K.Yuva Raja

CC No.30 of 2014Page No.1/7Date:28.04.2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPL. MOBILE),

NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri Yuvaraja Karingula, Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Spl. (Mobile), Nizamabad.

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2017

CC.No. 30 of 2014

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Town IV Police Station, Nizamabad.

...Complainant

// And // A1: Pola Jithender S/o Late Pola Ramulu Age:39yrs, caste: Reddy,Occ: Agril

A2: Pola Srinivas S/o ananth Reddy, Age:38yrs, caste:Reddy, Occ:Agril

A3: Teneti Krishna Reddy S/o Ramaiah, Age: 44yrs, Caste:Reddy, Occ:Agril

A4: Mettu Gopal S/o Narayana, age:38yrs, caste:Nayakapodu Occ:Agril

All R/o Bardipur village, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad Dist.

....Accused no.1 to 4

This case came before me on this the 13th day of April, 2017 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. S.Srinivas and S.Dayananda

Goud counsel for the accused having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Town IV Police station, Nizamabad filed report u/sec 173 of Criminal Procedure Code with the following averments.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.01.2013 at 11:30am Pw5 received private complaint referred from the court in which the complainant by name Pola Narendhar alleged that the complainant and accused no.1 are brothers and the accused no.2 to 4 are the men of the accused no.1, the complainant, one Pola Rajareddy and accused no.1 are real brothers and they possessed and joint undivided agriculture land situated at Bardipur village shivar of

Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District comprised survey no.1083/3 to an extent of one acre 33 guntas and in which they have got equal share. Originally the above said lands were

CC No.30 of 2014Page No.2/7Date:28.04.2017

standing on the name of their father by name Pola Ramulu and as he died leaving behind him and their mother by name Pola Laxmi are as legal heirs and successors, they have got equal shares in the said lands. The accused no.1 with an ill intention to grab the said land got mutated his name the revenue records and obtained Pattadar Pass books and title deeds in his favour in respect of the above said land and he was misusing income derived from the lands the complainant and his elder brother by name Pola Rajareddy requested him for the partition of the said land and to give one share to each of them after making the said lands into four equal shares with meets and bounds and to give share in the income derived from the said lands, but he failed and refused to do so and as such the complainant and his brother Pola Rajareddy were compelled to file a civil suit bearing no. OS No. 84 of 2009 for the partition and separate possession of the said lands on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's

Court, Nizamabad and the same is pending before the said court and stage of the case is for the cross examination of the complainant, the accused no.1 went to Gulf countries and returned back to India during the pendency of the said civil suit. The accused no.1 with the help of other accused started threatening the complainant and the witnesses with dire consequences, causing damage to their reputation in the society and further threatening them not to give any evidence and to get the above civil case withdraw from the first week of

December 2012, the lands have been getting income, but the accused no.1 with the help of other accused persons have been misusing and misappropriating the income derived from the said land, they were misusing the said land and misappropriated the funds, the complainant and his men questioned the accused person on 21.11.2012 and on that they threatened complainant, his family members etc., with dire consequences of their death and not to question them anything about the said lands and its income and further said that the accused no.1 has sold out the said lands to the accused no.3 by executing registered sale deed by putting them in fear of danger to their lives, accused persons necked the complainant and his men for the said lands. On 21.11.2012 in the evening hours the accused persons came to the house of complainant at Aryanagar and abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences of their death and not to take any steps against them in the court of law and threatened that if in case of any steps are taken they will see the end of the complainant and his family members and went away from the house. On 22.11.2012 the complainant has obtained the encumbrance certificate of the said lands and

CC No.30 of 2014Page No.3/7Date:28.04.2017

also the certified copy of the registered sale deed number 1800 of 2010 dated:23.03.2010 and on obtaining the said copies the complainant came to know that the accused no.1 in collusion with the accused no.3 executed the sale deed by suppressing the real facts and with an ill intension to cause loss and injury. In the said sale deed it is mentioned that there are no cases and litigations pending in any court etc and there by made the officials of government to believe that there are no cases over the said lands and there by executed the said sale deeds. On going through the said documents, the complainant came to know that the accused no.1 with the help of other accused persons created the said sale deed and trying to play fraud against the complainant and his elder brother, when the complainant and witnesses were at the house of the complainant at Aryanagar, the accused no1 with the help of his henchmen came to the complainant on 31.12.2012 at about 4:00pm and abused them in filthy language and threatened the complainant, his wife and witnesses not to give evidence in the said civil case and not claim any share in the said lands and threatened to kill them and when the complainant and his men opposed their illegal acts, they assaulted and attacked against the complainant and witnesses and went away.

Basing the above referred complaint, Pw5 registered a case in Cr.No.10/2013 Under

Section 195A, 290,323,406,420,506 of Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation. On 13.01.2013 Pw5 secured the presence of Pw1 to 4 and recorded their statements and as per the statements of Pw2 to 4, the Pw1 and A1 are own brother and they are having land disputes, further entire land grabbing issue occurred at Bardipur village, in this regard a civil case is pending in the Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Nizamabad hence the section of law 420,406,195A of Indian Penal Code are not established against the accused persons and same are deleted from this case. On 17.01.2013 Pw5 issued notices Under Section 41-A

Cr.P.C against the accused persons A2 to A4. On 21.01.2013 at 3:00pm the accused no.2 to 4 were surrendered before the Pw5 and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence along with A1 hence he arrested them and released on furnishing sufficient sureties. Further the accused no.1 is absconding and hence when the accused no. 1 is arrested he will be produced in the court along with charge sheet.

CC No.30 of 2014Page No.4/7Date:28.04.2017

3.The I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad took cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and ordered summons to the accused.

4.Thereafter this case was transferred from I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nizamabad to this court vide Dis No.42, Dt. 09.01.2014 and on receipt of this case, the case was renumbered and accordingly proceeded with. After appearance of accused, case papers furnished to them as contemplated Under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused no.1 to 4 were examined under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure

Code charges framed under sections 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code which are read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the learned APP examined Pw.1 to 5

Ex.P1 & P2 and Ex.D1, D2 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused no.1 to 4 were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence in telugu language then the accused denied the same and reported defence on their behalf. In the next adjournment the learned counsel for the accused persons reported that they are not adducing any defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and defence counsel for the accused.

9.Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the prosecution did proved the guilty of the accused for the offence under section 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt?

2. To what finding?

CC No.30 of 2014Page No.5/7Date:28.04.2017

10.Point No.1:-

Pw.1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that in the year 2006 the accused no1 transferred the undivided joint family properties on his name then he asked the accused no.1 about his share in the properties but he refused to give his share thereafter he filed a civil case. Pw1 further deposed that in the month November 2012 at afternoon hours A1 to A4 came to his house situated at Aryanagar and threatened him that he has to withdraw the civil case and further if he fail to withdraw the case they will kill him. He further deposed that on that day at the time of alleged incident happened Pw2 and 4 are present in the house.

Further he deposed that A1 to A4 also tried to beat him thereafter they left the house. During cross examination of Pw1 he admitted that civil cases are pending between him and A1 regarding the properties and further admitted that he also gave evidence in the civil cases and he further admitted that he was not stated before the civil court about the threatening of accused persons to withdraw the civil case. Further Pw1 admitted that he lodged the private complaint on 02.01.2013 and alleged incident happened in the month of November 2012 so there is a delay of approximately one and half month was caused in lodging the private complaint and it is strengthened by Ex.P1 which is the private complaint. In the private complaint the Pw1 not explained the reason for the delay in lodging this complaint. So in the criminal case where inordinate delay was occurred without any proper explanation about the delay definitely there shall be some suspicion about the prosecution case. Further the Pw2 who is the wife of Pw1 deposed that the accused no.1 is younger brother of her husband and transferred the property on his name and when the Pw1 asked regarding the transfer of property then the accused no.1 replied that they are not having any right on that property and total property belongs to him and went to Dubai. She further deposed that on 21.11.2012 at about 3:00 to 4:00pm the accused persons came to their house and demanded to withdraw the civil case filed by Pw1 regarding the above property failing which they will kill them she deposed that at the time of alleged incident Pw4 was present. The accused no.1 also trying to beat the Pw1 but she and her brother interfered. During cross examination she deposed that they are staying in the first floor except this nothing was elicited by the defence counsel.

Pw3 who is cited as eye witness deposed that Pw1 was resided as tenant in his house in the year 2011 and on one day at 4:00pm he heard some noise coming from the house of Pw1 from the 2nd floor. He further deposed that he went to the second floor and found accused

CC No.30 of 2014Page No.6/7Date:28.04.2017

no.1 along with three persons quarreled with Pw1 in respect of compromise of the case.

Comparing with the evidence of Pw2 and 3, Pw2 deposed that they were staying in the first floor of the building but whereas Pw3 deposed that the Pw1 family staying in second floor .

Pw4 who is the brother of Pw2 deposed that in the month of November 2012 he went to his sister house situated at Aryanagar and at about 12:00noon A1 along with other three persons came to her sister house and threatened to kill the Pw1 and he interfere and stopped the dispute. Further the accused no.1 threatening the Pw1 to withdraw the case. Further he came to know about the A2 to A4 through Pw1. In the 161Cr.P.C statements of Pw4 he stated that after return of A1 from the abroad in the month of September 2012 the Pw1 went there and asked about the case pending in the court then accused no.1 stated that they will see about the property dispute in the court. In this case the time of alleged incident also ver important why because the Pw2 and 3 deposed that the accused persons came to their house at 3;00 to 4:00pm but whereas Pw4 deposed that the accused persons came to Pw1 house at 12:00noon so there is difference of three hours creating some suspicion about the veracity of the witnesses. Pw5 who is the investigating officer and his evidence with regard to the procedure of investigation. During cross examination he admitted that there is correction in the 161 Criminal Procedure Code statement of Pw1 with regard to the date and month and further there is a correction in the 161 Criminal Procedure Code statement of Pw2 to 4 with regard to the date and month. Pw5 further admitted that Pw4 stated before him as in Ex.D1 and D2. The prosecution evidence suffering from several infirmities. In the present case the reason for the delay for filing the private complaint not explained by Pw1 and further there is a difference regarding the time of incident and also place of incident. Hence this court extended benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused.

11. Point No.2:-

In the result, accused no.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code, as such he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. The Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months.

No case property is deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of property is passed.

CC No.30 of 2014Page No.7/7Date:28.04.2017

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL. MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW1:Pola Narender-NIL-

PW2: Pola Vasantha

PW3:Govuru Ganga Reddy

PW4: Mopala Kamalakar Reddy

PW5: Jahangeer

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1:Private complaint Dt: 02.01.2013

Ex.P2:First Information Report Dt:09.01.2013

ACCUSED

Ex.D1:Some portion of 161 Criminal Procedure Code statement of Pw4 Ex.D2:Some portion of 161 Criminal Procedure Code statement of Pw4

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL. MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.

CC No.122 of 2016Page No.1/5Date:04.05.2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPL. MOBILE),

NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri Yuvaraja Karingula, Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Spl. (Mobile), Nizamabad.

Dated this the 4th day of May, 2017

CC.No. 122 of 2016

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Town-IV Police Station, Nizamabad.

...Complainant

// And // A1: Yendala Pradeep S/o Raja Reddy, Age:30 years, Caste: Munuru Kapu, Occ: L.L.B., Student, R/o H.No. 5-11-59, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad. A2: Yendala Prasad S/o Raja Reddy, Age: 31 years, Caste: Munuru Kapu, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 5-11-59, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad.

....Accused no.1 and 2

This case came before me on this the 3rd day of May, 2017 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Asha Narayana counsel for the accused having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Town-IV Police station, Nizamabad filed report u/sec 173 of Criminal Procedure Code with the following averments.

2.The brief facts of the case are that Pw1 has been contesting as Municipal Corporator belongs to congress party from IV division, while the Pw1 was going for canvassing, the accused persons have been droving the vehicles in rashly by moving on Pw1 to 3 and also they are having rowdy sheet cases, abused the Pw1 in filthy language and further they were teasing the Pw4 by not coming out from their house and also threatened with dire consequences.

Basing on the petition filed by Pw1, Pw5 registered a case in Cr.No. 110/2014,

Under Sections 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Pw1 to 3. Thereafter he visited Yellammagutta, Nizamabad and examined the other witnesses Pw4. As per the

CC No.122 of 2016Page No.2/5Date:04.05.2017

statements of Pw2 to 4 the involvement of followers are not proved hence he deleted. On 15.04.2014 he issued notice Under Section 41-A Criminal Procedure Code to the accused persons. On 17.04.2014 at 9:00am the accused persons came to the Police Station and surrendered before him and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. He released the accused persons after obtaining the personal surety bonds.

3.The I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad took cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and ordered summons to the accused.

4.Thereafter this case was transferred from I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nizamabad to this court vide Dis No.5042, Dt. 29.09.2016 and on receipt of this case, the case was renumbered and accordingly proceeded with. After appearance of accused no.1 and 2, case papers furnished to them as contemplated Under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

5.The Accused no.1 and 2 were examined under section 251 of Criminal Procedure

Code by putting the accusation leveled against them for the offence punishable under sections 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, then they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the learned APP examined Pw 1 to 5,

Ex.P1 and P2 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused no.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence in Telugu language then the accused denied the same and reported no defence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and defence counsel for the accused.

CC No.122 of 2016Page No.3/5Date:04.05.2017

9.Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the prosecution did proved the guilty of the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under sections 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt?

2. To what finding?

10.Point No.1:-

Pw.1 who is the defacto complainant and victim deposed that she was contesting in the election as Corporator IV division on 24.03.2014 and hence she was canvassing for election along with her daughter and four or five women at Yellammagutta at that time the accused no1 by riding the bike in front of them and also he was rided around them. She further deposed that the mother of accused no.1 also contesting as Corporator from the other party in the same colony. She further deposed that the accused no.1 used to follow them where ever they go for canvassing for election. She further deposed that the accused no.2 who is brother of accused no.1 also followed them at one time and they waited sometime but they did not stopped their acts. On 27.3.2014 they also continued the same process at Sony function hall then she lodged the police report. During cross examination she admitted that she did not mentioned about the place of alleged offence and also time further she admitted that she was not filed any complaint before the election officer and further admitted that she was not mentioned in the Ex.P1 about her daughter presence at that time but whereas Pw2 deposed that on 24.03.2014 he along with Pw1,

Pw3 and 4 canvassing in the election at Yellammagutta the accused persons came on bikes and tried to obstruct them. On 28.03.2014 Pw1 lodged the police report. During cross examination he admitted that Pw1 is his sister and the mother of accused persons also contested in the election from the TRS party. So on careful examination of Pw1 and 2, Pw1 deposed that on 24.03.2014 she was not deposed about the presence of Pw2 in the canvassing for election and whereas Pw2 deposed that he was present alongwith

Pw1,3 and 4 on 24.03.2014 so their evidences are contradictory with each other. Pw3 who is brother in law of Pw1 deposed that on 24.03.2014 he along with Pw1,2 and 4 canvassing in the election for Pw1 at that time the accused persons made cuts with bike thereafter on 27.03.2014 again they were canvassing in the election the accused persons

CC No.122 of 2016Page No.4/5Date:04.05.2017

made cuts with their bikes. Pw4 who is the daughter of Pw1 deposed that on 24.03.2014 her mother along with Pw2 and 3 and herself canvassing in the election the accused persons came on bike and insulted by laughing and it is continued for three days. On 27.03.2014 in the evening hours again they were canvassing in the election the accused persons came on bike and alleged that every time they are winning in the election.

Regarding the lodging of the police report by the Pw1 there is a delay and further reason for the delay not explained by the Pw1. Admittedly the mother of accused persons also contesting as Corporator from the same division but from the other party so normally there is some revallary between the candidates. Pw1 deposed that on that day about 4 to 5 women are also accompanied with her but the investigating officer not examined any of the witness. In fact Pw1 to 4 belongs to one family so there is no independent witness examined by the investigating officer creating the suspecian about the veracity of Pw1 to 4 why because as the Pw1 herself admitted that four to five women are also accompanied with her so non examination of the independent witness is also creating the story of prosecution doubtful. Further to attract the offence Under Section 509 and 506 the essential ingredients of the offence has to be proved by the prosecution but there is no specific ingredients to attract the offences Under above sections . Pw5 who is the investigating officer his evidence is mainly with regard to the procedure of investigation.

Pw5 also admitted that the Pw1 not mentioned about the exact time when the alleged incident happened. The prosecution evidence suffering with several infirmities which can not be side tracked. So this court extended benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused persons.

11. Point No.2:-

In the result, accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 506 and 509 Indian Penal Code, as such they are acquitted under section 255(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. The Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months.

No case property is deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of property is passed.

CC No.122 of 2016Page No.5/5Date:04.05.2017

Typed to my Dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of May, 2017.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL. MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW1: Smt. Mendi Sunitha (LW-1) -NIL-

PW2:Sri. Donthi Anand (LW-3)

PW3:Sri. Mendi Mallikarjun (LW-2)

PW4:Kum. Mendi Manish (LW-4)

PW5:Sri. P.Ramu Naidu (LW-5)

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1:Police Report Dt: 11.04.2017-NIL-

Ex.P2:First Information Report Dt: 02.05.2017

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL. MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.

1 CC. No. 367of 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, (SPL.

MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri Yuvaraja Karingula,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

Dated this 17th day of April, 2015

CC. No. 367 OF 2012

(Crime no. 136/2011 of police station, town-IV, Nizamabad)

BETWEEN: The State through Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad. … Complainant

AND

A1. Kamalapally ramalingaiah,s/o.Lingaiah,Age:40 yrs,Caste:Yadav,Occ:lorry no.AP24V-6939,R/O.H.NO.3-75,Pothininipally(V),Narkatpally(M),Nalgonda(D).

A2.DosapatyVenu,S/O.Narsaiah,Age:45Yrs,Caste:Vyshya,Occ:Business, R/O.H.NO.1-21,Narkatpally(V),Nalgonda dist.

…Accused A1 and A2

This case is coming on 16 day of April, 2015 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of learned APPO for the State and Sri.G.V.Krupakar Reddy, advocate for accused persons and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police Town-IV Police station Nizamabad filed report under section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code with following averments.

On 30-05-2011 at 4:00 p.m the Defacto Complainant/PW3/Badam

Chandra Prakash filed petition in which he stated that on credible information about illegal movement of rice on 30-05-2011 at 02:00 hours through

Vinayaknagar road, Nizamabad,he along with PW1 and PW2 have surprised at Vinayaknagar road at 02:10 a.m on 30-05-2011 and during the check of vehicle they have found a lorry bearing no. AP24V-6939 at Vinayaknagar road,Nizamabad containing 353 bags@ 50 kgs Raw rice approximately. The approximate weight of the said IR 64 Raw rice is 174.00 Quintals. Thereafter 2 CC. No. 367of 2012 they disclosed out identity and purpose of their visit and check of the vehicle.

The vehicle driver was disclosed his name as kamalapally Ramalingaiah and he is resident of Nalgonda. On demand he has produced the following documents.

1.Form of certificate No.10 dated:02-05-2011(where in it is mentioned that paddy of 251,171 quintals)

2.copy of driving licence DL AP0241651022008

3.e-seva receipt no.CTPK00436769,Dated:03-02-2011

4.Xerox copy of insurance No.6132013100100010073,Dt:21-01-2012 further on demand to produce the release certificate issued by the civil supplies department authorities, the driver has stated that he has no release certificate and way bill. Further the driver of the vehicle has stated that the rice stock were loaded at Narkatpally mandal of Nalgonda district and that the stocks are being transported to Basar of Adilabad District. The driver has further informed that the rice belongs to one venu resident of Narkatpally mandal of Nalgonda district.

As per C1.7(a)(b) of the A.P Rice Procurement (Levy) order,1984 no miller shall transport rice for sale from the premises of rice mill or business premises of the dealer of the godown except in accordance with release certificate issued by the collector (CS) or District Supply Officer, concerned.

Hence they seized 174.00 quintals of raw rice available in the lorry and handed over the rice to mooda balaji, partner of venu industries,borgaom,

Nizamabad for safe custody. The seized lorry was kept with the police station

Town IV, Nizamabad for safe custody. In view of the above separate report under section 6A of Essential Commodities Act 1955 filed before the Joint

Collector, Nizamabad for confiscation of entire seized stock and levying penalty against the owner of the lorry. As the rice is under transit without valid permit issued by the collector (CS) or the District Supply Officer,and which is serious in nature. Therefore,he request to take action against the 3 CC. No. 367of 2012 accused under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. As per the above petition PW6 registered a case in crime no.136/2011 under scetion 7 of

Essential Commodities Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation,PW6 examined PW1 to PW3 and recorded their detailed statements. During the course of investigation on 30-05-2011 at 04;00 p.m the PW6 apprehended the accused and on interrogation the accused no.1 voluntarily confessed that on 29-05-2011 at 07:00 p.m the accused loaded 174 quintals of raw rice containing 353 bags belongs to accused no.2 on his lorry to transport to Basar of Adilabad district without way bill and permit. The

PW6 affected the arrest of A1 by issuing arrest memo and informed the grounds of arrest and sent him to judicial remand. On 27-12-2011 the accused no.2 was surrendered before the Hon`ble I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,Nizamabad and enlarged on bail. On 25-06-2011

Joint Collector K.Harshavardhan issued proceedings to release the vehicle lorry to A1. Accordingly PW6 handed over the lorry to A1. After completion of investigation LW8/ G.Santhosh Kumar filed charge sheet.

2. The I.Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 7 of Essential

Commodities Act against the accused persons.

3. After appearance of the accused persons before this court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution, have been furnished to the accused persons as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal

Procedure Code.

4. Thereafter, this case was transferred to this Court from I. Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nizamabad, for trial, as per the

proceedings vide dis. No.6021, dated.25.10.2012 and on receipt of this case, the case was re numbered in this Court and accordingly proceeded with.

4 CC. No. 367of 2012

5. The accused persons were examined under section 251 of Criminal

Procedure Code by explaining the substance of allegations found in the charge sheet for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the case of the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and Ex.P1 to P5 marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons are examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8. Point for determination:

I. “Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act ”?

II. “To what finding”?

9. Point number 1: PW1 to PW3 are the official witnesses according to prosecution deposed that they seized the lorry transporting PDS rice on reliable information and on enquiry he disclosed his name and also disclosed that one venu engaged him to transport the rice. The PW1 to PW3 also deposed that on enquiry the accused failed to produce the permit then they seized the rice along with lorry and seized rice handed over to venu industries for safe custody. The lorry with driver handed over to police station. PW3 filed police report and marked as Ex-P1. PW1 to PW3 deposed that they conducted seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators PW4,PW5 and PW7. But the mediators deposed that any officials not conducted any panchanama so they turned hostile remaining evidence is the investigating officer evidence his evidence also not corroborating with the evidences of PW1 to PW3 regarding the handing over of the lorry to him. On the other side PW1 toPW3 are the interested witnesses . So there is no independent evidence adduced 5 CC. No. 367of 2012 by the prosecution to show that the accused persons committed alleged offence. Prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt.

10. IN THE RESULT, the accused persons are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 of Essential commodities Act, as such, they are acquitted under section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall remain in force for a period of six months. Unmarked case property already given to venu industries shall be absolute after expiry of appeal period .

Typed to my dictation by personal assistant , corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2015.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

Prosecution:-Defence:-

PW1(LW2):Bandal Ramesh Subash Chander None PW2(LW3):Bathula Bhoomaiah PW3(LW1):Badam Chandra Prakash PW4(LW5):K.Srinivas PW5(LW4):Raj Kumar Tiwari PW6(LW7):B.Balram PW7(LW6):L.Sailoo

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Ex.P1:Is the police report Dt.30-05- -NIL- 2011

Ex.P2:Is the signature of PW3 on panchanama Dt:30-05-2011

Ex.P3:Is the signature of PW5 on panchanama,Dt.30-05-2011

Ex.P4:Is the FIR,Dt.30-05-2011 6 CC. No. 367of 2012

Ex.P5:Is the seizure panchanama

Dt:30-05-2011

M.Os. MARKED- NIL

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

(Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

7 CC. No. 367of 2012

1 CC.No. 149 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL. MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri Yuvaraja Karingula,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

Dated this the 17th day of April, 2015

CC. No. 149 OF 2012

(Crime no. 111/2011 of police station, Town-IV, Nizamabad)

BETWEEN: The State through Sub Inspector of police, police station, Town-IV, Nizamabad. … Complainant

AND A1. Ch. Ramulu, S/o Hanmandloo, age 51 years, caste: Munnurukapu, occ: PC-1105 of Rural PS R/o BLOCK(C),Q No. 32, Police line, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad. A2. Ch. Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, age 47 years, caste: Munnurukapu, occ: Housewife, R/o BLOCK(C),Q No. 32, Police line, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad. ….Accused no.1 and 2

This case is coming on 15.04.2015 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of learned APPO for the State and Sri. R.Ganga Prasad, advocate for accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub inspector of police, Town-IV, Nizamabad filed report under section.173 of Criminal Procedure Code with following averments.

2. On 29.04.2011 at 12.30pm PW1/Pandit Salman Raj filed a petition in which he stated that he is resident of police line

Yellammagutta, Nizamabad. On 28.04.2011 at about 8:00pm his son PW3 and PW2 both of them for visiting out side and while taking their motor cycle the accused no.2 who is under their house filled mud into plastic cover and bet on the head of PW3. When PW3 questioned the reason immediately accused no.1 came and fisted in the stomach of PW3 indiscriminately and abused in filthy language alleging that he handed over his son to police station. The accused also threatened to kill him the 2 CC.No. 149 of 2012 total incident witnessed by PW2,PW4. He requested to take action. PW6 made entry in the General diary and filed requisition before the Hon'ble court for according permission to investigate this case. On 10.05.2011 at 1:30pm he received a letter from the Hon'ble court, Nizamabad to investigate the case. Accordingly he registered a case in crime 111/11 for the offence under section 290,323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he examined PW1 and PW3 and recorded their statements and referred to PW3 to Govt hospital for treatment. Later he visited the place of offence and recorded the statements of PW2 and PW4. The medical officer LW5/Dr. Jaya kottur who treated PW3 opined that PW3 sustained simple injuries. On 27.06.2011 on receipt of information he along with his staff rushed to police line Yellammagutta, Nizamabad and served notice under section 41-

A Criminal Procedure Code. On 29.06.2011 the accused no.1 and 2 came to police station and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence.

After completion of investigation PW5 filed charge sheet.

4. The I. Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad has took cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 290,323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.

5. After appearance of the accused persons before I.Addl.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class court, Nizamabad, case papers furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

6. The accused persons were examined under section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the substance of allegations appearing in the charge sheet for the offences under sections 323,506 3 CC.No. 149 of 2012 and 290 of Indian Penal Code, which are read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. Thereafter, this case was transferred from I.Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad to this court vide proceedings dis no.

6021, dt.25-10-2012, on receipt of this case, the case was renumbered in this court and accordingly proceeded with.

8. In order to prove the case of prosecution, Learned APP examined PW1 to PW6 and Ex.P1 to P4 and Ex.D1 marked. Learned APP given up the evidences of LW5/ Dr.Jaya kothur.

9. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating material found to be appearing in the evidence of prosecution. The accused persons denied the same and reported no defence.

10. Heard arguments on both sides.

11. Point for determination:

“Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under sections 323,506 and 290 of Indian Penal Code”?

II. “To what finding”?

12. Point number 1: PW1 is the defacto complainant deposed that on 28.04.2011 at 8:00pm PW3 and PW2 were going out from the police quarters of his motor cycle. When PW3 was taking motor cycle from the parking area at that time the accused no.2 bet him with mud. The accused no.1 came and fisted PW3 on stomach and also threated to kill

PW3. Immediately he came there but the accused persons fled away from 4 CC.No. 149 of 2012 there. He called PW6 over telephone but he was out of station and PW6 informed that he will come on next day. On next day he filed police report.

During cross examination of PW1 he admitted that he do not remember when he was on rest on 28.04.2011 or 29.04.2011 and also admitted that he did not mentioned the reason for delay of lodging police report.

13. PW2 who is the eye witness according to the prosecution deposed that he know accused persons and PW1 but he do not know anything about this case and police did not examined him and not recorded his statement. PW3 who is the injured deposed different version contradictory to the evidence of PW1 that PW1 is his father and on 28.04.2011 at 8:00pm his father asked him to take the vehicle and park the same then he went for parking the bike at that time A1 and A2 bet him and also threatened him and they will kill him. Then he shouted his father/PW1 then PW1 came there and accused persons left from the place.

14.PW4 is another eye witness according to the prosecution deposed that he know PW1, PW3 and also accused persons. On 28.04.2011 between 7 and 8 pm when he was present in the 2nd floor he heard some disputes going on so she came out and observed that A2 beaten PW3 then PW1 came there and pacified the dispute.

15.Remaining evidence is the investigating officers evidence, PW5 and 6 they deposed the evidence is procedural in nature. Regarding confession before police officer is not admissible in evidence. In the present case PW1 and PW3 gave different contradictory versions. The eye witness not supported the case of prosecution so this court not believed the evidence of PW1 and PW3. Benefit of reasonable doubt extended to accused persons. So prosecution evidence suffering with several 5 CC.No. 149 of 2012 infirmities so the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused persons by adducing cogent, corroborative evidence. This court extended the benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused.

16. IN THE RESULT, the accused persons A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 323, 506 and 290 of

Indian Penal Code, as such, they are acquitted under section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds shall stands cancelled.No case property is deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of property is passed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2015.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

(Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

Prosecution:-Defence:-

PW1(LW1):Pandit Salman Raj None

PW2(LW3):Kumar Battu Saikiran

PW3(LW2): Kumar Pandit Suriyasimha

PW4(LW4): Kodamalla Prasanna

PW5(LW7): MD.Thalali khan

PW6(LW6): B.Balram

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Ex.P1:Is the Police report, Ex.D1 is the some dt.29.04.2011portion of 161 Cr. PC statement of PW3 Ex.P2:Is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2,dt10.05.2011.

Ex.P3:Is the FIR, dt.10.05.2011 6 CC.No. 149 of 2012 Ex.P4:Is the medical certificate of PW3 marked through PW5,

M.Os. MARKED-

NIL

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

7 CC.No. 149 of 2012

CC On 357 of 2014Page No.1/4Date:28.04.2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPL. MOBILE),

NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri Yuvaraja Karingula, Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Spl. (Mobile), Nizamabad.

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2017

CC.No. 357 of 2014

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Makloor Police Station, Nizamabad.

...Complainant

// And // A1: Macharla Yerranna S/o Pedda Gangaram. Age:45yrs, caste: Munnurukapu A2: Esapally Narsaiah S/o Chinnaiah, Age:33yrs, Caste: Munnurukapu A3: Macharla Arjun S/o Yerranna, Age:25yrs, Caste: Munnurukapu A4: Maggidi Bojanna @ Kurma Bojanna S/o Devanna Age:40yrs, Caste: Kurma A5:Sapai Poshetty S/o Gangaram, Age:35yrs, Caste:SC A6: Rodda Sudan @ Annaram Sudan S/o Babanna, Age:45yrs, Caste:SC A7: annaram Loi S/o Pedda Gangaram. Age:62yrs, Caste:SC A8: Amandu Bhumaiah @ Vanjari Bhumaiah S/o Narsaiah, Age:52yrs, Caste:Vanjari A9: Esapally Gangaram @ Pingili Ganagaram S/o Chinna Gangaram, Age:35yrs, Caste Munnurukapu All are Occ:Agriculture, R/o Kalledi village of Makloor Mandal.

....Accused no.1 to 9

(case against A4 and A9 is splitted up and numbered as CC No.15/2016).

This case came before me on this the 21st day of April, 2017 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. N.Varalaxmi counsel for the accused having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Makloor Police station, Nizamabad filed report u/sec 173 of Criminal Procedure Code with the following averments.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having agriculture land of 1 acre 28 guntas in survey no.237/A and he is cultivating the same. The accused no.1to 9 were also having land after the Pw1 land and they have to proceed from the Pw1 land to reach their respective lands, in this regard the accused asked the Pw1 to give way from his land but the

Pw1 said he was helpless in this regard as such several arguments took place between them.

On 14.06.2014 the accused no.1 to 9 were illegally trespassed into his land by damaging the fencing poles and abused him in most filthy language and beat with hands.

CC On 357 of 2014Page No.2/4Date:28.04.2017

3.This court took cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 447,427,323 and 290 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and ordered summons to the accused.

4. After appearance of accused, case papers furnished to them as contemplated Under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The Accused were examined under section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code by putting the accusation leveled against them for the offence punishable under sections 447,427,323 and 290 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, then they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the A4 and A9 are not attending the court and this court issued NBWs but which are pending since long time hence the case against them is splitted up and numbered as CC No.15/2016.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the learned APP examined Pw.1 to 5

Ex.P1 to P7 are marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of Lw2/Rodda Muthyamma.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence in telugu language then the accused denied the same and reported no defence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and defence counsel for the accused.

9.Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the prosecution did proved the guilty of the accused for the offence under sections 447,427,323 and 290 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt?

2. To what finding?

CC On 357 of 2014Page No.3/4Date:28.04.2017

10.Point No.1:-

Pw.1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that he is having two acres land towards

Aloor road and doing agriculture. The accused persons encroached the land and laid the way in two guntas of his land. Pw1 asked the accused persons regarding the encroachment of the land then all the accused persons pushed him, his wife and Pw2. He further deposed that this incident happened about two years back. He lodged the police report. But coming to the

Ex.P1 it reveals that the accused persons damaged the crop and also beat them with hands .

During cross examination he admitted that he can not say the exact date of alleged incident.

He further admitted that he lodged the Ex.P1 on the same day. But whereas the Ex.P1 discloses that there is a two days delay in lodging the report from the date of alleged incident.

Pw2 who is the son of the Pw1 deposed that on 14.06.2014 in the evening hours his parents and himself witnessed that the accused persons removed the cement pillars with fencing.

Further all the accused persons demanded them to give the way in their land and approximately 25 cement pillars are removed from their fields. He further deposed that one

Arun belongs to Aloor village photographed the scene and photos are filed but on seeing the photographs this court can not come to conclusion and the photos has to be proved by calling the witness to court who photographed the scene and also the prosecution has to prove the land in the photos belongs to the Pw1 but there is no evidence to show that the land which is appearing in the photos belongs to Pw1 and further there is dry and wet land i.e., the photos are not taken in one time so it appears that which were taken on different dates why because the dry land becomes greenery after the doing the agriculture work definitely there is a some days difference from the taking of photographs at the time doing agriculture and also crop cutting. So this court not took the photos into consideration. Pw3 who is the panch witness for scene of offence not supported the case of prosecution. Pw4 also the panch witness but he was also not supported the case. Pw5 who is the investigating officer but he also not even tried to take the photographs of the scene and also not collected the documentary proof with regard to the owner ship of the land. He further admitted that he was not examined any independent witnesses statements. The prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences by adducing corroborative cogent supported with documentary evidence.

Hence this court extended benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused persons.

CC On 357 of 2014Page No.4/4Date:28.04.2017

11. Point No.2:-

In the result, accused no.1 to 3 and A5 to A8 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 447,427,323 and 290 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code as such they are acquitted under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of property is passed.

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL. MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW1:Rodda Gangaram -NIL-

PW2:Rodda Prashanth

PW3:Kunsothu Kishan

PW4: Gangoni Gangadhar

PW5:V.Santosh kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1:Police Report dt: 16.06.2014-NIL-

Ex.P2:23 photos showing the damage of land

Ex.P3:CD containing Photographes

Ex.P4:Signature of Pw3 on Crime Detail Form

Ex.P5:Signature of Pw4 on Crime Detail Form

Ex.P6:First Information Report Dt:16.06.2014

Ex.P7: Crime Detail Form dt: 16.06.2014

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL. MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.