judicial custody along with remand report. After completion of investigation, LW.10 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.353, 506 IPC.

3.On 19-05-2012 the case was taken on file cognizance of the offence under Section 353, 506 IPC taken against the accused and summons were ordered to be issued against him.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.On 12-09-2012 accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s. 353, 506 IPC framed against the accused, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to PWs.10 and Exs.P1 to Exs.P9 are marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by P.Ws.1 to PWs.10. Accused denied the same and he did not choose to examine any of the defence witnesses on his behalf and the defence of the accused is total denial.

8.Heard the learned A.P.P. and the counsel for the accused filed memo of written arguments.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 353, 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The learned A.P.P. submitted that the evidence of PW.1 is cogent and corroborated with Ex.P1 report. The prosecution established the time of offence, scene of offence and arrest of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is liable for conviction.

11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that except the evidence of PW.1, there is no other evidence on record to prove the charges and the witnesses PWs.2 to PWs.8 did not support the case of the prosecution and they completely turned hostile. PW.1 is not a direct eye witness and his evidence in any way not useful to the case of the prosecution to prove charges. Except the evidence of the Investigating Officers PWs.9 and PWs.10, absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused assaulted PWs.1 to PWs.6, while they are discharging their official duties and threatened them to face dire consequences. Hence, accused is entitled for clean acquittal.

3

12.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution altogether examined PWs.1 to PWs.5 who are the employees in APSPDCL and PW.3 is the victim in this case and he did not support the case of the prosecution and all the witnesses PWs.2 to PWs.6 did not support the case of the prosecution and they completely turned hostile.

13.As per Ex.P1 report, PW.1 is a direct witness to the offence. But, according to his evidence he came to know about the offence from PWs.2 to PWs.6 and the evidence of PW.1 is inconsistent and contradictory with Ex.P1 report and his evidence in any way not useful to the case of the prosecution to prove the charges.

14.PWs.2 to PWs.6 who are the employees in APSPDCL in whose presence the alleged offence was taken place did not support the case of the prosecution and they completely turned hostile.

15.PWs.7 and PWs.8 are the independent witnesses and they are resident of Pinnelli village did not support the case of the prosecution and they also completely turned hostile. Except the evidence of the Investigating Officers PWs.9 and PWs.10, absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused assaulted PWs.1 to PWs.6 while they are discharging their official duties and threatened them to face dire consequences. As the main and material witnesses PWs.1 to PWs.6 did not support the case of the prosecution and this court has no other option to acquit the accused.

16.Under the aforesaid discussion on careful scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.1 to PWs.10 and Exs.P1 to Exs.P9, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution fails to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 353, 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal by awarding benefit of doubt.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 353, 506 IPC and he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this, the 18th day of November, 2013.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

PIDUGU RALLA.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution:For Accused None P.W.1 – K. Narayana PW.2 – B. Rama Swamy PW.3 – U. Sidda Reddy PW.4 – Puram Ashok Babu PW.5 – Perumalla Munaiah PW.6 – K. Srinivasa Rao PW.7 – Nadendla China Venkateswarlu PW.8 – Gunturu Shaik Gouse PW.9 – Ch. Lokanadham (SI) PW.10 – Shaik Mahammad Safee (SI) 4

Exhibits Marked For prosecution: Ex.P1 – Report of PW.1 given to police dt. 22-03-2012. Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P4 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P5 - 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6. Ex.P6 - 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7. Ex.P7 - 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8. Ex.P8 – FIR. Ex.P9 – Rough sketch.

For accused: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

PIDUGURALLA.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PIDUGURALLA

C.C. No.173 /2012. Date of ReleasCommeClosur OffencAppearanc Filinged on ncemene of Result ee bailt of trialtrial 1234567 22-03-1219-05-1225-07-12--04-02-1301-11-1318-11-13

Between: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S.

...Complainant

And

Amaravathi Bujji S/o. Hassan Ahamad, 38 yrs, Muslim, Pinnelli village, Machavaram (M). … Accused

Nature of Offence : Punishable U/s. 353, 506 IPC Plea of the Accused: Not guilty. Finding of the court: not Guilty.

Sentence or Order:

Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 353, 506 IPC and he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Explanation for the delay:

In this case, copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 25-07-12 and he was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. on 12-09- 2012. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to PWs.3 were examined on 04- 02-2013, PW.4 was examined on 02-04-13, PWs.5 and PWs.6 were examined on 16-04-13, PWs.7 and PWs.8 were examined on 03-05-13, PW.9 was examined on 03-06-13 and PW.10 was examined on 01-11-

13. The accused examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C on 06-11-13. Heard arguments and Judgment pronounced on 18-11-2013. Hence, the 5 delay.

JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

6