1
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI. K. SERAN TEJA
III ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
NALGONDA
(Dated this the 24th day of April, 2026)
C.C. No. 324 of 2015
BETWEEN:
The State of Telangana through, Station House Officer, Munugode.
…Prosecution
AND
Accused : Munugoti Durgaiah S/o. Ramulu Age: 40 years, Caste:
Mangali, Occ:Barber, R/o. Munugode (V) and (M).
…Accused
Offences Under Section 468, 471 IPC.
This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri M.Lenin Babu, learned Legal Aid counsel for the Accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This is a case filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Munugode in
Crime No. 151 of 2014 for the offences U/Secs. 468, 471 IPC.
2.The Brief Facts of the case are that on 17.10.2014 at 1800 hours the complainant Sri. Y.Srinivas Reddy, Tahasildar, Munugode Mandal came to PS and lodged Telugu typed petition stating that the Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad of Domalapally branch has sent Title Deed (Bhu 2
Yajamanya Hakku Patram) and Genuine certificate pertaining to land in
Sy.No. 136 and 137 of Pulipalupula Village of Munugode Mandal and its
TD.No. 202131, Village A/c No. 288. He also stated that on perusal of records it is revealed that Munugoti Durgaiah S/o. Ramulu is not a pattedar of the land and on perusal of form – 17, it is revealed that forged title deed is made and on 13.10.2014 the said Munugoti Durgaiah has forged the signatures of Tahasildar Munugode and VRO Puliplupula accordingly. He requested for legal action against Munugoti Durgaiah.
3.During the course of investigation the PW.4 visited the MRO office, examined and recorded the statements of Tahasildar, Munugode as LW.1 and VRO Pulipalupula as LW.2 and incorporated the same in CD Part-II.
On 19.10.2014 PW.4 examined and recorded the statements of SBH
Branch Manager, Domalapally as LW.3. on 21.10.2014 the accused has surrendered before the Hon’ble JFCM Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda.
During the course of investigation accused was ready to confess the guilt.
On that PW.4 secured the presence of LW.4 and 5 and recorded the confessional statement.
4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 468, 471 IPC against the accused and on appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated
U/Sec. 230 B.N.S.S.
5.The charge under section 468, 471 IPC are framed against the accused and the contents of the charge are read over and explained to the accused in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be 3 tried.
6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to
PW.5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P17. LW.4/Bommidikayala Sathaiah and LW.5/Mogudala Yadaiah, reported died so the evidences of
LW.4/Bommidikayala Sathaiah and LW.5/Mogudala Yadaiah was closed as per the Docket Dt.09.03.2026. Upon closure of prosecution evidence accused are examined U/sec., 313 Cr.P.C examination and the accused has reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence has been closed.
7.Heard the arguments of both the learned counsels and framed the following point for determination.
“Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused
for the offence under sections 468,471 of Indian Penal Code
beyond reasonable doubt?”
8.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined
PW1 to PW5, of whom PW1 and PW2 were cited as witnesses to the alleged offence. Upon perusal of the deposition of PW1, it is observed that, in his chief examination, he stated that on 17-10-2014, the Branch
Manager of SBH, Domalapally, requested him to issue a genuineness certificate with respect to a passbook presented by the accused for obtaining a crop loan. Upon examination of the said documents, he formed an opinion that the signatures of the Tahsildar were forged, and accordingly, he lodged a report before PS Munugodu. From the cross-examination of PW1, it is evident that the defence counsel did not 4 challenge the material facts of the case, except by putting forth mere suggestions, which were denied by PW1.
9.Upon perusal of the chief examination of PW2, it is observed that he stated that, pursuant to a letter issued by PW3 to PW1 for verification of the genuineness of the documents, PW1 instructed him to verify the same. Upon such verification, he found that the signatures on the documents were forged and reported the same to PW1. From the cross-examination of PW2, it is evident that the defence counsel could not elicit any material to enable this Court to draw a negative inference.
10.Upon perusal of the chief examination of PW3, it is observed that he stated that, in October 2014, the accused approached him for renewal of a crop loan, for which he directed the accused to obtain a genuineness certificate from the Tahsildar of Munugode. The accused produced the same, and upon issuing a letter to PW1 for verification, PW1 informed him that the signatures were forged. Thereafter, he issued a letter to the
Station House Officer of PS Munugode. Apart from mere suggestions, nothing substantial was elicited by the defence counsel during the cross-examination of PW3.
11.PW4 is the first Investigation officer in this case and he deposed that on 17.10.2014 at 18.00 hours he received a report from PW.1 register a case in Cr.No. 151/2014, U/Sec. 468, 471 of IPC. Ex.P-5 is
FIR. On the Instructions of superior officer, he took up the investigation, he visited the MRO office and recorded the statement of PW.1, PW.2.
There after he also examined PW.3. Later on 21.01.2014 the accused 5 surrendered before Hon’ble JFCM, Spl. Mobile Court, and sent to Judicial
Custody. He filed a requisition before the Hon’ble Court for police custody for interrogation. Upon police custody he secured the Lw.4 and Lw.5 and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused. On admission of commission of offence and he seized one pass book, bearing
No. V-202131 and same is produced before the Hon’ble Court on 31.10.2014. Subsequently this case file is handed over to PW.5. Ex.P.6 –
Marked portion of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P.7 – Seizure report Ex.P.8 – Pass book. MO.1 is Fake stamp seal seized from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama.
12.From the cross-examination of PW4 by the defence counsel, it is evident that PW4 admitted certain discrepancies in the First Information
Report with regard to the time, age, caste, and profession of the accused.
At this stage, this Court is of the opinion that such discrepancies are minor in nature and do not cast any doubt on the veracity of the testimony of PW4. Furthermore, these discrepancies, by themselves, do not disrupt the overall chain of events. Except for a few suggestions, the cross-examination of PW4 was completed without eliciting any material that would discredit the deposition of PW4 in the chief examination.
13. PW5 is the first Investigation officer, who had filed police report in this case deposed that on 02.11.2014 he had received the CD file from
Pw.4 verified and found it in proper line of investigation done by the PW.4 and during the course of investigation he forwarded the documents i.e.,
1. Pattedhar passbook Genuinity certificate dated 13.10.2014 belongs to 6 accused Munugode Durgaiah in which signature of collected from PW.1.
He had collected documents from the MRO/Tahasildar office:
Ex.P.9 to P.13. Subsequently he requested the Hon’ble Court to take specimen signatures of PW.1, PW.2 and accused and the same are sent to
FSL for comparison of signatures. Accordingly the FSL authorities send the report to the Hon’ble Court and is opined that :
“1.That persons who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S-1 to S-14 did not write the red enclosed signatures marked as Q-1.
2. The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S-15 to S-29 did not write the red enclosed signatures marked as Q-2.”
Ex.P.9 – Declaration letter of Renuka and Lingaswamy Ex.P.10 – Application for Income certificate of Muntha Lingaswamy Ex.P.11 – Application for Caste certificate of Pandula Raju Ex.P.12 – Application of Income certificate of Pandula Raju Ex.P.13 – Residential certificate Andula Mamatha Ex.P.14 – Specimen signatures of MRO and VRO (10 sheets) Ex.P.15 – Specimen signatures of accused person (5 sheets) Ex.P.16 – FSL Ex.P.17 – is the Pattedar passbook collected from the SBH, Domalapally during the course of investigation.
14.From the cross-examination of PW5 conducted by the defence counsel, it is evident that no material contradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies were elicited so as to discredit or impeach the credibility of the testimony given by the witness in his chief examination. The suggestions put forth by the defence counsel were either denied or remained unsubstantiated, and nothing significant was brought on record to cast doubt upon the veracity or reliability of the evidence of 7
PW5. Consequently, the testimony of PW5 in the chief examination remains unshaken.
15.Upon perusal of the entire depositions of PW1 to PW5, it is evident that the chain of circumstances establishing the guilt of the accused has been clearly brought on record. The evidence demonstrates that the accused initially approached PW3 for a crop loan by producing forged passbooks. PW3, upon receipt of the said documents, forwarded them to
PW1 for verification. PW1, in turn, entrusted the verification to PW2, who, upon examination, found that the documents contained forged signatures. Based on the findings of PW2, PW1 lodged a report before PS
Munugode.
16.Subsequently, PW4 conducted part of the investigation and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW3. Thereafter, PW5 continued the investigation by seeking permission from the Court to obtain specimen signatures of the accused as well as PW1 to PW3, and forwarded the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis. The FSL authorities, upon examination, issued Exhibit P16 confirming that the signatures in question were forged.
17.In view of the above chain of events, duly supported by oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
18.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences under sections 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and Accordingly, the accused is 8 convicted U/Sec 248(2) CRPC.
Typed my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of April, 2026.
III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Nalgonda
19.When the Accused is questioned on the quantum of sentence he reported that n i l . As the act of the accused is proved by the prosecution, hence, the application of provision of the probation of offenders Act, 1958 would not be proper in this case. Considering the nature of the offence and plea made by Accused and under circumstances of this case, this court feels that sentencing the accused with three (03) months Simple
Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Rupees only), could be just and proper.Accordingly, Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months Simple
Imprisonment and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees
Five Hundred only) for the offence punishable U/Sec 468, 471 IPC could be just and proper.
20. In the result: Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable
U/Sec.468, 471 of IPC. Accordingly, Accused is convicted u/Sec.248(2)
Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of
Three (03) months and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-
(Rupees Five Hundred only), for the offence punishable U/Sec.
468, 471 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, Accused is 9 sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (01) month.
The remand period of accused, if any shall be set off u/Sec.428 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
The certified copies of this judgment shall be given to the accused on free of cost and the accused is appraised of his right of appeal against this judgment.
When Accused is enquired about his means, he informed that he has means to engage counsel in preferring the appeal.
Sd/-
III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Nalgonda
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED
PW.1 : Y.Srinivas Reddy NONE PW.2 : Nunthi Sri Shailam PW.3 : Mopuru Muralikrishna PW.4 : Ch.Ramaiah PW.5 : B.Daniel Kumar
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1 – Report Ex.P.2 – Letter issued by Branch Manager to LW.1 requesting to issue genuinity certificate Ex.P.3 – Form No.2 Ex.P.4 – Report submitted to Tahasildar, dated 17.10.2014 Ex.P.5 – FIR Ex.P.6 – Marked portion of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P.7 – Seizure report Ex.P.8 – Pass book Ex.P.9 – Declaration letter of Renuka and Lingaswamy 10
Ex.P.10 – Application for Income certificate of Muntha Lingaswamy Ex.P.11 – Application for Caste certificate of Pandula Raju Ex.P.12 – Application of Income certificate of Pandula Raju Ex.P.13 – Residential certificate Andula Mamatha Ex.P.14 – Specimen signatures of MRO and VRO (10 sheets) Ex.P.15 – Specimen signatures of accused person (5 sheets) Ex.P.16 – FSL Report Ex.P.17 – is the Pattedar passbook collected from the SBH, Domalapally during the course of investigation.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
Fake stamp seal seized from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama.
Sd/-
III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Nalgonda