Smt K.Sruta Vinda

1 VII AJMFC/VSP

CC.No.3805/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: K. SRUTA VINDA

VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

MONDAY, THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

C.C.No.3805/2019

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Airport (Crime) Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

…..Complainant

And:

A-1 Nidadana Bheemaraju, S/o.Pydiraju, Aged 38 years, R/o.D.No.35-40-36, Dayananda Nagar, Chakaligedda, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

A-2 Madeti Yesh Kumar, S/o.Pydiraju, Aged 28 years, R/o.D.No.35-40-36, Dayananda Nagar, Chakaligedda, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

A-3 Kona Raju, S/o.Sanyasirao, Aged 30 years, R/o.D.No.40-34-24, Dharma Nagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

A-4 Rayavarapu Eswaramma, S/o.late Ramana, Aged 56 years, R/o.ITI Junction, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

…..Accused

This calendar case has came up on 17-04-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence ofAssistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State Sri.GSVS.Damodararao, Advocate for A1 to A4, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Airport Crime Police Station,

Visakhapatnam has filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offence U/Sec.379, 411 IPC in Cr.No.237/2019.

2 VII AJMFC/VSP

CC.No.3805/2019

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

a) On 23-07-2019 at about 16:00 hours, PW1/Inspector of Police, RPF on suspicious check they have seized 24 tins of petroleum products each tin containing 30 liters wherein, A1 to A3 were committed theft of 24 tins of diesel from

BPTN rake outside HPCL siding while drawn out from HPCL to R & D of Port

Limited while the train was slow motion on 22-07-2019 and A1 to A3 were caught at the left side of APCL (Andhra Petro Chemical Limited) sign board situated near LE

Gate No.18, Visakhapatnam Port Trust adjacent to Naval Dockyard road by the

Inspector, Post Commander, Railway Protection Force, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam with the help of his police personnel and in the presence of mediators seized the diesel tins under the cover of mediators report. Later, PW1 handed over the seized 24 tins of petroleum products along with an auto bearing no.AP31TJ1403 which was used for the commission of theft. Hence, PW1 lodged a report to Airport Crime

Police Station.

b) Basing on the report of PW1, LW9/S.I of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.237/2019 for the offence under section 379 of IPC and endorsed the investigation to PW4/S.I of Police. During the course of investigation, PW4 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded the statements. PW4 recorded the confession statements of A1 to A3 in the presence of mediators and arrested A1 to A3 they confessed that A4 is the receiver of the stolen oil and issued a notice under section 41-A of Cr.PC to A4. On 24-07- 2019, PW4/S.I of Police arrested A1 to A3 and produced them before Hon’ble Court for Judicial custody. After completion of investigation, PW4/S.I of Police filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offence under Section 379, 411 IPC.

3. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court has taken cognizance for the offence under Sec.379, 411 IPC against A1 to A4.

4.On appearance of A1 to A4, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

3 VII AJMFC/VSP

CC.No.3805/2019

5.A1 to A4 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charges under Sec.379, 411 of IPC have been framed against A1 to A4 and the contents of the said charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which A1 to A4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW’s.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MO’s.1 and 2. Learned APP given up the evidence of

LW’s.2 to 4, 6, 8 and 9 viz., D.Siva Narayana, B.Praveen Kumar, N.Suryanarayana,

B.Ramamurthy, V.Murali, A.Vijay Kumar.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, A1 to A4 were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the available incriminating material against them, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Section 379, 411 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?”

10. POINT:

In order to support its case, the prosecution has examined PW’s.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MO’s.1 and 2. According to prosecution, PW1 is the defacto-complainant, PW’s.2 and 3 are the mediators, PW4 is the investigating officer.

11.PW1 deposed in his chief-examination that on 22-07-2019, he along with his staff members went to surveillance in Marripalem at 22:00 hours, they had spotted an auto rickshaw coming from Gostani road to Schindia canteen. He has retained the said auto rickshaw at LC gate No.18 and they found about A1 to A3 in an auto rickshaw and about 15 cans of petroleum products were confessed that on the subsequent day i.e., 23-07-2019 A1 to A3 were loaded about 50 cans with petroleum products and the same were being transported to Visakhapatnam for sale to third parties and also confessed that A1 to A3 have no legal authority for the sale of set products. A1 to A3 has led him to the place where they had concealed 4 VII AJMFC/VSP

CC.No.3805/2019

and stored the set petroleum products and seized about 24 cans from the scene of storage in the presence of mediators and the same cans were handed over to

Airport Crime PS along with auto rickshaw under Ex.P1/report.

12.PW1 deposed in his cross-examination admitted that he has not submitted any search authencity to the Airport Crime Police in the said case. He admitted that

A1 to A3 were apprehended is guarded by the CSF personnels 24/7. The witness states that there is the presence of CCTV footage outside the HPCL storage and whereas there is no CCTV footage inside the HPCL storage. He admitted that no articles from the HPCL record were seized from A1 to A3. He denied the suggestion that he has not mentioned in Ex.P1/report whether the seized material is petroleum or diesel. He admitted that the seized material was not physically procured from A1 to A3 and no articles from the HPCL record were seized from A1 to A3. He admitted that independent witnesses or mediators were procured during the seizure dt:22- 07-2019. He admitted that he has not personally recorded the statements of A1 to

A3 and he has not drafted any rough sketches of the place of theft. The

Ex.P1/report was personally drafted at the police station. The estimation with regard to the seized content of petroleum was given by mediators while drafting

Ex.P1/report at the police station subsequent with the mediators at the scene of seizure. The seizure list have been drafted at the spot of seizure. There is no official report from HPCL or other authorities with regard to the theft was happened.

13.PW2 deposed in his chief-examination that approximately on 23-07-2019, received a phone call from RPF Commander and he was intimated by the RPF

Police, near Naval Dockyard. On proceeding to the scene, A1 to A3 were in the presence of one auto rickshaw and 15 cans consists of petroleum products and subsequently, he was examined by the police and seized the said material in his presence.

14.PW2 deposed in his cross-examination admitted that he did not know the details as to the source of procurement of the seized petroleum products by A1 to

A3. He did not know the details of the train from which the alleged procurement was made. He did not know the specific contents of each can seized by the police.

5 VII AJMFC/VSP

CC.No.3805/2019

He did not received any specific grievance with regard to shortage of the stock of the petroleum products.

15.PW3 deposed that he did not know the contents of the case facts. He affixed his signatures on documents on the insistence of third parties. In his chief examination before the court, the witness contradicted material facts and expressed unwillingness to corroborate with the case of the prosecution. The prosecution sought to declare the witness hostile to the case of the prosecution.

16. PW4 deposed in his chief-examination that on 23-07-2019, at about 16:00 hours, LW9 registered a case in Cr.No.237/2019 for the offence under section 379

IPC. Based on Ex.P1, he was endorsed with the investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded the statements under section 161 of Cr.PC, proceeded to the scene of offence along with PW1 which is situated in the vicinity of HPCL on the

Railway track, prepared rough sketch, he secured mediators and recorded the confession statements of A1 to A3 and secured 24 cans of petroleum products from them. An auto rickshaw was seized from the accused under the cover of mediators report and on the same day at about 20:30 hours, he along with two mediators apprehended A1 to A3 proceeding towards Shipping yard road, HPCL, Malkapuram and A4 was also apprehended and recorded the confession statement in the presence of mediators and seized one can of diesel and served a notice under section 41-A of Cr.PC to A4 and produced A1 to A3 before Hon’ble Court for

Judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A4. In his cross-examination denied the suggestion that he has falsely depicted the timings and the seizure of the alleged material objects for convenance.

17.The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence with no direct evidence of theft from the HPCL siding or the BPTN rake. There is no complaint whatsoever from HPCL, the Railways, or any other authority confirming any shortage or theft of diesel from the rake on 22-07-2019. This fundamental lacuna brings doubt against the prosecution case.

18.PW1 in his chief-examination stated that he spotted an auto rickshaw with

A1 to A3 and 15 cans on 22-07-2019, and that on the next day they loaded 50 6 VII AJMFC/VSP

CC.No.3805/2019

cans. In cross examination he admitted that he did not submit any search authority / warrant to the Airport Crime Police. He also admitted that A1 to A3 were kept under guard by CSF personnel 24/7 and that there was CCTV footage outside

HPCL but none inside the storage area. He also admitted that no articles belonging to HPCL were seized from A1 to A3. There is also no official report from HPCL or any other authority confirming that theft had occurred. The estimation of the contents of the tins was given by mediators at the police station and not at the scene. He did not personally record the statements of A1 to A3 nor prepare any rough sketch of the place of alleged theft. These admissions render the seizure highly suspicious and violative of procedural safeguards.

19. PW2 in his chief-examination claimed he was called by RPF and witnessed seizure of 15 cans near Naval Dockyard. In his cross examination he admitted that he had no knowledge of the source of the petroleum products, the train from which they were allegedly stolen, the specific contents of each can, or any grievance regarding shortage of stock from HPCL. His evidence is vague, hearsay and offers no corroboration to the theft.

20. PW3 in his evidence before the Court stated that he did not know the facts of the case, that he had merely affixed his signatures on documents on the insistence of third parties, and he contradicted material facts. The prosecution sought to declare him hostile. His evidence is of no assistance to the prosecution and brings down the credibility of the mediators’ report.

21. PW4 in his chief-examination claimed that he recorded confession statements of A1 to A3, seized 24 cans and the auto, apprehended A1 to A3 and

A4, seized one more can from A4, and issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to

A4. In his cross examination he merely denied the suggestion of false implication without offering any explanation for the contradictions in the case of the prosecution. No independent witnesses from the vicinity of the alleged theft or seizure were examined.

22.There is absolutely no documentary or oral evidence from HPCL/

Railways proving that any diesel was actually stolen from the BPTN rake on 7 VII AJMFC/VSP

CC.No.3805/2019

22-07-2019. Mere seizure of tins of diesel does not prove theft.PW3 turned hostile.

PW2 has no personal knowledge. The entire seizure and confession rests majorly on interested witnesses. Seizure report admittedly was drafted at the police station.

No search warrant, no chemical analysis certificate was furnished by the prosecution which could have helped in proving that the seized liquid was diesel stolen from HPCL. No HPCL stock register or shortage report produced.

Prosecution case speaks of 24 tins seized on 23-07-2019, yet PW1 mentions 15 cans on 22-07-2019 and 50 cans on 23-07-2019. M.Os.1 and 2 are not linked to any theft based on the material brought on record as part of proceedings in the given case. The case against A4 is solely based on the alleged confession of A1 to

A3 that he is the receiver. One can allegedly seized from A4 has no corroborative evidence. Section 411 IPC cannot be attracted without proof that the property was stolen property.No independent witnesses from the railway track, no CCTV footage produced, no forensic evidence, no chain of custody proved.

23. The law is well settled that in cases of theft and receipt of stolen property based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each link in the chain beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the evidence is filled with contradictions and procedural lapses. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of theft or the identity of the accused as the offenders or receivers beyond all reasonable doubts.

24.In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Secs.379, 411 IPC and accordingly, A1 to A4 are acquitted for the offence under Section 248 (1) of Cr.PC. Bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.PC. MO.1/Auto rickshaw bearing no.AP31TJ1403 which was given to absolute owner as per the orders in

Crl.MP.3123/2019 in Cr.No.237/2019 dt:19-08-2019 shall hold good after the expiry

of appeal time. MO.2/25 cans of petroleum products which was given to absolute owner as per the orders in Crl.MP.3089/2019 in Cr.No.237/2019 dt:31-07-2019 8 VII AJMFC/VSP

CC.No.3805/2019

shall hold good after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- K.Sruta Vinda

VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1Dt.13.06.2025:M.RamanNone

P.W.2Dt.01.08.2025:P.Venkata Narasingarao

P.W.3Dt.10.03.2026:N.Michaelrao

P.W.4Dt.24.03.2026:A.Manmadharao

Exhibits marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report

Ex.P.2: Signature on the arrest mediator report dt:23-07-2019 at 18:00 hours

Ex.P.3: Signature on the recovery mediator report dt:23-07-2019 at 20:30 hours

Ex.P.4: FIR

Ex.P.5: Rough sketch

Ex.P.6: Mediator report dt:023-07-2019

Exhibits marked for Defence: NIL

Material objects marked:

MO.1 : Auto rickshaw bearing no.AP31TJ1403

MO.2 : 25 cans of diesel petroleum products

Sd/- K.Sruta Vinda

VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Visakhapatnam 9 VII AJMFC/VSP

CC.No.3805/2019

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(Formerly III Metropolitan Magistrate Court)

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. K. Sruta Vinda,

VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Visakhapatnam

Monday, this the 20 th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.3805 /2019

(Cr.No.237/2019 of Airport Crime P. S., Visakhapatnam City) 1Name of the Complainant: The State represented by the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Airport Crime

Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

2Name of the Accused:-

A-1 Nidadana Bheemaraju, S/o.Pydiraju, Aged 38 years, R/o.D.No.35- 40-36,DayanandaNagar,Chakaligedda,Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

A-2 Madeti Yesh Kumar, S/o.Pydiraju, Aged 28 years, R/o.D.No.35-40- 36, Dayananda Nagar, Chakaligedda, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

A-3 Kona Raju, S/o.Sanyasirao, Aged 30 years, R/o.D.No.40-34-24, Dharma Nagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

A-4 Rayavarapu Eswaramma, S/o.late Ramana, Aged 56 years, R/o.ITI Junction, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

3Date of Offence: 23-07-2019 4Date of report or complaint: 23-07-2019 5Date of apprehension of the: 07-08-2019 accused or Date of appearance of the accused

in the court

6Date of Commencement of : 13-06-2025 10 VII AJMFC/VSP

CC.No.3805/2019

trial 7Date for close of trial: 24-03-2026 8Date of sentence on order : 20-04-2026

9.Explanation of delay or : -- remarks 10 Offences: Under Section 379, 411 of IPC 11 Finding of the court: Found not guilty

SENTENCE: In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Secs.379, 411 IPC and accordingly, A1 to A4 are acquitted for the offence under Section 248 (1) of Cr.PC. Bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.PC. MO.1/Auto rickshaw bearing no.AP31TJ1403 which was given to absolute owner as per the orders in

Crl.MP.3123/2019 in Cr.No.237/2019 dt:19-08-2019 shall hold good after the expiry

of appeal time. MO.2/25 cans of petroleum products which was given to absolute owner as per the orders in Crl.MP.3089/2019 in Cr.No.237/2019 dt:31-07-2019 shall hold good after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- K.Sruta Vinda

VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Visakhapatnam

Copy submitted to:

The Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST

CLASS::VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : K. Sruta Vinda,

VII Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visakhapatnam

Monday, the 18 th day of May, 2026

C C.No.5470/2022

Name of the Complainant :

M/s. Sri Venkateswara Filling Station, represented by its Managing Partner

Datla Venkata Varaha Ramachandra Raju, S/o Seetha Rama Raju, Hindu, aged about 56 years, residing at D.No.38-40-33, Marripalem, Main Road,

Visakhapatnam-530018.

Name of the accused Nos.1 and 2:

1. Sreekanth Engineering Contractors, represented by its Proprietor Ammu Sreekanth, Hindu, aged about 46 years, residing at D.No.50-50-38, 1st floor, TPT colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530013.

2. Ammu Sreekanth, Hindu, aged about 46 years, residing at D.No.50-50- 38, 1st floor, TPT colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530013.

Offence U/sec. 138 N.I. Act.,

1.Date of offence:29.01.2022 2Date of complaint :30.03.2022

3.Date of Hearing: 18.05.2026

O R D E R

Complainant is called present. Accused called present. Petition under Section 257 of

Cr.P.C filed by the Complainant and stated that the case is against the accused is withdrawn and the same is allowed. Hence, this matter is dismissed as withdrawn.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K. Sruta Vinda

VII Add., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- K. Sruta Vinda

VII Add., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST

CLASS::VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : K. Sruta Vinda,

VII Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visakhapatnam

Tuesday, the 05 th day of May, 2026

C.No.1441/2024 ST

Name of the Complainant :

Pendyala Konda Babu, S/o Pendyala Appa Rao (late), aged about 46 years, occupation Central Government Employee, R/o D.No.56-39-24, Thota Street,

Golla Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam-530008.

Name of the accused:

Jajula (Yerra) Meena Satya Priya, D/o Jajula Arogya Das, W/o Yerra Kanaka Raju, aged about 38 years, Working in Surya Hospital as a Receptionist, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Present address Flat No.107, Sai Ram Sahasra Apartment, Near Subhdra Garden, Lucky Apple School Street, Virat Nagar, Sujatha Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

Offence U/sec. 138 N.I. Act.,

1.Date of offence:19.09.2024 2Date of complaint :01.11.2024

3.Date of Hearing: 05.05.2026

O R D E R

Complainant is called present. Accused called present. Petition under Section 257 of Cr.P.C filed by the Complainant and stated that the case is against the accused is withdrawn and the same is allowed. Hence, this matter is dismissed as withdrawn.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 05th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K. Sruta Vinda,

VII Add., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- K. Sruta Vinda,

VII Add., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST

CLASS::VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : K. Sruta Vinda,

VII Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visakhapatnam

Friday, the 01 st day of May, 2026

C C.No.3215/2023

Name of the Complainant :

Pamidi Krishna Murthy, S/o Appayya, Hindu, aged about 61 years, residing at D.No.11-39/2, Bhagath Singh Nagar, Near Govt. High School,

Yellapuvanipalem, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam-530027.

Name of the accused No.1:

Kanchipati Lalitha, D/o Late E. Trinadha Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, residing at D.No.9-5/2, Yellapuvanipalem, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam- 27.

Offence U/sec. 138 N.I. Act.,

1.Date of offence:20.04.2023 2Date of complaint :15.03.2023

3.Date of Hearing: 01.05.2026

O R D E R

Complainant is called present. Accused called absent. Petition under Section 257 of

Cr.P.C filed by the Complainant and stated that the case is against the accused is withdrawn and the same is allowed. Hence, this matter is dismissed as withdrawn.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 01st day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K. Sruta Vinda

VII Add., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- K. Sruta Vinda

VII Add., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST

CLASS::VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : K. Sruta Vinda,

VII Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, the 06 th day of May, 2026

C.No.235/2026 ST

Name of the Complainant :

REPCO Bank represented by its Authorised Person, Sri Neeli Gopalakrishna,

Shathi Nagar Branch, Near NAD Junction, Visakhapatnam-530009.

Name of the accused:

Paladugula Srinivas, S/o Paladugula Narayana, Flat No.503, Fifth Floor, Srivari Heights, Near GVK, Hospital, Srinivas Nagar, AVA Road, Rajahmundry-533101.

Offence U/sec. 138 N.I. Act.,

1.Date of offence:11.11.2025 2Date of complaint :16.12.2025

3.Date of Hearing: 06.05.2026

O R D E R

Complainant is called present. Accused called absent. Petition under Section 280 of BNSS filed by the Complainant and stated that the case is against the accused is withdrawn and the same is allowed. Hence, this matter is dismissed as withdrawn.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 06th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K. Sruta Vinda,

VII Add., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- K. Sruta Vinda,

VII Add., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visakhapatnam