1 C.C.No. 323/2014
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
RAYACHOTY.
Present: Dr. K. Sarada
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.
Monday, this the 9th day of September, 2024.
C.C. No.323/2014
Between:
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Rural Circle.
….. Complainant
And
1) Chireddy Narayana Reddy, S/o Subbareddy, age 55 years, Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Chinnamandem Mandal (A1)
2) Godugu Gangadharam, S/o Sankaraiah, age 30 years, Resident of D.No. 3/656, Raja Reddy Street, Kadapa City, Computer Operator, MPDO Office, Chinnamandem Mandal (A2)
3) Dadineni Ramanjulu, S/o Gangulappa, age 27 years, Field Assistant, Malluru Village, Resident of Gangireddipalli, h/o Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal (A3)
4) Busara Sekhar, S/o Krishnaiah, age 25 years, Field Assistant, Resident of Chinnarsupalli Village, Chinnamandem Mandal (A4)
5) Mada Ramesh Reddy, S/o Reddanna, age 39 years, Resident of Kadirivandlapalli, h/o Vandadi Village, Chinnamandem Mandal (A5)
6) Pathika Ravindra, S/o Naganna, age 26 years, Resident of Thottikada Harijanawada, h/o Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal (A6)
7) Pathika Surendra, S/o Reddanna, age 28 years, Resident of Thottikada Harijanawada, h/o Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal (A7)
8) Kommu Venkata Ramana, S/o Ramanna, age 29 years, Animator, Resident of Thottikadapalle Harijanawada, h/o Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal (A8)
9) Edagotti Venkata Ramana, S/o Ramaiah, age 37 years, Resident of Nadigaddapalli Kummarapalli, h/o Padamatikona Village, Chinnamandem Mandal (A9)
10) Vijayanagaram Ramachandra, S/o Naga Subbanna, age 34 years, Resident of Sriram Nagar Colony, Kothapalli Panchayat, Chinnamandal Mandal (A12)
11) Brahmanapalli Chandra Sekhar, S/o Lakshmi Narasaiah, age 30 years, Resident of Kothapeta Ramapuram, Rayachoty Town, Working as Technical Assistant, MPDO Office, Chinnamandem Mandal (A13)
12) Sakibanda Kumari, W/o Narayana, age 32 years, Resident of Eguvagadda Harijanawada, h/o Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal (A15)
13) Allam Anjali Devi, W/o Krishnareddy, age 23 years, Resident of Kodidapalli, h/o Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal (A16) 2 C.C.No. 323/2014
14) Goguladinne Dhanamma, W/o Venkatesu, age 38 years, Resident of Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A17)
15) Jaripiti Akkaiah, W/o Gangaraju, age 42 years, Resident of Vaddepalli, h/o Chinnarsupalli Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A18)
16) Kopuri Kumari, W/o Sekhar, age 52 years, Resident of Kammapalli, h/o Chinnarsupalli Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A19)
17) Abburi Sarojamma, W/o Venkata Ramana, age 48 years, Resident of Kammapalli, h/o Chinnarsupalli Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A20) …..A1 to A8, A12, A13, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20 Note:
1) The case against A9/Edagotti Venkata Ramana is abated, as he died.
2) On 15.07.2024, the case against A1 is splitup from this case and numbered as C.C.No.270/2024 and on 02.08.2024, the said case is again clubbed with this main case i.e., C.C.No.323/2014.
This case is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in the presence of
Learned APP and of Sri C. Pavan Kumar Reddy, Learned Counsel for A1, A3, A4, A18, A19,
A20 and of Sri M. Venkata Ramana, Learned Counsel for A2, A6 to A8 and of Sri M. Khader
Basha, Learned Counsel for A13 and of Sri. T. Eswar, Learned Counsel for A5, A12 and of Sri
V. C. Reddeppa Reddy, Learned Counsel for A15, A16, A17 and after having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
01. The State represented by Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Rural Circle filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.13/2009 against A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A12, A13, A15, A16, A17, A18,
A19, A20 for the offence Under Sections 406, 420 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( hereinafter referred to as IPC).
2.1. The brief facts of the case are that
A1 worked as Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Chinnamandem, A2 worked as
Computer Operator in MPDO Office, Chinnamandem, A3 worked as Field Assistant, Malluru
Village, A4 worked as Field Assistant in Chinnarasupalli Village, A5 to A7 are mates, A8 and
A9 worked as Animators in Velugu and Chinnamandem Mandal, A12 worked as Mate, A13 3 C.C.No. 323/2014 worked as Technical Assistant, MPDO Office, Chinnamandem Mandal, A15 worked as a
President in Malluru Grama Samaikhya, A16 worked as Secretary in Malluru Grama
Samaikhya, A17 worked as Treasurer, Malluru Grama Samaikhya, A18 worked as President in
Chinnarsupalli Grama Samaikhya, A19 worked as Secretary in Chinnarsupalli Grama
Samikhya and A20 worked as Treasurer in Chinnarsupalli Grama Samaikhya.
That L.W.1/Chella Nagabhushanam is the Assistant Project Director, NREGS (National
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme) which is a Government Programme, L.W.2/Annareddi
Mal Reddi is incharge, MPDO, Chinnamandem Mandal, L.Ws.3 to 6/Chintala Sreenivasulu
Reddi, B.B. Gopinath, N. Venkataiah, Palagiri Hemasekhar Raju are Branch Managers, L.Ws.7 and 8/Manchinti Madhukar Reddi, Shaik Khadeerulla are witnesses, L.Ws. 9 to 14/Avula
Chandra Reddi, Bhumsani Venkatarami Reddi, Dugganapalli Rama Subba Reddi,
Devubayeegari Ahammad Basha, Varagam Sreedhar Reddi, Shaik Riyajul acted as mediators,
L.W.15/N. Krishna Prasad is Scientific Officer APFSL, Hyderabad, L.Ws. 16 to 18/P.G.M. Khan,
K. Ravi Kumar and G. Rajendra Prasad are police officials.
2.2. That under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter referred to as
NREGS) the Mandal Parishad Development Officer (in short referred to as MPDO) of the concerned Mandal will be head and incharge. That M.P.D.O, Assistant Programme Officer (in short referred to as A.P.O) Field Assistants, Technical Assistants, MPTC members and
Sarpanch’s of various Grampanchayats will convene a meeting in the village called ‘Gramasabha’ to identify the village development work to be taken up under NREGS. That after identifying the said works, the Technical Assistant will prepare estimates, measure the works to be done and send the same to the MPDO Office by duly obtaining the signature of
A.P.O. That the Computer Operator of the MPDO Office, will feed the entire work into his system and then place the same for signature of MPDO for onward transmission to the District
Collector, through District Water Management Association, Kadapa (in short referred to as
DWAMA). That the M.P.D.O. in turn will send the same to the Project Director, DWAMA ,
Kadapa for sanction and they will in turn send the same to the District Collector. That the 4 C.C.No. 323/2014
District Collector will sanction the work and issue the work orders for execution and send the same to M.P.D.O. That basing on the same, A.P.O. will entrust the work to the Technical
Assistants, Field Assistants and they will execute the work through the ‘Mates’. That when the work is in progress, the Field Assistants will prepare the muster rolls of the coolies who attends for execution of the work on daily basis and that Technical Assistant will measure the work executed weekly and submit the same to the Computer Operator in MPDO Office and he will feed the information into the Computer system, generate the pay order for the work done and basing on the pay order, he will prepare cheque for the amount to be paid to the coolies/mates for that week. That after preparation of the cheque, the Computer operator will make necessary entries in the Cheque Issue Register, obtain the signatures of the MPDO in the relevant records and obtain the signatures of Field Assistant and deliver the cheque. That the
Field Assistant will hand over the cheque to the Animator and he will take the Account holders to the bank, present the cheque into the bank and withdraw the same for distribution of amount to the mates.
2.3. That upon publication of news in local newspapers and through some Journalists
L.W.1/Challa Nagabhushanam received information that there was misappropriation of
Government Funds in NREGS/Upadhihamipathakam with respect to Chinnamandem Mandal.
That L.W.1 made detailed enquiry on the said allegation from 20.12.2008 to 27.12.2008 and found the following details
Cheques are not written according to the pay order generated by the system
a) Excess amounts were written on the cheques
b) Payee names were written wrongly
Amounts were altered in the cheques (prefixing digits and letters)
The cheques were not written by the concerned employer i.e., computer operator and allowed the field staff to write the cheques
Some of the M.P.D.O signs were Forgeried in Cheques
No aquittances of cheques to whom issued is not maintained by the computer operator 5 C.C.No. 323/2014
Cheques issue Register is not posted
The unutilized empty cheques were not cancelled
Connect files (musters – measurement sheets – vouchers) were not maintained by the computer operator
MPDO signed the cheques without verifying the pay order amount, cheques Nos. and payees address
Entertaining the field staff other than computer operator to bring the cheques and pay orders for signing the cheques illegally collecting the wageseeker payment from Gramsamakyas
Theft of cheques from office drawn the Government funds and utilized for self.
Empty cheques collected with malfied intention
Utilized the Government funds for his own use
Dispersed the amount to the mediators other than wageseekers listed in the pay order. 2.4. That L.W.1 noticed 32 Cheques which were written falsely to an amount of Rs.25,40, 589/ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Forty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Nine only) and that he enclosed the list of persons which he suspected who were responsible for misappropriation of funds. That on 28.01.2009 at 3.30 P.M, L.W.1 gave report in
Chinnamandem P.S. That the said 32 cheques were issued by A1 by colluding with A2 to A13 and the said Cheques misutilized.
3.1. Basing on the complaint of L.W.1, the L.W.16/P.G.M. Khan, SubInspector of Police,
Chinnamandem P.S registered a case in Cr.No.13/2009 under Sections 406, 420 of IPC of
Chinnamandem P.S and investigated into.
3.2. During the course of investigation, L.W.17/K. Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police, Rayachoty
Rural Circle examined L.Ws. 1 to 7 and recorded their detailed statements and collected the cheque issue register and counterfoils of the cheques from L.W.6.
6 C.C.No. 323/2014 3.3. As per the original cheques collected from the State Bank of India, Chinnamandem
Branch, the 32 cheques bearing Nos. (1)630792 (2) 630303 (3) 631535 (4) 630818 (5) 630524 (6) 631556 (7) 631564 (8) 631617 (9) 631069 (10) 629590 (11) 631393 issued on the name of A5 and drawn Rs.9,69,568/ from State Bank of India, Chinnamandem Branch (12) 631299 (13) 631372 (14) 631103 (15) 531552 (16) 631541 (17) 631238 (18) 629595 (18) 631058 (19) 630860 (but the cheque number 630806 is submitted to this Court by the investigating officer) (20) 630771 (21) 631262 issued on the name of Malluru Grama
Samaikhya and drawn Rs.7,07,237/ from State Bank of India, Chinnamandem Branch (22) 630332 (23) 630791 issued on the name of Chinnarsupalli Grama Samaikhya and drawn
Rs.1,51,200/ from State Bank of India, Chinnamandem Branch (24) 631089 issued on the name of A10 and drawn Rs.78,600/ from State Bank of India, Galiveedu Branch by A7 through ATM Card of A10 (25) 629798 (26) 630333 (27) 631593 (28) 631533 (29) 629796 (30) 631563 (31) 631534 issued on the name of A6 and drawn Rs.6,33,965/ from State Bank of India, Rayachoty Branch (32)631033 issued to the account of P.Venkatramana Reddi, State
Bank of India, Chinnamandem Branch and it is found correct. All the cheques were duly signed by A.1 i.e., MPDO, Chinnamandem. The Bank authorities clearly stated that after due verification of the signature of issuing authority with the Specimen signatures available with the Bank only, they passed the cheques and credit the cheque amounts Into the accounts of
Chinnarsupalli V.O., M.Ramesh Reddy and Malluru Grama Samakhya respectively. The corresponding entries in the bank accounts also clearly established that the cheque amounts shown supra were debited from the account of MPDO, Chinnamandem on the above dates and credited to the accounts of Chinnarsupalli V.O., M.Ramesh Reddy and Malluru Grama
Samakhya respectively.
3.4. During the course of investigation on 23.3.2010 the L.W.17 arrested A8 in the presence of LWS 9 and 10 and on 11.01.2011 arrested A.13 in the presence of L.Ws. 11, 12 and sent them for remand into judicial custody. That A2, A3, A5 to A7, A9, A15 to A20 were produced
before Hon'ble Court on PT warrant. That A.12 surrendered before Hon'ble Court. That A.4
7 C.C.No. 323/2014 got anticipatory bail from Hon'ble IV Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty vide
Cri.M.P.No.1335/2010, dt.26.11.2010. That A1 got anticipatory bail from Hon'ble Court. That during the course of investigation on 28.9.2010, the L.W.17 seized Hard Disc from computer at computer room, MPDO Office, Chinnamandem Mandal in the presence of L.Ws.13, 14 under cover of Panchanama, dated 28.09.2010. That during the course of investigation, L.W.17 came to conclusion that basing on the material available on record and evidence of the witnesses, as no primafacie case is made against A10, A11, A14, A21, A22. Hence those names are not added to the accused list. That during the course of investigation, L.W.18 forwarded the seized material i.e., three cheques in Cr.No.139/2008 and 29 cheques concerned in this case to L.W.15 through Hon'ble AFJCM Court, Rayachoty for analysis and issue of FSL Report. That L.W.15 being Scientific Officer, APFSL, Hyderabad who examined the documents issued his opinion vide file No.DOC/13/20014, dt.7.4.2014 and opined that
The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S1 to S45 also wrote the red enclosed signatures marked Q1 to Q33. So, the accused committed offence punishable under
Sections 406, 420 of IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.
04. Basing on the charge sheet contents and upon perusal of material available on record, this Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC against
A1 to A9, A12, A13, A15 to A20. That on 30.04.2015, the case against A9 is abated, as he died.
05. On appearance of A1 to A8, A12, A13, A15 to A20, copies of documents is furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
06.When examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, A1 to A8, A12, A13, A15 to A20 denied the substance of accusation leveled against them. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, charges under Sections 406, 420 of IPC are framed against A1 to A8, A12,
A13, A15 to A20, read over and explained its contents in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.
8 C.C.No. 323/2014
07. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and Signature of
P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P.1. Original Account opening form of M.P.D.O, Chinnamandem
Mandal which includes the photo of A1/C. Narayana Reddy is marked as Ex.P2. 161 of Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 is marked as Ex.P3. Signature of P.W.7 on panchanama, dated 26.03.2010 is marked as Ex.P4. Signature of P.W.8 on panchanama, dated 26.03.2010 is marked as
Ex.P5. Signature of P.W.9 on panchanama, dated 11.01.2011 is marked as Ex.P6. Signature of P.W.10 on panchanama, dated 11.01.2011 is marked as Ex.P7. Panchanama, dated 28.09.2010 is marked as Ex.P8. 161 of Cr.P.C statement of P.W.13 is marked as Ex.P9.
Original FIR, dated 28.01.2009 is marked as Ex.P10. Memo/C.No.10/Crime/SDPOPDL/09 is marked as Ex.P11. 32 Cheques bearing Nos. 631238, 630792, 630791, 630303, 631535, 630818, 630524, 631556, 631564, 631617, 631069, 631393, 631299, 631372, 631103, 631552, 629590, 631541, 631058, 630806, 629595, 630771, 631262, 630332, 631089, 629798, 630333, 631593, 631533, 629796, 631563, 631534 of State Bank of India for an amount of Rs. 8466500, Rs.8220000, Rs.8200000, Rs.9200000, Rs.8422500, Rs.9642500,
Rs.8463000, Rs.8845000, Rs.9788200, Rs.6960700, Rs.4232300, Rs. 8223000, Rs. 77332 00, Rs.9369100, Rs.7928800, Rs.5607000, Rs.6200000, Rs.6325600, Rs.5868300,
Rs.5025800, Rs.6200000, Rs.7860000, Rs.8240000, Rs.8820000, Rs.8422500, Rs.86090 00, Rs.9820000, Rs.9625000, Rs.9860000, Rs.6210900, Rs.8340000 and Rs.8920000 respectively are marked as Ex.P12. 10 Voucher books of State Bank of India is marked as
Ex.P13. True copy of Panchanama, dated 23.03.2010 in between 1.00 P.M to 4.00 P.M is marked as Ex.P14. Panchanama, dated 26.03.2010 at 9.00 A.M is marked as Ex.P15.
Panchanama, dated 11.01.2011 at 5.00 P.M is marked as Ex.P16. FSL Report, dated 04.05.2010, File No. COM/28/2011 is marked as Ex.P17. FSL Report, dated 07.04.2014, File
No. DOC/13/2014 is marked as Ex.P18. One hard disk with Silver colour on one side and black and green colour on the other side is marked as M.O.1. The evidence of L.W.14/Shaik
Riyajul, Village Revenue Officer, Kalibanda Village, Chinnamandem Mandal, L.W.15/N.
Krishna Prasad, Scientific Officer, APFSL, Hyderabad and L.W.16/P.G.M. Khan, The then S.I of 9 C.C.No. 323/2014
Police, Chinnamandem P.S and L.W.18/G. Rajendra Prasad, Inspector of Police, Rayachoty
Rural Circle is given by Learned APP.
08. After closure of prosecution side evidence, A1 to A8, A12, A13, A15 to A20 are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence leveled against them for which they denied the same and stated no evidence on their behalf.
9.1. Heard arguments of Learned A.P.P and learned defence Counsel.
9.2. Learned A.P.P submitted that A1 is the prime accused in this case and Section 405 illustration (e) of IPC clearly states that a Revenue Officer who is entrusted with public money dishonestly misappropriates the money, the said Revenue Officer has committed the offence of
Criminal Breach of Trust and that the Authority of issuing Cheques with respect to the release of funds for the work done under MGNREGS Scheme is vested with M.P.D.O/A1 and that the
Signatures on Cheques is tallied with the signatures of A1 and that there is corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned APP further submitted that all the accused colluded and conspired with each other and committed this offence. Hence, prayed this Court to punish the accused according to Law.
9.3. Learned Counsel for A1, A3, A4, A18, A19, Sri C.P.K.R submitted written and oral arguments stating that A1 came to know that some cheques are issued without his knowledge and that the said cheques were encashed by the staff and so, he requested to take necessary action against the persons who are responsible for misappropriating the public money. That upon the report of A1 this case is registered but subsequently, A1 is made accused without any valid reasons. Learned Counsel further submitted that under Section 197 (1) of Cr.P.C, the sanction of Central or State Government is necessary for prosecuting a Public Servant and that
A1 is a Public Servant/Gazetted Officer but no sanction orders were obtained by the
Investigating Officer and so, according to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the case of prosecution case is rendered void ab initio for lack of sanctioning orders. Learned Counsel further submitted that the ‘Doctrine 10 C.C.No. 323/2014 of Double Jeopardy’ states that no one should be put twice in peril for the same offence and that in this alleged offence, two crimes were registered i.e., Cr.No. 139/2008 and Cr.No.
13/2009 basing on the same cause of action at the same Police Station and have been investigated by the same investigating officer and that it is a gross violation of criminal jurisprudence as declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Vs. P.D. Yadav, 2001. It is further submitted that the charges under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC do not go together as they are antithetical to each other as stated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
N. Raghavender Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI. It is also submitted that Expert Opinion is not a conclusive prove of guilt as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Magan Bihari Lal
Vs. State of Punjab, 1977 2 SCC 210, Forest Range Officer Vs. P. Mohammad Ali and Muralilal
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. That there is no corroborative evidence/circumstantial evidence other than expert opinion against A1 and that A1 is no way connected to the so called 32 illegally encashed cheques and that A1 is neither aware of the fraud nor derived any pecuniary benefits from the fraud and that police did not give clarity on the number of cheques illegally encashed and about the total amount that was illegally withdrawn and that there is no clarity on the modus operandi of the perpetrators. That the police has not conclusively established the guilt of A1 herein. It is further submitted that in the Charge sheet filed in Crime
No.139/2008 in C.C.No.408/2014, the investigating officer mentioned that signature of Al is not found in cheque No.630792 entered on 09.06.2008 for a sum of Rs.50,00,104 issued in the name SubPost Master, Chinnamandem and that likewise, cheque No.631238 was entered on 26.06.2008 for sum of Rs.39,734/ issued the name of Village Organization, Chinnanarsupalli, the signature of A1 is not found. That previously, SubPost Master for entrusted cheques along with the muster rolls, the SubPost Master has to draw the amount and disburse the amount to the muster roll persons and that subsequently, the disbursement work is entrusted to Village Organization and self help groups and that in the same charge sheet, the cheques bearing No.630791 was issued on 20082008 in the name Village Organization,
Chinnanarsupalli for Rs.8,90,200/ and that the other cheques bearing No.630792 was issued on 22.08.2008 for Rs.83,400/ in the name of M. Ramesh Reddy and that it is mentioned in 11 C.C.No. 323/2014 the charge sheet that the cheques are duly signed by A1 but the two cheques were not signed by A1 but prosecution changed its version. It is further submitted that P.W.1 stated in his evidence that P.W.2 and investigating officer collected amounts from A2, A5, A7 and A13 but the said amount was not deposited to the Government and so, the real culprits are the investigating officer and P.W.2 who misappropriated money without depositing the same in
Government Account. Learned defence Counsel further submitted that A17, A18, A22, A24,
A31 who are Field Assistants and Leaders Self Help Groups of their respective villagers have no role either in generating or issuing of cheques and that there is no iota of evidence to hold
A22, A24 are guilty. It is also submitted that A17, A18, A31 have nothing to do with the execution and measuring of work, generating or issuing of cheques and that the leaders of Self
Help Groups honestly disbursed the amount to the coolies and that no report is given against the Self Help Groups of A17, A18, A31. Learned Counsel further submitted that the core principle of our Criminal Jurisprudence is that 100 culprits may be acquitted but one innocent can not be convicted without proper evidence. Hence, prayed this Court to acquit the accused as prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused.
9.4. Learned Counsel for A2, A6, A7, A8 Sri M.V.R submitted that there is 32 days of delay in registering the crime and that there is a correction near the date 28.01.2009 in the report but there is no explanation for it by prosecution. That A15, A28, A29 are laborers and there passbooks will be available in the M.P.D.O Office. That police created false case and that there is a whole cloud of doubt which encompasses the prosecution story. That A1 is related to
Cheques but not A15, A28, A29. Learned Counsel submitted the Citation – Murali Lal Gupta
Vs. Gobi Singh SC, dated 25.10.2005 in support of his arguments. Hence, prayed this Court to acquit the accused.
9.5. Learned Counsel for A13 Sri M.K.B submitted that the investigating officer did not recover anything from A10 and that A10 is a Technical Assistant and that there are no specific allegations against him. That due to Political influence, police intentionally deleted the names of real culprits. Hence, prayed this Court to acquit the accused.
12 C.C.No. 323/2014 9.6. Learned defence Counsel for A5, A12 Sri T.E submitted that both the accused are laborers and that the question of misappropriation of funds does not arise against them as they are custodian of amount and that they did not withdraw any amount at any point of time and that the Investigating Officer did not prove that A5 and A12 colluded with other accused in committing the offence. Hence, prayed this Court to acquit the accused.
9.7. Learned defence Counsel for A15, A16, A17, Sri V.C.R.R adopted the cross examination of Learned defence Counsel Sri C.P.K.R.
9.8. In reply arguments, Learned APP submitted that the Judgments submitted by Learned defence Counsels can not be made applicable to this case. That only at the time of discharge,
Section 406 and Section 420 of IPC can not be clubbed together but not at this stage. That sanction orders for prosecuting a Government Servant is necessary at the time when an offence is committed in the individual capacity but her the offence is committed by A1 in his official capacity and so, Sanction Orders are not necessary. That Authority of issuing a cheque is only vested with M.P.D.O/A1 and so, there is no necessity of corroboration and that ‘Man may speak false, but document do not speak false’. That depositing amount to the Government will be looked into at the time of Departmental Enquiry but it can not be proved by the prosecution and that roles of each accused is mentioned in the charge sheet and that cheques are not issued for welfare of people. Hence, submitted that prosecution successfully proved the guilt of accused and prayed to punish the accused according to Law.
10. The point for determination is "Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A8, A12, A13, A15 to A20 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, or not?” 11.1. Answer to Point:
In his chiefexamination, P.W.1 deposed in similar lines as mentioned in Para No. 2.1.
P.W.1 further deposed as per the information received by him on 17122008, he went to
M.P.D.O Office, Chinnamandem Mandal for checking. That he checked ‘Uadhihamipathakam 13 C.C.No. 323/2014
Register’ and that he found discrepancies in the same. That for verifying the cheques issued by
M.P.D.O for the past five months, he went to State Bank of India, Chinnamandem Branch and collected the information. That basing on the said information, he again verified the cheques which were issued in the said M.P.D.O Office and found that 32 cheques to an amount of Rs.
25,40,489/ was misappropriated and that no records were maintained with respect to the said amount. That he enquired concerned Computer Operator Gangadharam i.e., A2 of MPDO office for which he replied him that he is the custodian of cheque book and that he had issued three return cheques and three empty cheques to the Field Assistant of Chinnanarusupalli
Grama panchayath/A4, another three return cheques and two empty cheques were given to the Field Assistant of Malluru Grama pancahyath/A3. That A2 also stated to him that he gave eleven cheques to A3 and A4 without maintaining any record and that some cheques from the
Office were subjected to theft but he/A2 did not inform either to the bank officials or police officials. That he gave report against 13 accused and that it was signed by him.
11.2. That P.W.1 also enquired with Chennanarusupalli and Malluru Village Organization executive members, i.e., President, Secretary, Treasurer and one inmate who stated to him that the said amount was given to Field Assistant for execution of work. That an amount of
Rs.7,10,000/ is disbursed through 11 cheques and out of that amount, Rs.2,43,000/ is dispersed to the husband of Sarpanch by name K. Anwar Basha. That an amount of
Rs.1,86,000/ is disbursed to A7. That the said Anwar Basha and A7 are not concerned to these works. That balance amount is took by A3. That a cheque to an amount of approximately Rs.76,000/ is issued to one Venkata Subba Reddy. That 11 cheques to an amount of Rs.6,43,000/ was issued to A6 and that 11 cheques to an amount of Rs.9,73,000/ were issued to A5 and that A3, A5, A6 and one Venkata Subba Reddy are not concerned with these works. That when he tried to know about the whereabouts of those persons, he found that they were absconding. Thus, he suspected the integrity of M.P.D.O and his staff. That he was examined by the police.
14 C.C.No. 323/2014 11.3. P.W.1, in his cross examination denied the suggestion that he did not mention the names of accused in Ex.P1 intentionally. P.W.1 added that he enclosed the details separately and gave it to the police along with Ex.P1. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the signature of
A1 is not there on any of the cheques. P.W.1 added that Bank authorities verified and confirmed that the signatures on the cheques belongs to A1. P.W.1 stated that by the time of his enquiry, the cheques were there with Bank authorities and so, he did not verify the said cheques and the signatures on those cheques. P.W.1 admitted that in his chief examination he mentioned about the word ‘Written Cheque’ and ‘Empty Cheques’ and that he said those words with a meaning that written cheque means the cheque in which entries are made and empty cheques means where the entries are kept blank and that he mentioned the word written cheques with a spelling “Written” but not ‘return’. P.W.1 admitted that the custodian of cheques was A2/Godugu Gangadharam. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he received
Rs.1,00,000/ from A7/P.Surendra, Rs.37,000/ from A6/Pathika Ravindra, Rs.15,000/ from
A2/Godugu Gangadharam, Rs.26,000/ from A8/K.Venkata Ramana, Rs.2,49,360/ from
A13/B.Chandra Sekhar. P.W.1 added that when A7, A5, A2, A8, A13 came to him and requested him that they will deposit the amount, he stated to them that Ex.P1 is given to the police and that they should deposit the amount before enquiry officer or MPDO,
Chinnamandem and upon that they deposited the amount before enquiry officer and in the presence of the then MPDO, Chinnamandem/Mali Reddy and that A13 did not come on the date of enquiry and that A13 did not come to police station and so, he do not know whether
A13 deposited amount, or not. P.W.1 admitted that one Anwar Basha, husband of one Ex
Sarpanch was also involved in this misappropriation and that he was not questioned by the police about the said Anwar Basha. P.W.1 further admitted that he did not mention either in
Ex.P1 or in his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C about the offence committed by A13/Chandra Sekhar. He denied the suggestions put to him.
12.1. In his chief examination, P.W.2 deposed that in the year 2008, Computer operator by name Gangadhar, Technical Assistant by name Chandrasekhar, Field Assistants by name 15 C.C.No. 323/2014
Ramanjaneyulu, Sekhar and some other persons who are approximately 13 in number who worked as Field Assistants and computer operators misappropriated NREGS Funds. Upon the instructions of PW.1, he handed over the concerned cheque books and counter files to the then Inspector of Police, Chinnamandem PS. That approximately he handed over 34 to 38 cheques to the police and that he do not remember the cheque numbers. That at the time of this case, his work is to maintain Cheque Issue Register, counter files and to give wages to wage seekers for the work done under MGNREGS and that they use to give every week or once in 15 days by way of cheques with the signature of concerned M.P.D.O. That a Social
Audit will be conducted and in the said audit, they will verify whether the cheque amount reached to the beneficiary, or not. That in this case, an amount of Rs.25,00,000/ that belongs to wage seekers was misappropriated. That he was examined by the Police.
12.2. P.W.2, in his cross examination by Learned Counsel for A1, stated that he was examined by the Police on 05.09.2009 and that P.W.1 consulted him before giving Ex.P1. P.W.2 stated that the custodian of cheques is the Computer Operator. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that
A8/Kommu Venkata Ramana and A6, A7 gave him Rs.26,000/, Rs.37,000/ and
Rs.1,00,000/ respectively. He denied the other suggestions put to him.
12.3. P.W.2, in his cross examination by Learned Counsel for A2, A5, A6, A7, A8, A12 denied the suggestion that A2 can not verify the cheques as he is physically handicapped and denied the suggestions that the accused were falsely implicated in this case due to political influence.
P.W.2 added that the accused Chandra Sekhar is suspended at that time.
12.4. P.W.2, in his cross examination by Learned Counsel for A13 admitted that he did not specifically about A13 during his examination by the police and denied the other suggestions put to him.
12.5. Learned Counsels for A5, A12, A4, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20 adopted the cross examined of A1. P.W.2 further admitted that there is a gap of one month in giving Ex.P1.
16 C.C.No. 323/2014 13.1. In his chief examination, P.W.3 deposed that on 30.09.2009 police came to him and gave him some cheques and asked for photostat copies of the payment made with respect to the said cheques and vouchers and upon that he provided the same along with account opening forms. That 11 cheques were with respect to Malluru Grama Samakya and 7 cheques with respect to Chinnanarusupalli Grama Samakya and that the said cheques are related to
MPDO, Chinnamandem with respect to the account number 11570872003. That the said cheques were issued with respect to three accounts – Chinna Narasulpalli Grama Samakya,
Malluru Graman Samakya and one Madha Ramesh Reddy. That the total amount of Chinna
Narasupalli Grama Samakya is Rs.89,200/ and that the total amount of Mallur Grama
Samakya is Rs.1,25,765/. That Ex.P2 is the Original Account opening form of MPDO,
Chinnamandem Mandal which includes the photo of A1/C. Narayana Reddy. That he was examined by the Police.
13.2. P.W.3, in his cross examination stated that when an amount crosses the limit of
Rs.10,00,000/, cheque should be passed by two officers and that he provided the payment and cheque issue dates to the police by way of an Excel Sheet. P.W.3 admitted that the cheques were encashed after five to six months when compared to the date mentioned on the cheques. He denied the suggestions put to him.
14.1. In his chief examination, P.W.4 deposed that on 12.10.2009 one Inspector of police came to him and he was told that a cheque amount from MPDO office, Chinnamandem is credited into the account of one L. Venkata Subba Reddy who is having account in the branch of State Bank of India, Galiveedu and asked him to verify the said account. That he verified the same and told that amount is credited into that account and the said transaction occurred in Chinnamandem and that subsequently, the said amount is withdrawn through ATM. That he was examined by the police.
14.2. P.W.4, is not cross examined by learned defence counsels.
17 C.C.No. 323/2014 15.1. In his chief examination, P.W.5 deposed that this case was registered during his predecessor time/P.W.3. That after his joining in Chinnamandem Branch, Inspector of Police gave him some data i.e., Cheque numbers, account numbers and requested him to provide originals of the same and upon that he submitted the same. That he do not remember the exact number of cheques but it might be approximately 30 in number. That the said cheques are issued by MPDO, Chinnamandem and that he do not remember name of the said MPDO and about the total amount mentioned in the said cheques. That he was examined by the police.
15.2. P.W.5, in his cross examination stated that he do not know about issuing of cheque books in this case and that he do not know any details about the said cheque books. P.W.5 admitted that the cheques will be honoured after tallying with specimen signatures. P.W.5 stated that he handed cheques to the police as some fraud is committed.
16.1. In his chief examination, P.W.11 deposed that this case was registered as NREGS Funds which belongs to M.P.D.O Office, Chinnamandem was transferred into the account of A6 and that A6 is an Account holder in S.B.I Main Branch, Rayachoty. That an amount of approximately Rs.6,34,000/ under seven cheques was transferred into the account of A6.
That A6 might presented the said cheques in S.B.I, Rayachoty. That police took photostat copies of bank account passbooks, account opening form of A6, cheques in which the amount was credited. That he was examined by the police.
16.2. P.W.11, in his cross examination stated he did not give original cheques to the police and that he do not remember whether he gave withdrawal forms to the police, or not. He denied the suggestions put to him.
17.1. In his chief examination, P.W.12 deposed that on 28.09.2010 while he was present in his office, Inspector of Police by name Ravi kumar called him and upon that, he went to MPDO office, Chinnamandem and that in the presence of himself and L.W.14, the said Inspector of
Police seized one hard disc from Computer Pperators working in MPDO office, Chinnamandem 18 C.C.No. 323/2014 under cover of panchanama. That the names of the said two computer operators are Ramesh and Venkata subba reddy. That he along with LW.14 gave their signatures on the panchanama after knowing its contents.
17.2. P.W.12, in his cross examination stated that he do not know the contents of the said hard disk/M.O.1 and that at the time of seizing M.O.1, M.P.D.O was not present in his office and that he do not know whether permission of M.P.D.O is needed to seize Hard Disk, or not.
P.W.12 further stated that at around 5.30 P.M, two constables came to him and requested to act as mediator and that Ex.P8 is drafted by one Constable and that on the said hard disk, it is mentioned that “Made in Thailand”. P.W.12 also stated that he did not give any signature on
M.O.1 as there is no label on it. He denied the other suggestions put to him.
18. P.W.13 did not support the case of prosecution but deposed that previously, he worked as
Computer Operator in M.P.D.O Office, Chinnamandem from February, 2008 to July, 2008 i.e., for 5 to 6 months and that he received a memo from Head Office wherein it is mentioned that his services are Temporarily stopped and that he did not receive any letter till date stating that
Head Office reinstated him.
19. P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 did not support the case of prosecution. P.Ws.7 and 8 admitted their signatures/Exs.P4, P5 on Panchanama, dated 26.03.2010. P.Ws.9 and 10 admitted their signatures/Exs.P6, P7 on Panchanama, dated 11.01.2011.
20.1. in his chief examination, P.W.14 deposed in similar lines as mentioned in Para Nos. 3.2 to 3.4.
20.2. P.W.14, in his cross examination stated that he deleted the names of L.V. Subba Reddy and Anwar Basha which are mentioned in Ex.P1 as they did not involve in the misappropriation of NREGS Funds and that he did not investigate whether the amount repaid by accused was remitted to M.P.D.O or A.P.O, or not. P.W.14 admitted that he did not completed the investigation within four months as per the directions issued by Hon’ble High 19 C.C.No. 323/2014
Court of Andhra Pradesh vide Writ Petition No. 9994 of 2012, dated 17.08.2012 as they did not receive the documents. P.W.14 also stated that he did not seize Muster Rolls and that he did not investigate in that lines. P.W.14 admitted that two crimes were registered for the same offence and that he investigated both the crimes and that the accused were arrested twice for the same offence which is illegal. He denied the suggestions put to him.
21.To bring home the offence under Section 406 of IPC, the ingredients of entrustment with property, having domain over it, and the same having been misappropriated or converted to his own use by the accused person, are required to be proved.
22. The following are the essential ingredients to constitute offence under Section 420 of I.P.C
(i) There must be deception i.e., the accused must have deceived some;
(ii) That by the said deception. The accused must induce a person,
(a) to deliver any property; or
(b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property.
(iii) That the accused did so dishonestly.
23. Perused the material available on record.
24. The prime defence by the learned defence counsels are – That initially, on 17.12.2008 at 1.30 P.M, A1/C. Narayana Reddy gave report in
Chinnamandem P.S stating that misappropriation of funds under MGNREGS Scheme took place in M.P.D.O Office, Chinnamandem Mandal and that without his consent and involvement, Computer Operators colluded with outsiders and made some cheques disappear but later, without obtaining any prosecuting orders from the higher authorities, he was made as accused which is violation of procedure prescribed under law 20 C.C.No. 323/2014 That C.C.No.408/2014 on the file of this Court is also registered against the same accused in this case and that all the accused were arrested in that case also which amounts to double jeopardy and which is gross violation of fundamental rights of the accused
25. It is the contention of the prosecution that Accused No.1 committed misappropriation of funds under MGNREG Scheme and issued cheques for wrongful gain. As submitted by
Learned APP, misappropriation does not come under ‘performing official duties.’ The same is also held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P. Arulswami Vs. The State of Madras, 1966.
So, as contended by the learned defence counsel, it is not mandatory to get sanction orders under Section 197 (1) of Cr.P.C for initiating prosecution against accused No.1.
The other contention of learned defence counsel is that as all the accused were arrested both in C.C.No.408/2014 and C.C.No.323/2014, it amounts to double jeopardy. It is alleged by the prosecution that each seized cheque is issued on different dates and for different purpose. This Court opines that preparing and signing of each cheque gives separate cause of action and so, the question of double jeopardy does not arise. Infact, a separate crime can be registered for each cheque which was prepared and signed for wrongful gain.
26. The contention of the prosecution is that the accused conspired together and misappropriated the funds of MGNREG Scheme. To prove the same, the prosecution marked
Ex.P8 on its behalf in C.C.No.408/2014 on the file of this Court. Upon combined perusal of
Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 in this case and Ex.P8 in the aforementioned case, no inference can be drawn that A1 to A8, A12, A13, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20 conspired together and committed misappropriation of funds under MGNREG Scheme. As submitted by prosecution, the amount mentioned in Ex.P12 and P13 are not tallied with Ex.P8 marked in
C.C.No.408/2014. But as submitted by learned defence counsels, the prosecution did not submit any documents to prove that A1 to A8, A12, A13, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20 were on duty and also with a dishonest intention mentioned the wrong amount in cheques for 21 C.C.No. 323/2014 wrongful gain. Any document related to the details of amount of work done were not seized by the investigating officer.
27. Upon considering the evidence of P.W.1, it can be inferred that Assistant Programming
Officer generates pay order, prepares the cheque and submits the same to MPDO along with
MBook. As submitted by learned defence counsels, in this case, the role of Assistant
Programming Officer with regard to Ex.P12 and P13 in this case and Ex.P8 in
C.C.No.408/2014 is not mentioned by the prosecution. There is no whisper about the role of
A.P.O in the material available on record and the concerned A.P.O is not also cited atleast as a witness.
28. P.W.6, in his cross examination in C.C.No.408/2014 admitted that on two cheques which were seized, the signature of one Mallireddi, M.P.D.O, who is the predecessor of Accused No.1 is present but the said Mallireddi is not made an accused in this case. P.W.6 added that though the said Mallireddi signed those cheques, the said cheques are revalidated by Accused
No.1 and so, the said Mallireddi is not made as an accused. The version of P.W.6 cannot be accepted because if it is presumed that re validating a cheque which is issued with a dishonest intention constitutes an offence, then automatically issuing the said cheque also constitutes into an offence as it is initially issued with a dishonest intention.
29. It is also admitted by P.W.6 in his cross examination that in the alleged confession statement of (A2, A6, A7 in the present case) A15, A28, A29 on 21.04.2010 at 9.00 A.M in
C.C.No.408/2014 it is mentioned that P.W.1 Chella Nagabhusanam and aforementioned
Mallireddi who is successor of Accused No.1 told A15, A28, A29 to give them money and that they will take care that no criminal case will be laid against them and accordingly, A15, A28,
A29 paid Rs.15,000/, Rs.37,000/, Rs.1,00,000/ respectively. P.W.6 further stated that he does not know whether the said amount is deposited in Government account or not and that they did not investigate in those lines. The said version of P.W.6 raises suspicion about the entire manner of investigation done by him. Moreover, the report given by accused No.1 is 22 C.C.No. 323/2014 found in the record but the report given by P.W.1 is not found in the entire material available on record of this Court in C.C.No.408/2014.
30. It is also an admitted fact that initially, the report in this case is given by Accused No.1 and later, he was made accused and that some of the accused mentioned by accused no.1 in his report, dated 17.12.2008 were deleted later. P.W.6 stated in his cross examination that some of the accused were deleted as there is no incriminating evidence against them but P.W.6 did not mention the grounds which made him to believe the said accused did not commit the offence. Most importantly, there is no reasonable explanation from the prosecution with regard to the reason for giving the status of accused to C. Narayana Reddy who was initially the defactocomplainant in this case. As submitted by learned defence counsel, even though this crime is registered basing on the report given by accused No.1, the said report and its contents were totally suppressed by the investigating officer without plausible explanation.
31. It is merely alleged that wage seekers, mates, animators also cheated by receiving the funds under MGNREG Scheme but no single piece of document is placed before this Court to prove that they received the said misappropriated funds with a dishonest intention.
32. It is submitted by the prosecution that the data available in the computer at M.P.D.O office, Chinnamandem is seized and the contents are copied into a hard disc. The said hard disc is marked as M.O.1. This Court tried to view the contents in the said M.O.1 but they are not displayed and so, the said M.O.1 serve no purpose.
33. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the prosecution is not successful in establishing that A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A12, A13, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 460 r/w 34 of IPC and A1, A2,
A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A12, A13, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 409 r/w 34 of IPC in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. So, A1 to A8, A12, A13, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20 are entitled to benefit of doubt.
23 C.C.No. 323/2014
34. In the result, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A12, A13, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A12, A13, A15,
A16, A17, A18, A19, A20 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 409 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/ A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A12, A13, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20 with that of their sureties shall remain in force until expiry of appeal time as per Section 437 A of
Cr.P.C.
M.O.1 and the unmarked case property in this case shall be treated as documents and shall be preserved on par with the documents which are preserved in warrant cases.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 9th day of September, 2024.
Sd/ Dr. K. Sarada
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rayachoty.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution
P.W.1 : Chella Nagabhushanam, The then Assistant Project Director, DWAMA, Rayachoty.
P.W.2 : Annareddi Mal Reddi, Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Rayachoty Mandal, i/c Chinnamandem Mandal.
P.W.3 : Chintala Sreenivasulu Reddi, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chinnamandem Branch.
P.W.4: B. B. Gopinath, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Galiveedu Branch.
P.W.5: Palagiri Hemasekhar Raju, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, 24 C.C.No. 323/2014
Chinnamandem Branch. P.W.6: Manchinti Madhukar Reddi
P.W.7: Avula Chandra Reddi
P.W.8: Bhumsani Venkatarami Reddi
P.W.9: Devubayeegari Ahammad Basha
P.W.10: Dugganapalli Rama Subba Reddi
P.W.11: N. Venkataiah, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Rayachoty Branch.
P.W.12: Varagam Sreedhar Reddi, Village Revenue Officer, Chinnamandem Village, Chinnamandem Mandal.
P.W.13: Shaik Khadeerulla, Previously worked as Computer Operator, MPDO Office, Chinnamandem Mandal.
P.W.14: K. Ravi Kumar, The then Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Rural Circle.
For Accused: NIL
No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :
Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Report of C.H.Nagabhushanam
Ex.P.2: Original Account opening form of M.P.D.O, Chinnamandem Mandal which includes the photo of A1/C. Narayana Reddy
Ex.P.3: 161 of Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6
Ex.P.4: Signature of P.W.7 on panchanama, dated 26.03.2010
Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W.8 on panchanama, dated 26.03.2010
Ex.P.6: Signature of P.W.9 on panchanama, dated 11.01.2011
Ex.P.7: Signature of P.W.10 on panchanama, dated 11.01.2011
Ex.P.8: Panchanama, dated 28.09.2010
Ex.P.9: 161 of Cr.P.C statement of P.W.13
Ex.P.10: Original FIR, dated 28.01.2009
Ex.P.11: Memo/C.No.10/Crime/SDPOPDL/09
Ex.P.12: 32 Cheques of State Bank of India 25 C.C.No. 323/2014
Ex.P.13: 10 Voucher books of State Bank of India
Ex.P.14: True copy of Panchanama, dated 23.03.2010 in between 1.00 P.M to 4.00 P.M
Ex.P.15: Panchanama, dated 26.03.2010 at 9.00 A.M
Ex.P.16: Panchanama, dated 11.01.2011 at 5.00 P.M.
Ex.P.17: FSL Report, dated 04.05.2012, File No. COM/28/2011
Ex.P.18: FSL Report, dated 07.04.2014, File No. DOC/13/2014
Accused: NIL
No. of Material Objects Marked
M.O.1: One hard disk with Silver color on one side and black and green colour on the other side.
Sd/ Dr. K. Sarada
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rayachoty.
26 C.C.No. 323/2014
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rayachoty.
Date of Offence: Prior to 20.12.2008
Date of report or complaint: : 28.01.2009
Date of apprehension of accused: 05.09.2011 (A1Anticipatory bail) 28.04.2010 (A2, A6, A7) 15.03.2010 (A3, A5) 26.11.2010 (A4 Anticipatory bail) 26.03.2010 (A8) 30.03.2009 (A12) 12.01.2011 (A13) 20.10.2010 (A15, A16, A17) 15.11.2010 (A18, A19, A20)
Date release on bail, if any: 05.08.2010 (A2) 26.03.2010 (A3, A5) 02.12.2010 (A4) 05.05.2010 (A6, A7) 06.04.2010 (A8) 02.04.2009 (A12) 18.01.2011 (A13) 22.10.2010 (A15, A16, A17) 22.11.2010 (A18, A19, A20)
Date of commencement of trial : 15.03.2016
Close of trial: 17.07.2023
Date of sentence or other order : 09.09.2024
Explanation of delay and remarks: There is no regular appearance of accused before this Court. Meanwhile, NBW’s were issued against some of the accused and they were pending for a long time. After posting for Judgment, this case is reopened for framing of charges under Section 409 of IPC against the accused. Hence, the delay. _________________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.323/2014 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.
Complainant : State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Rural Circle. ________________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name
1) Chireddy Narayana Reddy, S/o Subbareddy, age 55 years, Mandal Parishad Development 27 C.C.No. 323/2014
Officer, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A1)
2) Godugu Gangadharam, S/o Sankaraiah, age 30 years, Resident of D.No. 3/656, Raja Reddy Street, Kadapa City, Computer Operator, MPDO Office, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A2)
3) Dadineni Ramanjulu, S/o Gangulappa, age 27 years, Field Assistant, Malluru Village, Resident of Gangireddipalli, h/o Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A3)
4) Busara Sekhar, S/o Krishnaiah, age 25 years, Field Assistant, Resident of Chinnarsupalli Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A4)
5) Mada Ramesh Reddy, S/o Reddanna, age 39 years, Resident of Kadirivandlapalli, h/o Vandadi Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A5)
6) Pathika Ravindra, S/o Naganna, age 26 years, Resident of Thottikada Harijanawada, h/o Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A6)
7) Pathika Surendra, S/o Reddanna, age 28 years, Resident of Thottikada Harijanawada, h/o Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A7)
8) Kommu Venkata Ramana, S/o Ramanna, age 29 years, Animator, Resident of Thottikadapalle Harijanawada, h/o Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A8)
9) Edagotti Venkata Ramana, S/o Ramaiah, age 37 years, Resident of Nadigaddapalli Kummarapalli, h/o Padamatikona Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A9)
10) Vijayanagaram Ramachandra, S/o Naga Subbanna, age 34 years, Resident of Sriram Nagar Colony, Kothapalli Panchayat, Chinnamandal Mandal. (A12)
11) Brahmanapalli Chandra Sekhar, S/o Lakshmi Narasaiah, age 30 years, Resident of Kothapeta Ramapuram, Rayachoty Town, Working as Technical Assistant, MPDO Office, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A13)
12) Sakibanda Kumari, W/o Narayana, age 32 years, Resident of Eguvagadda Harijanawada, h/o Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A15)
13) Allam Anjali Devi, W/o Krishnareddy, age 23 years, Resident of Kodidapalli, h/o Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A16)
14) Goguladinne Dhanamma, W/o Venkatesu, age 38 years, Resident of Malluru Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A17)
15) Jaripiti Akkaiah, W/o Gangaraju, age 42 years, Resident of Vaddepalli, h/o Chinnarsupalli Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A18)
16) Kopuri Kumari, W/o Sekhar, age 52 years, Resident of Kammapalli, h/o Chinnarsupalli Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A19)
17) Abburi Sarojamma, W/o Venkata Ramana, age 48 years, Resident of Kammapalli, h/o Chinnarsupalli Village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A20)
Note: The case against A9 is abated, as he died.
Offence:under Sections 406, 420, 409 of IPC.
28 C.C.No. 323/2014
Finding:Not guilty Sentence: In the result, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A12, A13, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19,
A20 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 460 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A12, A13,
A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 409 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/ A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A12, A13, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A20 with that of their sureties shall remain in force until expiry of appeal time as per Section 437 A of
Cr.P.C.
M.O.1 and the unmarked case property in this case shall be treated as documents and shall be preserved on par with the documents which are preserved in warrant cases.
Sd/ Dr. K. Sarada
AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rayachoty. Copy submitted to:
The Hon’ble I Addl., District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.