Sri K. Vasudeva Rao

--1--

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: Sri K.VASUDEVA RAO,

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Wednesday, this the 4th day of March, 2020

CALENDAR CASE No. 3/2020 Between

The State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Bhimadole Police Station. ---Complainant

And

Kamoji Baji ---Accused

This case is coming before me on 03-03-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. P.Hema Latha, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri M.Arjayya, Advocate for Accused; and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Bhimadole, filed charge sheet against sole accused for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 in Cr.No.67/2019 of Prohibition and Excise P.S.,

Bhimadole.

2.Case of the prosecution in brief is on 15-05-2019 at 4.30 p.m.

PW1-G.Muralimohana Rao, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Bhimadole along with his staff proceeded to Ananthapalli village of Nallajeral mandal for detecting excise offences and when they reached water tank, found accused with a black bag in his right hand and on suspicion he detained accused and enquired about contents of bag and accused confessed that he was in possession of liquor bottles and PW1 deputed his staff to secure mediators and after some time they returned, stating that none came forward and thereafter, PW1 opened the bag and found 8 nips of 999 Power Star Fine

Whisk 180 ml each and after ascertaining name and address particulars of accused, source of supply, purpose for possession and as accused failed to produce valid licence or permit, he seized entire contraband after drawing --2-- one bottle as sample under MO.1 for chemical analysis purpose under cover of special report, and served section 41A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused, returned to the station along with seized property and registered special report as a case in Cr.No.67 of 2019. Thereafter, PW1 sent MO.1 to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for analysis and analyst issued report stating that sample is Indian made liquor and after receiving destructions proceedings from Deputy commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Eluru and after completion of investigation, PW1 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On 06-01-2020 cognizance was taken for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against sole accused.

4.After appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to accused under section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of accusation made in the charge sheet for which accused denied as false. Charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 was framed against sole accused read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and MO.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (hereafter referred as A.P.P.) given up the evidence of LW2-K.Venkateswara

Rao, Prohibition and Excise Head Constable and LW3 D.Balaji, Prohibition and Excise constable.

6.After closing the prosecution evidence, sole accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by granting opportunity to offer his explanation on the incriminating material evidence available against him, for which he denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

--3--

7.Heard learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the defence.

Perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the sole accused was in possession, selling liquor bottles without valid license or permit and so liable for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968?

POINT:

9.In order to prove the case against accused, prosecution relied on oral testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.5 and MO.1.

10.To prove the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 on hand, it is the duty of prosecution to establish that accused was found in possession of 8 bottles of 999 Power Star Fine Whisky 180 ml each and selling them without valid license or permit.

11.PW1-G.Murali Mohanarao, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,

Bhimadole deposed that on 15-05-2019 at 4.00 p.m. he along with his staff went to Ananthapalli village of Nallajerla Mandal for detecting excise offences and found the accused with a mica bag near water tank and on suspicion he detained him and enquired about contents of bag, and accused stated he was in possession of liquor bottles and he ascertained name and address particulars, got opened the bag found 8 bottles of 999 Power Star Fine

Whisky each 180 ml and as accused failed to produce valid licence or permit, he seized entire contraband after drawing one bottle as sample under MO.1 under the cover of Ex.P1 special report, serviced section 41A Cr.P.C. notice, returned to the station along with seized property, registered Ex.P2 FIR, sent

MO.1 sample bottle to the Chemical examiner, Kakinada through Ex.P3 letter of advise and received Ex.P4 analyst report and sent proposals to the

Deputy Commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Eluru and received Ex.P5 destruction proceedings and filed charge sheet.

--4--

12.PW1 admitted that the scene of offence situate in a busy area and surrounded with residential houses and the said village contains VRO and Sarpanch. PW1 further admitted that he did not mentioned the names of persons with whom his staff enquired to act as mediators in Ex.P1. On perusing Ex.P1 it do not contain the names of the persons with whom the staff of PW1 enquired to act as mediator. When the scene of offence is a busy area, situate in residential area and it is a revenue village containing

Village Revenue officer, panchayat secretary, a duty is caste upon PW1 to secure those persons as mediators. Failure to comply said fact creates suspicion over the alleged effort made by PW1 in securing mediators.

13. Evidence of PW1 is silent whether he found any other person purchasing liquor bottles from the accused or he seized any cash from accused. Confession of accused before police is inadmissible under section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. Except alleged confession of accused that he was selling liquor bottles for eking his livelihood before PW1 who is Excise Sub-

Inspector, no other oral evidence was adduced by prosecution to prove the said allegation. Though, prosecution cited as many as 3 witnesses, except

PW1, it did not chose to examine any other witness to believe the case of prosecution.

14.The Hon'ble High Court of A.P in Prodduturi Satyam Reddy V/s

State of A.P represented by Public Prosecutor reported in 2000 Law Suit (A.P) 888 also held that when the complainant himself took up investigation and filed charge sheet, it shall be considered as an infirmity in the case of prosecution.

15.In Bhagvan Singh V/s State of Rajasthan reported in 1975 Law

Suit (SC) 270, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that investigation conducted by the complainant himself cannot be relied as he is interested with the result of the case.

--5--

16.In MADDU LAKSHMANA RAO V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2000 Law Suit (AP) 334 at para No.5, 6 and 10, the Hon’ble

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH held as follows:

[5] The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagvan Singh v. State of

Rajasthan, 1975 SCC (Crl.) 737, in support of his contention that the complainant cannot act as an Investigating Officer in a criminal case against the accused. The following observations appears significant:

"We may first refer to a rather disturbing feature of this case. It is indeed such an unusual feature that it is quite surprising that it should have escaped the notice of the trial Court and the High

Court. Head Constable Ram Singh was the person to whom the offer of bribe was alleged to have been made by the appellant and he was the informant or complainant who lodged the first information report for taking action against the appellant. It is difficult to understand how in these circumstances. Head Constable

Ram Singh could undertake the investigation of the case. How could the complainant himself be the investigator?" [6] To the same effect, the Kerala High Court in the case of Xavier v. State of Kerala, 1998 Crl.L J 3182, held that the complainant being a police officer cannot be an Investigating Officer and it has been observed that it is an incurable infirmity. Similarly, in the case of Ram Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 (2) Crimes 277,the Rajasthan High Court following the judgment of the

Supreme Court referred to above also came to an opinion that the complainant cannot be the investigator.

[10] There is another aspect which needs to be mentioned. The facts of the case before the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v.

State of Rajasthan (supra) would disclose that the matter came up

before the Supreme Court in an appeal after the trial. It could be

argued that the observations of the Supreme Court do not lay down as a matter of law that in every case where the person shown as the complainant is the Investigating Officer, the trial must be --6-- deemed to have been vitiated and a nullity. This is clear from the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagvan

Singh (supra). 'This is an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case.'

17.In the case on hand also PW1 admitted that he complainant and investigation officer and he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, upon relying the above decisions, accused is entitled for material irregularity and oral evidence of PW1 shall be considered as interested in the result of the case.

18.In S. Babu Saheb v. State of A.P. reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl) 32 (AP) the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh at para Nos. 16, 17 and 25 held as follows:- “16. Admittedly PW1 accompanied the excise officials from

Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information.

When they were proceeding on information, they were right in taking mediators along with them. If in a given case the excise or police officials have to search a vehicle in a forest area or at a place where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators, then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place.

But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub- section(4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. The object of Section 100 Cr.P.C.

is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case”.

--7-- “17. Of course if cannot be said that the evidence of a witness who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that he accompanied the excise or police officials. But where, in a case, the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators”.

“25. There is another circumstance in this case i.e., the delay in sending the sample to the chemical examination. Admittedly, the seizure of the sample was made on 08-08-1997. According to PW- 2, he had sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner on 11-11- 1997. He has not explained as to why he could not sent the sample bottle to the chemical examination till 11-11.1997”.

19.In the case on hand also as per the evidence of PW.1, MO.1 was seized on 15-05-2019. As per Ex.P4 analysis report MO.1 was received by the analyst on 04-06-2019. PW1 failed to state any valid reason for the delay of 19 days in sending MO.1 to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada.

Hence, upon relying above judgment, a strong suspicion rises in the minds of this Court about alleged seizure of liquor bottles from the accused.

20.Though, PW1 deposed that he obtained Ex.P5 destruction proceedings from Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Eluru, no document is filed by the prosecution to prove that the alleged remaining liquor bottles were destroyed by complying section 46 of AP Excise Act and hence a strong suspicion raise in the mind of this court about the alleged seizure of liquor bottles from the accused.

21.In view of the afore mentioned discussion and upon relying the above decisions, this court finds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 against sole accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point is answered.

--8--

22.IN THE RESULT, sole accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 and hence he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : G.Mohana Rao, Prohibition and -- NONE -- Excise Inspector.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Special report dt.15-05-2019 Ex.P2 : F.I.R. dt.15-05-2019 Ex.P3 : Letter of advise Ex.P4 : Laboratory analysis report dt.04-06-2019 Ex.P5 : Proceedings of Deputy Commissioner, Eluru dt 17-06-2019

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Sample bottle of 999 Power Star fine Whisky

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

I AJFCM, TPG

--9--

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: TADEPALLIGUDEM.

CALENDER CASE No. 3/2020

1. Date of offence : 15-05-2019

2. Date of complaint or report : 15-05-2019

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : Section 41(A)(1) Cr.P.C. Notice served

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : --

5. Date of commencement of trial : 02-03-2020

6. Date of close of trial : 03-03-2020

7. Date of sentence or Order : 04-03-2020

8. Explanation of delay if any : No delay COMPLAINANT: The State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Bhimadole Police Station.

ACCUSED: Kamoji Baji, S/o. Appa Rao, Age 53 years, Thurupu kapu by caste, Ananthapalli village, Nallajerla Mandal.

Cr.No. : Cr.No.67 /2019 of Bhimadole Prohibition and Excise Police station Section of Law : Under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court : Found not guilty Sentence/Order:

IN THE RESULT, sole accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 and hence he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

Seal I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District.

--1--

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: Sri K.VASUDEVA RAO,

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Wednesday, this the 18th day of March, 2020

CALENDAR CASE No. 346 of 2019

Between

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police Station ---Complainant

And

Surojith Kotal ---Accused

This case is coming before me on 13-03-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. P.Hema Latha, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri K.V.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for accused; and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole P.S. filed charge sheet against sole accused in Crime No.243/2018 for the offence punishable under section 304-A and 338 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C) of

Chebrole P.S.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28-09-2018 at about 9.30 a.m. Kola Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter referred as deceased), driver of lorry bearing No.AP 16 TG 4228 belong to one Kishore while returning from Jaggayyapeta to Tadepalligudem with a cement load called

PW1-Kannaji Srinivasa Rao, (brother in law of deceased) and informed him that after crossing Narayanapuram village the lorry tire was punctured and asked PW1 to come for his assistance and at about 10.00 a.m. when PW1 was under the lorry and removing the tire, accused being the driver of lorry bearing No.WB 29 B 3110 while proceeding from Vijayawada to

Tadepalligudem drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from his behind and the lorry ran over on the deceased, due --2-- to which Kola Venkateswara Rao died on the spot, accused and his also sustained bleeding injuries and later they were shifted in an ambulance to

Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem for treatment. On the report presented by PW1 at 11.00 a.m, PW7-T.V.Naga Venkata Raju, the then Sub

Inspector of Police, Chebrole P.S. registered case in Cr.No.243/2018 under section 337, 304-A IPC, took up investigation, examined witnesses, recorded their statements, prepared rough sketch of the scene, visited scene of offence, prepared scene observation report, conducted inquest on the body of deceased in the presence of mediators and blood relatives and gave requisition to PW6-Dr. Y.Gangadhar, Civil Assistant Surgeon to conduct postmortem examination. During course of investigation, on 03-10-2018 he arrested accused and sent him for judicial remand. After receiving P.M.

Report, wound certificate of LW8- Jana Dilip, cleaner of crime lorry and wound certificate of accused and after receiving accident report from PW4-

K.Vijaya Raju, motor vehicle inspector and after completion of investigation,

PW7 filed charge sheet against accused.

3.On 19-06-2019 cognizance was taken for the offence under section 304-A and 338 of IPC, against sole accused.

4.After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.). The accused was examined under section 251

Cr.P.C, for the offence under section 304-A and 338 of IPC, for which accused denied as false, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, for trial.

5.In the course of trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P10. Learned APP given up evidence of LW3-Kokku

Shirisha, KLW4-Kola Rama Krishna, LW6-Kannaji Padmavathi, and LW11-

Jonnakuti Vijaya Kumar. Evidence of LW7-Sandeep Das and LW8-Jana Dilip closed as prosecution failed to serve summons inspite of granting sufficient time. Till date prosecution failed to take steps to examine LW7 and LW8.

--3--

6.After closing the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by granting an opportunity to offer his explanation on the incriminating material evidence available against him, for which he denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the defence. Perused the record.

8.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether accused is the driver of crime lorry bearing No. WB 29 B 3110 on the date of incident?

2. Whether accused drove crime lorry in a rash or negligent manner, resulting death of deceased Kola Venkateswara Rao not amounting to culpable homicide and caused grievous injuries to LW8-Jana Dilip?

3.Whether the prosecution was able to bring home guilt of accused for the offences under section 304-A and 338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT No.1:

9.To prove the case against accused, prosecution mainly relied on oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 7 coupled with Exs.P1 to P10.

10.PW1-K.Srinivas Rao, defacto complainant and eye witness deposed that Kola Venkateswara, deceased is his maternal uncle and on receiving phone call from him, he went to National High Way situate in between Ungutur and Narayanapuram and while he was parking his motorcycle, he witnessed driver of lorry bearing No.WB 29 B 3100 drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the lorry of his maternal uncle bearing No.AP 16 TG 4228 and by that time his uncle is replacing tire by using jakee and he was under the lorry, due to which his uncle died on the spot and the driver of lorry also sustained injuries and he presented Ex.P1 report to police. PW1 corroborated the case of prosecution.

--4--

11.PW2/K.Ramadevi, wife of deceased deposed that she came to know about the accident to her husband and died on the spot and she went along with her relatives to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem and witnessed conducting inquest by the police over the body of her husband.

12.PW3/P.Kanaka Mutyalu, VRO, Chebrole, mediator deposed about visiting scene of offence and prepared scene observation report under Ex.P2 and also witnessed conducting inquest on the body of deceased by the police at Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem under Ex.P3.

13.PW4/K.Vijayaraju, Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed that on the requisition of SHO, Chebrole P.S. he inspected the crime vehicle bearing

No.WB 29 B 3110 and AP 16 TG 4228 on 03-10-2018 at 4.30 p.m. at

Ungutur center and noted damages to both the vehicles and issued Ex.P4 accident report stating that break system of both the vehicles are intact and accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect of the both the vehicles.

14.PW5/Ch.Pullayya deposed about one year ago on receiving phone call from his friend about accident to deceased, he visited

Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem and witnessed inquest conducted by police and identified his signature on Ex.P3/inquest report and opined the cause of death of Kola Venkateswara Rao is due to accident.

15.PW6/Dr.Y.Ganagadahara Rao, CAS deposed about examining

LW8-Jana Dilip and found three injuries and issued Ex.P5 wound certificate stating injures 1 and 3 are simple and injury No.3 is grievous in nature. He further deposed that he also examined Surojit Kota and found two injuries and issued Ex.P8 wound certificate of accused stating both the injuries are simple in nature. He further deposed that he conducted P.M. examination on the body of deceased and issued P.M. report under Ex.P7 stating that cause of death of Kola Venkateswara Rao is due to severe head injury and injuries --5-- to vital organs i.e. brain and age of death of deceased is 12 to 42 hours prior to his P.M. Examination.

16.PW7/P.Naga Venkata Raju, the then S.I. of Police Chebrole P.S and investigation officer deposed about receiving Ex.P1 report from PW1, registration of case, investigation, arrest of accused and filing charge sheet against accused.

17.Though PW1 deposed that he can identify driver of the lorry, prosecution has not taken steps to get accused identified before this court during his evidence. As per Ex.P1 report presented by PW1, the name, address particulars and physical features of driver of lorry bearing No.WB 29

B 3100 was not found. At column No.7 of Ex.P8/FIR also do not contain name and address particulars of accused. PW7, Investigation Officer admitted that he did not conduct identification parade of accused with PW1 and LW8-Jana Dilip. He also admitted that he did not seized trip sheet of crime vehicle. As per case of prosecution on the date of alleged incident the crime vehicle is proceeding from Vijayawada to Tadepalligudem. Though, prosecution cited LW8 Jana Dilip, cleaner of said lorry, it failed to produce him before this court and as it failed to serve summons inspite of granting sufficient time, this court has passed orders closing his evidence. Till date prosecution did not take steps to adduce his evidence who is material witness for identifying the accused. Prosecution also failed to examine the owner of the said lorry who is material witnesses to speak about who is the driver of the lorry on the date of the incident. Though, PW2 and PW5 were examined by the prosecution, they are not eye witnesses to the occurrence of incident. Except oral evidence of PW1, prosecution did not chose to examine any other eye witness to establish that accused as the driver of the lorry on the date of incident. PW1 also admitted that he did not participate in Test Identification Parade in the police station or at any other place of identification of driver of crime lorry and he do not have prior acquaintance with accused before the date of alleged incident. In the absence of oral or --6-- documentary evidence and upon considering the admission of PW1 and PW7, a strong suspicion raise in the mind of this court with regard to identity of accused as the driver of the crime vehicle.

18.Through, PW6 deposed that he examined accused and issued

Ex.P8 wound certificate and the said evidence is remained unchallenged as nothing was suggested to PW6 denying the same, the said evidence cannot be considered as a ground that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the incident.

19.In view of the aforementioned discussion, this court finds that prosecution miserably failed to establish that accused is the driver of crime vehicle on the date of the incident. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against prosecution.

POINT NO.2:

20.Upon considering the unchallenged evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3,

PW6 coupled with Exs.P3 and P5, it can be safely held that prosecution has established that Kola Venkateswara Rao died due to the accident at the scene of offence. Though prosecution did not examined LW8 Jana Dilip, upon considering the unchallenged evidence of PW6 coupled with Ex.P5, it can be safely held that LW8-Jana Dilip sustained grievous injuries. However, as prosecution failed to establish identity of accused as the driver of crime vehicle, oral testimony of PW1 that Kola Venkateswara Rao due to rash and negligence driving of the crime vehicle by its driver is not useful to prove the case against accused. Hence, this court finds that prosecution miserably failed that accused has caused death of Kola Venkatedwara Rao, caused grievous injuries to LW8-Jana Dilip due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle on the date of incident. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered against prosecution.

POINT No.3:

21.In view of answering point Nos.1 and 2 against prosecution, this court finds that prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences under --7-- sections 304-A and 338 IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, point No.3 is answered.

22.IN THE RESULT, sole accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A and 338 of IPC and hence he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 18th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : K.Srinivasa Rao -- NONE -- PW2 : K.Ramadevi PW3 : P.Kanaka Mutyalu PW4 : K.Vijaya Raju, Motor vehicle inspector PW5 : Ch.Pullaiah PW6 : Dr.Y.Gangadhar, Medical officer PW7 : T.Naga Venkata Raju, Investigation Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Written report of PW1, dt.28-09-2018 Ex.P2 : Scene observation report Ex.P3 : Inquest report dt.28-09-2018 Ex.P4 : M.V.I. report Ex.P5 : Wound certificate of LW8-Jana Dilip dt.31-10-2018 Ex.P6 : Wound certificate of accused dt.31-10-2018 Ex.P7 : Postmortem report dt.28-09-2018 Ex.P8 : F.I.R. dt.28-09-2018 Ex.P9 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P10 : Four positive photographs along with CD

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

I AJFCM, TPG

--8--

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

CALENDER CASE No. 346/2019

1. Date of offence : 28-09-2018

2. Date of complaint or report : 28-09-2018

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 03-10-2018

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : 25-10-2018

5. Date of commencement of trial : 23-10-2019

6. Date of close of trial : 13-03-2020

7. Date of sentence or Order : 18-03-2020

8. Explanation of delay if any : Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution COMPLAINANT:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police Station

ACCUSED:

Surojith Kotal, S/o. Bheerendra Nadh Kotal, Age 32 years, Civil by community, Chaulpatty, Tarakeswar, Hooghly, West Bengal.

Cr.No. : Cr.No.243/2018 of Chebrole PS Section of Law : Under section 304-A IPC and 338 IPC Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court : Found not guilty Sentence/Order: IN THE RESULT, sole accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A and 338 of IPC and hence he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao,

Seal I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District.

Page 1 of 6

OS.No.584 of 2019

Dt.23.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE::TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Sri. K. Vasudevarao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge.

Thursday, the 23rd day of September, 2021

O.S.No.584 of 2019

Between:

Bandi Suryanarayana, S/o Late Satyanarayana, 76 years, Cultivation, Hindu, Resident of D.No.1-144, Ramannagudem village, H/o Tadepalli, Tadepalligudem Mandal, TPG PJCJ.

...Plaintiff

And

1. Bandi Ramarao, S/o Late Satyanarayana, 81 years, Hindu, Business, Resident of D.No.1-140, Ramannagudem village, H/o Tadepalli, Tadepalligudem Mandal, TPG PJCJ.

2. Bandi Kali Krishna, S/o Subbarao, 45 years, Business, Hindu, Resident of D.No.1-122, Ramannagudem village, H/o Tadepalli, Tadepalligudem Mandal, TPG PJCJ.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 22-09-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.V. Satyanarayana, Advocate for Plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 for grant of permanent injunction with costs.

2. Case of the plaintiffs in brief is that;

First defendant is the brother of plaintiff and second defendant is stranger and he is also involved in number of criminal cases. Originally,

ABC1D1 marked portion in the rough sketch of the plaint plan is an extent of Ac.0.18 cents and it is an ancestral joint family property of one Bandi

Satyanarayana and his sons Ramarao (1st defendant), Subbarao, Krishnarao

Page 2 of 6

OS.No.584 of 2019

Dt.23.09.2021 and Suryanarayana (plaintiff). They partitioned the said property under un- registered partition list, dated 08-04-1954 dividing the said property into five equal shares each of Ac.0.03 cents, 34 sq.yards and they were allotted from one share each south to north namely Bandi Ramarao (1st defendant),

Bandi Subbarao, Krishnarao, Suryanarayana (plaintiff) and Bandi

Satyanarayana respectively. First defendant exchanged his allotted share situate on southern side part of the site with his father Bandi Satyanarayana under the same partition list and he got another site from his father

Satyanarayana, as such Bandi Satyanarayana got extreme south and extreme north sites to his share. Subsequently, in the year 1970 the said

Satyanarayana died intestate and his shares were succeeded by his sons including plaintiff and first defendant in the presence of elders in the year 1982 and first defendant got rice mill property on the southern side in a total extent of Ac.0.01 ½ cents marked as CC1DD1 in the plaint rough plan, plaintiff got AA1BB1 marked Ac.0.05 ½ cents including his original share and the share devolved from his father, Bandi Krishnarao got A1A2B1B2 marked Ac.0.05 ½ cents site and Bandi Subbarao got A2CB2D marked

Ac.0.05 ½ cents. After the death of Bandi Subbarao, plaintiff purchased

A2CB2D marked part of property from legal his representatives under registered sale deed, dated 08-02-2008 and also took possession and on the same day, plaintiff also purchased A1A2B1B2 marked site from his brother Bandi Krishnarao under another sale deed, dated 08-02-2008 and as such plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of ABCD marked plaint schedule site and except himself nobody is having right over the said property. First defendant with an intention to acquire some more site for

Page 3 of 6

OS.No.584 of 2019

Dt.23.09.2021 his rice mill, requested the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule property, for which plaintiff refused, due to which first defendant bore grudge against the plaintiff and with the help of second defendant who is no other than close associate of first defendant started making false proclamations in the village for the past two days that they are going to occupy the plaint schedule property by dispossession of plaintiff with the help of anti social elements and plaintiff is unable to resist the acts of defendants and hence, he is forced to file the present suit for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants, their men, followers and successors from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of ABCD marked portion of plaint schedule property with costs.

3. After receiving summons, defendants 1 and 2 failed to appear and contest the suit and on 23-12-2019, first defendant was set exparte and on 03-03-2020, second defendant was set exparte. Till date, no steps were taken by the defendants to set aside exparte order passed against them. Hence, the suit is posted for plaintiffs evidence.

4. Affidavits of plaintiff Bandi Suryanarayana and Mullapudi Vijaya

Kumar were filed under rule 4 of Order XVIII CPC and they were received and accepted as chief examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. Plaintiff got marked Ex.A-1 un-registered partition list, dated 08-04-1954, Ex.A-2 registered sale deed, dated 08-02-2008 and Ex.A-3 registered sale deed,

dated 08-02-2008.

5. Heard learned counsel for plaintiff through Blue Jeans App.

Perused record and memorandum of written arguments filed by the plaintiff.

Page 4 of 6

OS.No.584 of 2019

Dt.23.09.2021

6. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 over the plaint schedule property as prayed for?

Point :

7. Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that oral evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3 categorically established that plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of ABCD portion of rough plan of plaint schedule property and defendants are interfering with the possession of plaintiff and hence, he pray the court to pass decree for permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendants with costs.

8. It is well settled law in suit for grant of permanent injunction, plaintiff has to establish lawful possession of plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit and defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by the plaintiff. It is also well settled law that though defendants were remained set exparte, a duty is caste upon the court to look into the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff and after satisfying, court has to adjudicate the dispute according to law.

9. In the case on hand, oral testimony of P.W.1 is that originally

ABC1D1 portion of the rough sketch consisting of Ac.0.18 cents is an ancestral joint family property of plaintiffs father Bandi Satyanarayana, his brother Ramarao (first defendant), Subbarao, Krishnarao and himself and they partitioned the said property under Ex.A-1 un-registered partition list,

dated 08-04-1954 dividing into five equal shares each share is Ac.0.03

cents, 34 sq.yards from south to north and in the said Ex.A-1 the share fell

Page 5 of 6

OS.No.584 of 2019

Dt.23.09.2021 to the first defendant was exchanged with the father of plaintiff and first defendant got another property and so, the father of plaintiff got the southern and northern portion and later, father of the plaintiff died intestate in the year 1970 and his share was again partitioned between plaintiff, first defendant and his brothers in the presence of elders in the year 1982 and they got their respective shares each of Ac.0.05 ½ cents and first defendant got only Ac.0.01 ½ cents to the extreme south CC1DD1 with rice mill.

P.W.1 further deposed that he purchased the share of Bandi Subbarao under

A2CB2D and share of Bandi Krishnarao under A1A2B1B2 under Exs.A-2 and

A-3 registered sale deeds respectively and hence, he is in possession of

ABCD marked rough sketch, plaint schedule property and defendants for the past two days are proclaiming in the village that they are going to occupy the plaint schedule property by dispossessing the plaintiff which forced him to file the present suit.

10. P.W.2 independent neighbour resident of the same village corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in all material facts. Though summons were served on first and second defendants for the best reasons known to them they did not contest the suit and remained expartee. Till date no steps were taken by them to set aside expartee orders passed against them.

Hence, oral evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 remained unchallenged and this court has no option to believe their evidence as truthful. I have carefully perused the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also Exs.A-1 to A-3. Upon considering the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3, this court finds that plaintiff has established possession of ABCD marked portion of the rough plan which is plaint schedule property in an extent of

Page 6 of 6

OS.No.584 of 2019

Dt.23.09.2021

Ac.0.16 ½ cents of vacate site and defendants 1 and 2 are interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment by the plaintiff and hence, plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against defendants as prayed for. Accordingly, point is answered.

11. In the result, suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants 1 and 2, their men, followers and successors restraining them from ever interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule in ABDC marked portion of rough sketch of plaint plan.

Dictated by me to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court, this the 23 rd day of September, 2021.

Sd/- K. Vasudevarao,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1 : Bandi Suryanarayana

P.W.2 : Mullapudi Vijaya Kumar

FOR DEFENDANTS: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Un-regd. Partition list, dated 08-04-1954 effected among Bandi Satyanarayana, plaintiff and his brothers. Ex.A-2 : Registered sale deed, dated 08-02-2008 executed by the brother of plaintiff namely Bandi Krishna Rao in favour of plaintiff Ex.A-3 : Registered sale deed, dated 08-02-2008 executed by legal representatives of plaintiff brother namely Subbarao in favour of the plaintiff

FOR DEFENDANTS : Nil

Sd/- KVR,

P.J.C.J., TPG.

Page 7 of 6

OS.No.584 of 2019

Dt.23.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Present: Sri K.Vasudeva Rao, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class.

Thursday, this the 19th day of March, 2020.

C.C.No. 528 / 2019

Between

M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Having its Branch Office at D.No. 22C-7-2, Badetivari Street, Power Pet, Eluru rep. By its Asst. Credit Manager cum GPA Holder D.Vamsi Mohan, S/o. Ramulu

Tadepalligudem, W.G.Dt., ...Complainant

And

Santha Kumari Choppakatla, D/o. Rama Sarma Mudiganti, H.No.2-12-25/8, Railway Station Road, Tadepalligudem, W.G.Dt., …Accused.

The complainant filed this case against the accused that he committed the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

This case is coming before me on this day in the presence of

Sri P.Sudhakara Rao, Counsel for the complainant and of Sri K.Prasad, Counsel for the accused. This Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Complainant and accused called present. Learned counsel for complainant filed application in Crl.M.P. 1108/2020 under Section 257 Cr.P.C to permit the complainant to withdraw the complaint against accused and same is allowed.

Complaint is dismissed under section 257 Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and accused is acquitted.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

-No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side-

Id/- K.V.R.

I AJMFC,

T.P.G.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Present: Sri K.Vasudeva Rao, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class.

Thursday, this the 19th day of March, 2020.

C.C.No. 176/ 2019

Between

Lingampally Ravi Kumar, S/o. Appa Rao, Age: 44 Yrs., D.No.102, Mani Enclave, Bhopal Nagar,

Tadepalligudem, W.G.Dt., ...Complainant

And

Achutha Venkata Surya Narasimha Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Age: 46 Yrs., Business, D.No.6-4-14/4, Near Narasimha Swami Temple, 10th ward, Pathuru, Tadepalligudem, W.G.Dt., …Accused.

The complainant filed this case against the accused that he committed the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

This case is coming before me on this day in the presence of

Sri M.S.Rao, Counsel for the complainant and of Sri K.Prasad, Counsel for the accused.

This Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Complainant and accused called present. Learned counsel for complainant filed application in Crl.M.P. 1107/2020 under section 257 Cr.P.C to permit the complainant to withdraw the complaint against accused and same is allowed.

Complaint is dismissed under section 257 Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence under section 138 of NI Act and accused is acquitted.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- K.Vasudeva Rao

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

-No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side-

Id/- K.V.R.

I AJMFC,

T.P.G.