Sri K.Siva Rama Krishna

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV-ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-

CUM-ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

Present: K.SIVA RAMA KRISHNA

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 17th day of July, 2014

CALENDER CASE No. 626 of 2013

Between:-

The State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada City. ... Complainant (Cr. No. 294/2013)

And

Ajmeer NagaRaju, S/o Mongiah Naik, Aged 28 years, Agriculturist, R/o Kondapalli, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal.… Accused

This case was coming on 15-07-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. Jyothi, APP for prosecution and of Sri. M.V. Vijay Kumar, Advocate for 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, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in his station Cr. No. 294/2013 for the offence under section 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act.

02.The accused appeared before the Court and he was furnished with copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. and he denied the prosecution case and that a charge U/s 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

03.During the course of trial P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.P.1 to

P.6 and MOs.1 to 20 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On the closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s 313

Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the 2 evidence of prosecution witnesses and he denied the same. No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

Mediator, eye witness and Investigation Officer were examined as

P.Ws.1 to 4.

The mahazar, signature of the mediator in the mahazar,

Statements of PWs 1 and 2 recorded U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C, FIR and chemical analysis report were marked as Ex.P1 to 6.

Unspent sample bottles 20 in number were marked as MOs.1 to 20.

04.The gist of the prosecution case is as follows:

On 13-06-2013 at 5-00 PM on reliable information, PW4 along with his staff and mediators (PWs.3 and LW1) proceeded towards

Rayanapadu village and when they reached near Rayanapadu railway gate, the accused on seeing them tried to escape along with gunny bags which were in his possession and on suspicion PW4 along with his staff chased and caught hold of him and interrogated him in the presence of

PW3 and other mediator. The accused during the interrogation confessed that he was in possession of IML bottles and he was selling

IML bottles unauthorizedly and that PW4 apprehended the accused and seized 205 IML bottles from his possession on the confession made by him in the presence of mediators and collected one bottle from each variety of IML bottles for chemical analysis and drafted mahazar Ex.P4 for the same. He registered the mahazar Ex.P4 in his station

Cr.No.294/2013 for the offence U/sec.34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act and submitted copies of FIR Ex.P5 to all concerned. He sent the accused to the court for judicial remand. He visited the scene of offence and examined PW1 and PW2 recorded their statement U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. He forwarded the sample bottles to the Excise Laboratory, Kakinada for chemical analysis. He produced the seized IML bottles before the

Deputy Commissioner of Excise, for disposal in accordance with Law. He 3 after receiving chemical analysis report (Ex.P6), laid charge sheet against the accused. The accused is liable to be punished for the offence U/Sec. 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act.

05.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/sec. 34 (A) of A.P. Excise

Act?

As per the evidence of P.W.4, and the contents of Mahazar Ex.P.4,

On 13-06-2013 at 5-00 PM on reliable information, PW4 along with his staff, PW 3 and other mediator proceeded towards Rayanapadu village and when they reached near Rayanapadu railway gate, the accused on seeing them tried to escape along with gunny bags which were in his possession and on suspicion PW4 along with his staff chased and caught hold of him and interrogated him in the presence of PW3 and other mediator. The accused during the interrogation confessed that he was in possession of IML bottles and he was selling IML bottles unauthorizedly and that PW4 apprehended the accused and seized 205

IML bottles from his possession on the confession made by him in the presence of mediators and collected one bottle from each variety of IML bottles for chemical analysis and drafted mahazar Ex.P4 for the same.

06.Further as per the evidence of PW4 and the contents of Ex.P5 and

P6, He registered the mahazar Ex.P4 in his station Cr.No.294/2013 for the offence U/sec.34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act and submitted copies of FIR

Ex.P5 to all concerned. He sent the accused to the court for judicial remand. He visited the scene of offence and examined PW1 and PW2 recorded their statement U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. He forwarded the sample bottles to the Excise Laboratory, Kakinada for chemical analysis. He produced the seized IML bottles before the Deputy Commissioner of

Excise, for disposal in accordance with Law.

The chemical analysis report Ex.P6 reveal that the samples are

Indian made liquor.

4

07.PWs.1 and 2 are the independent witness. They turned hostile.

Their evidence is not revealed any thing against the accused. As per their evidence, they do not know about the arrest of the accused and seizer of IML bottles from his possession.

PW3 is the mediator and disinterested witness to the accused. As per his evidence the police did not arrest the accused and did not seize

IML bottles from his possession in his presence. The Police took his signature in the mahazar Ex.P4 in the police station. His evidence is not supported the prosecution case and not reveal anything against the accused and that he was treated as hostile by the prosecution.

08. The evidence of P.W.4 is suffered from infirmities and contra to the contents of Mahazar Ex.P.4 about the arrest of the accused and seizure of IML bottles from his possession.

As per the contents of the Mahazar Ex.P.4, When PW4 along with his staff and mediators reached near Rayanapadu railway gate, the accused on seeing them tried to run away along with gunny bags which were in his possession and on suspicion he along with his staff chased and caught hold of him and noticed IML bottles in the gunny bags which were in his possession. The same is not ready in the evidence of PW4.

His evidence is not reveal that the accused was in possession of gunny bags consisting of IML bottles and he tried to escape along with the said gunny bags and he caught hold of him and noticed IML bottles in the gunny bags.

As per the contents of the Mahazar Ex.PW4, sealed and labeled the seized sample bottles with his signatures and the signatures of the mediators at the scene of offence. The same is not reveal in the evidence of PW4 .

In view of this the evidence of P.W.4 is fragile and suffered from patent and latent infirmities which go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses and his evidence is not reveal 5 consistently that he arrested the accused and seized IML bottles from his possession while he was selling IML bottles unauthorizedly.

09.P.Ws.1 to PW3 are the independent and disinterested witnesses to the accused. Whenever the evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW3 is not reveal positively that the police arrested the accused and seized IML Bottles from his possession in their presence and whenever the evidence of

P.W.4 is suffered from infirmities and contra to the contents of Mahazar

Ex.P.4 about seizure of IML bottles from his possession, it is not reasonable and sensible to consider his evidence for proof of seizure of

IML Bottles from the possession of the accused without corroboration.

10.In the decision Kaki Sreeramulu…Appellant / accused Vs State of

A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor… Respondent reported in 1996 (1) ALT (Crl.) at Page 86(A) our Hon’ble High Court held that:

“the samples are collected at the scene of offence on

22/01/1992, and the same were forwarded to the chemical

analyst on 29/01/1992.” The prosecution failed to establish in

whose custody the samples are kept from 22/01/92 to 29/01/92

and the prosecution also failed to prove that whether the seals

are intact during those days so as to satisfy the Court no

tampering was done with the samples till the same was

delivered to the chemical analyst. This discrepancy with regard

to the date of seizure and the date on which the same was

forwarded to the Chemical analyst wholly destroy the credibility of the charges levelled against the accused and the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

In the present case the IML bottles are seized from the possession of the accused and collected samples on 13-06-2014. The Chemical

Analysis Report Ex.P.6 reveal that the samples are forwarded to the chemical analyst on 03.07.2013. The prosecution failed to establish in whose custody the sample bottles are kept during those days. The prosecution also failed to prove that whether the seals are intact during those days. In manner of that the facts in this case and the facts in the reported case are similar and the decision in the reported case is applicable to this case.

11.In view of all these reasons, I feel that PW1 to 3 are the independent and disinterested witnesses to the accused and they 6 turned hostile and their evidence is not reveal anything against the accused and further the evidence of P.W.4 is fragile and suffered from infirmities about seizure of IML bottles from the possession of the accused. His evidence in the cross-examination made him unworthy of credence. His evidence is not sufficient to connect the accused with this offence and there is no whisper in his evidence about involvement of the accused in this offence. The prosecution therefore miserably failed to prove and establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act framed against him and that the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.

34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act framed against him and he is acquitted U/Sec.

248 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall be set at liberty and the bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

MOs.1 to 20ie, unspent sample bottles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed my dictation by Typist corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of July, 2014).

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate- Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution. For Defence.

P.W.1: P. Mallaiah--Nil-- P.W.2: K. Siva P.W.3: B. Venkateswara Rao P.W.4: V. Srinu

Documents marked For Prosecution. For Defence. Ex.P.1:161 Cr.P.C. Statement - NIL - Ex.P.2:161 Cr.P.C. Statement Ex.P.3: Signature on Mahazar Ex.P.4: Mahazar. Ex.P.5: FIR 7

Ex.P.6: Chemical Analysis Report.

Material Objects Marked MOs.1 to 20 – Sample bottles

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

// TRUE COPY//

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

8

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL, CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-

CUM-ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

CALENDER CASE NO: 47 / 2010 Date of:

1. Offence: 06-12-2006

2. Complaint : 06-12-2006

3. Apprehension of accused : 06-12-2006

4. Commencement of trial : 24-04-2013

5. Closure of Trial : 17-06-2014

6. Judgment : 24-06-2014

07. Name of the complainant : The SI of Police, Patamata P.S. Vijayawada City

8. Name of the accused :

Kondisetti Malleswara Rao, S/o Masthanaiah, aged 48 years, cooli, R/o Yanamalakuduru village, Vijayawada.

9. Offence : U/Sec. 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act

10. Finding : Found not guilty

11. Result: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec. 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act framed against him and he is acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall be set at liberty and the bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

MOs.1 to 15 ie, unspent sample bottles shall be destroyed and MO16 cash of Rs.2,100/- shall be confiscated to the state after appeal time is over.

12. Explanation for delay : The case is taken on file on 15.03.2008. Copies of all documents were furnished to the accused on 21.08.2008. The accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., on 26.03.2010. The Prosecution evidence is started on 24.04.2013 and the evidence is closed on 17.06.2014. On 18.06.2014 the accused is examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Heard the arguments on 23.06.2014. Judgment was pronounced on 24-06- 2014. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- K. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

// TRUE COPY//

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV-ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-

CUM-ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri K.SIVA RAMA KRISHNA

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 17th day of September, 2014

CALENDER CASE No. 377 of 2014

Between:-

The State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City. ... Complainant (Cr. No. 337/2014)

And

1) Baditha Satyanarayana, S/o Achanna, Aged 43 years, R/o Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

2) Baditha Sai Kumar @ Sai, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 19 years, R/o Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

3) Baditha Kanaka Rao, S/o Achanna, Aged 40 years, R/o Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

4) Baditha Venkata Ramana @ Ramana, Aged 37 years, R/o Prasadampadu, Vijayawada. …. Accused

This case was coming on 15-09-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Kum.Y. Satyavani, APP for Complainant and of Sri M.V.

Rama Rao, Advocate for accused 1 to 4 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, Patamata Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 in his station Cr. No. 337/2014 for the offences under section 323 & 324 IPC.

02.The accused 1 to 4 appeared before the Court and they were furnished with copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

They denied the prosecution case and that a charge U/sec.324 IPC against the 2nd accused and a charge U/sec.323 IPC against the 1st, 3rd 2 and 4th accused, were framed, read over and explained to them in

Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

03.During the course of trial P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The examination of the accused 1 to 4 U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with since there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witness. No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

The defacto-complainant and injured was examined as P.W.1.

The complaint given by PW1 and his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. were marked as Ex.P1 and P2.

04.The gist of the prosecution case is as follows:

PW1 is a resident of Prasadampadu village, Vijayawada. The 1st accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- from him for his family necessities and executed a pronote in his favour. Later the accused issued a cheque for Rs.1,70,000/- towards discharge the debt due to him and the same was dishonoured due to insufficient of funds in the bank account of the 1st accused and that PW1 filed a complaint to prosecute him under N.I. Act and the same is pending. On 18-04-2014 at 8-00 PM while PW1 was at his coconut shop, the 1st accused along with the other accused 2 to 4 came to his shop and quarreled with him and beat him with their hands and thereafter the 2nd accused picked up an iron rod and beat him on his head and caused injuries. He was shifted to the

Government General Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment. The Head

Constable, Out post police station, Government General Hospital,

Vijayawada (LW7) on receiving MLC intimation went into the hospital and recorded the complaint narrated by PW1 and forwarded to the

Patamata police station on the point of jurisdiction. The SI of police,

Patamata police station (LW8) registered the complaint Ex.P1 in his 3 station Cr.No.337/2014 for the offences U/sec. 323 & 324 IPC and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned. He examined PW.1 and other witnesses and recorded their statements under 161 Cr.P.C. Later the SI of police, Patamata police station (LW9) perused the investigation done by him and took up further investigation and he visited the scene of offence situated at Vemuri Apartments, Prasadampadu village and prepared rough sketch for the scene. On 30-04-2014 at 9-00 AM, he apprehended the accused 1 to 4 and sent them to the court for judicial remand. He after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4. The Medical Officer, Government General Hospital,

Vijayawada (LW6), who examined PW1 opined that the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature. The accused 1 to 4 are liable to be punished for the offences U/Sec. 323 & 324 IPC.

05.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the 2nd accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/sec.324 IPC and the guilt of the 1st, 3rd and 4th accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence 323 IPC?

As per the evidence of P.W.1, on 18-04-2014 at 8-00 PM, while he was at his shop, some unknown persons came there and quarreled with him unnecessarily and beat him with an iron rod and caused injuries. He was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment. The police recorded his statement. He does not know the contents of the complaint Ex.P1. The police did not examine him. The accused 1 to 4 are not the persons who beat him with an iron rod and caused injuries. The financial disputes between him and the accused are got settled by their elder members.

The evidence of PW.1 is not supported the prosecution case and not reveal anything against the accused and that he was treated as 4 hostile and given up the evidence of other witnesses by the prosecution.

06.Except the evidence of PW.1, who turned hostile, there is no piece of evidence to prove that the accused 1 to 4 beat PW1 with their hands and then the 2nd accused beat him on his head with an iron rod and caused injuries. His evidence is not reveal anything against the accused 1 to 4 and his evidence is not useful to connect the accused 1 to 4 with these offences. There is no whisper in the evidence of PW.1 about involvement of the accused 1 to 4 in this crime. The prosecution therefore miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused 1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/sec.323 & 324 IPC and they are entitled to be acquitted.

07.In the result, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the charge

U/sec. 324 IPC framed against him and the 1st, 3rd and 4th accused are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.323 IPC framed against them and they are acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused 1 to 4 shall be set at liberty and the bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation to Record Assistant corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of September, 2014).

Sd/- K. SIVA RAMA

KRISHNA,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate- Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution. For Defence.

P.W.1: Chennu Mallikharjuna Rao- None –

Documents marked For Prosecution. For Defence. Ex.P.1: Complaint given by P.W.1 - NIL - Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.1.

Material Objects Marked

--NIL--

5

Sd/- K. SIVA RAMA

KRISHNA,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

// TRUE COPY//

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

6

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL, CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-

CUM-ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

CALENDER CASE NO: 377 / 2014 Date of:

1. Offence: 18-04-2014

2. Complaint : 19-04-2014

3. Apprehension of accused : 30-04-2014

4. Commencement of trial : 15-09-2014

5. Closure of Trial : 15-09-2014

6. Judgment : 17-09-2014

07. Name of the complainant : The SI of Police, Patamata P.S. Vijayawada City

8. Name of the accused :

1) Baditha Satyanarayana, S/o Achanna, Aged 43 years, R/o Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

2) Baditha Sai Kumar @ Sai, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 19 years, R/o Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

3) Baditha Kanaka Rao, S/o Achanna, Aged 40 years, R/o Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

4) Baditha Venkata Ramana @ Ramana, Aged 37 years, R/o Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

9. Offences : U/Sec. 323 & 324 IPC

10. Finding : Found not guilty

11. Result: In the result, the 2nd accused is found not guilty for the charge U/sec. 324 IPC framed against him and the 1st, 3rd and 4th accused are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.323 IPC framed against them and they are acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused 1 to 4 shall be set at liberty and the bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

12. Explanation for delay :The case is taken on file on 02.06.2014. Copies of all documents were furnished to the accused 1 to 4 on 04.08.2014. The accused 1 to 4 are examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., on 15.09.2014. The Prosecution evidence is started on 15.09.2014 and the evidence is closed on the same day. On 15.09.2014 the examination of the accused 1 to 4 U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with since there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Heard the arguments on 15.09.2014. Judgment was pronounced on 17-09-2014. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- K. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada. Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. // TRUE COPY//

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV-ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-

CUM-ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri K.SIVA RAMA KRISHNA

IV-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum-Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Saturday, this the 16th day of May, 2015

CALENDER CASE No. 56 of 2013

Between:-

The State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Patamata Police Station,

Vijayawada City. ... Complainant

(Cr. No. 659/2012)

And

Lanka Padmavathi, W/o Siva Kumar, Aged 27 years, R/o Ramavarappadu village, Vijayawada Rural. …. Accused

This case was coming on 14-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. V.L.V. Himabindu, APP for Complainant and of Sri B. Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for 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, Patamata Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in his station Cr. No. 659/2012 for the offences under section 406 and 420 IPC.

02.The accused appeared before the Court and she was furnished with copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., and she denied the prosecution case and that charges U/sec.406 and 420 IPC against the accused were framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu and she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

03.During the course of trial P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The examination of accused U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., was dispensed with since there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of 2 prosecution witnesses. No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

The defacto-complainant, victims and eye witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 5.

The complaint, signature of PW1 in the complaint and the statements of Pws.1 to 5 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., were marked as Ex.P1 to P7.

04.The gist of the prosecution case is as follows:

The accused is the President and PWs.1 to 5 are the members of

Dwakra group by name ‘Sivaji Swayam Sahayaka Sangham’. They used to take loans from Union Bank, Enikepadu branch in the name of their

Dwakra group and to repay the loan amount in installments. In the month of December, 2010 they took a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the

Union Bank, Enikepadu branch in the name of their Dwakra group and the accused, PWs.1 to 5 and other members received Rs.10,000/- each from the said loan amount by agreeing to repay the same in installments through the accused who is acting as President of their

Dwakra group. PWs.1 to 5 and other members paid the amount received out of the loan amount with interest in installments as agreed to the accused to clear of the loan amount taken from the bank. The accused did not remit the amounts collected from PWs.1 to 5 and other members, to the Bank to discharge the loan amount. PWs.1 to 5 and other members made enquiries and came to know an amount of

Rs.43,391/- is due to the bank towards the loan amount taken by them in the name of their Dwakra group. They asked the accused for non- payment of the amounts collected from them to the bank. The accused did not give proper reply and did not pay the balance of loan amount to the bank inspite of requests made by them. The accused misappropriated the amounts collected from PWs.1 to 5 and other 3 members towards discharge the loan amount and committed breach of trust and cheated them. On 13-09-2012 at 09-00 AM, PW1 along with

PWs.2 to 5 went to Patamata police station and gave complaint Ex.P1 to the SI of police, (LW6) against the accused. He registered the complaint

Ex.P.1 in his station Cr. No. 659/2012 for the offences U/Sec. 406 and 420 IPC and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned. He examined

Pws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements under 161 Cr.P.C. On 14-09- 2012, he apprehended the accused and sent her to the court for judicial remand. He after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused. The accused is liable to be punished for the offences U/Sec.

406 and 420 IPC.

05.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/sec. 406 and 420 IPC?

As per the evidence of PW1, the bank authorities informed her that the accused did not remit the amounts collected from the members to the bank to discharge the loan amount taking in the name of their

Dwakra group. She reported the substance to the police. She does not know the contents of the complaint Ex.P1. The police did not examine her. She along with other members made enquiries and came to know that the accused paid the amounts collected from them to the bank and clear of the loan amount.

Further as per the evidence of PWs.2 to 5, they are not the eyewitnesses for the occurrence and they do not know anything about this case. The police did not examine them. The accused paid the amounts collected from them to the bank and clear of the loan amount.

4

The evidence of Pws.1 to 5 is not supported the prosecution case and not reveal anything against the accused and that they were treated as hostile and given up the evidence of other witness who is the

Investigation Officer by the prosecution.

6.Except the evidence of Pws.1 to 5, who turned hostile, there is no piece of evidence to prove that the accused misappropriated the amounts collected from PWs.1 to 5 and other members towards discharge the loan amount and committed breach of trust and cheated them.Their evidence is not reveal anything against the accused and their evidence is not useful to connect the accused with these offences.

There is no whisper in the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 about involvement of the accused in this misdeed. The prosecution therefore miserably failed to prove and establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec. 406 and 420 IPC and that the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

07.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges U/Sec.

406 and 420 IPC framed against her and she is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The accused shall be set at liberty and the bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation to Record Assistant corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of May, 2015).

Sd/- K. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -Cum- Addl.Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution.For Defence. P.W.1: Akula Padma - None – P.W.2: T. Venkata Ramana P.W.3: Pothuraju Surekha P.W.4: Satyavolu Vijaya Lakshmi P.W.5: Chandu Adiseshu Documents marked For Prosecution.For Defence. Ex.P.1: Complaint given by P.W.1- NIL - Ex.P.2: Signature of PW1 in the complaint. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.3.

5

Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.5. Material Objects Marked

--NIL--

Sd/- K. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada. // TRUE COPY//

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

6

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL, CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-

CUM-ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

CALENDER CASE NO: 56/ 2013 Date of:

1. Offence: Prior to 13-09-2012

2. Complaint : 13-09-2012

3. Apprehension of accused : 14-09-2012

4. Commencement of trial : 14-05-2015

5. Closure of Trial : 14-05-2015

6. Judgment : 16-05-2015

07. Name of the complainant : The SI of Police, Patamata P.S. Vijayawada City

8. Name of the accused :

Lanka Padmavathi, W/o Siva Kumar, Aged 27 years, R/o Ramavarappadu village, Vijayawada Rural.

9. Offences : U/Sec.406 & 420 IPC

10. Finding : Found not guilty

11. Result: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges U/Sec. 406 and 420 IPC framed against her and she is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall be set at liberty and the bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

12. Explanation for delay : This case is taken on file on 23.01.2013. Copies of all documents were furnished to the accused on 15.04.2013. The accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., on 06.06.2013. The Prosecution evidence is started on 14.05.2015 and the evidence is closed on the same day. On 14.05.2015 the examination of the accused U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with since there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Heard the arguments on 14.05.2015. Judgment was pronounced on 16-05-2015. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- K. SIVA RAMA

KRISHNA,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

// TRUE COPY//

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA

The case has been settled before Lok Adalath. Award copy has been supplied to the party. Party can also obtain award copy from the office of this court. 

Sd/­ x x x x x x x IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA

The case has been settled before Lok Adalath. Award copy has been supplied to the party. Party can also obtain award copy from the office of this court. 

Sd/­ x x x x x x x IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada