Kolli Srutha Vinda

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Kum. K. SRUTAVINDA,

VI A DDL . J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE , G UNTUR .

FAC IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Wednesday, this the 03rd day of April, 2024.

CALENDAR CASE No.1857 of 2019.

Between :-

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Women Police station, Guntur. ...Complainant

-And-

1. Chittela Naga Venkata Aditya Vardhan S/o Pulla Rao, 28 years, Telaga, 4th lane, Near Ramanakshetram, Guntur. Now at 48/49, Anandareddy Layout, Electronic city Phase – II, Bangalore town.

2. Chittela Maruthi Bhavani W/o Pulla Rao, 50 years, Telaga, Telaga, 4th lane, Near Ramanakshetram, Guntur. Now at 48/49, Anandareddy Layout, Electronic city Phase – II, Bangalore town.

3. Setty Alekhya W/o Srinivasa Rao, 34 years, Telaga, R/o Kalyana Nagar, Phase I VET Nivas, Hyderabad.

4. Setty Srinivasa Rao S/o Late Maruthi Prasad, 38 years, Telaga, R/o Kalyana Nagar, Phase I VET Nivas, Hyderabad.

... Accused

This case came before me on 03-04-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for the accused A1 to A4, and upon perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Guntur filed charge sheet in Crime number 67 / 2019 against accused A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for brevity ‘IPC’), and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2

2. The case of the prosecution in nutsell is that :

i.On 01-10-2017 the marriage of LW.1 / Gonam Siva Venkata Durga

Tejaswi was performed with A1 at K.M International Hotel, Guntur. The mother of LW.1 gave an amount of Rs.10 lakh towards dowry and Rs.2 lakh to her sister in law / A3 and spent an amount for Rs.10 lakh towards her marriage where her mother Sujatha (LW.2) gave 18 sovereigns of gold and a five cents house plot situate at Etukuru village, Guntur mandal under Pasupu kunkuma.

After marriage, LW.1 joined with A1 at Bangalore, and whens he joined her husband, he harassed her for additional dowry with the incitement of her mother in law A2. A3 and A4 used to visit her home of ten and carry tales against her and instigates A1 and made A1 to beat her and started to harass her mentally and physically on the plea that she is not a beauty one and dwarfed one and imposed conditions that she has to abide to him otherwise go to her maternal home. On 03-01-2018 as her maternal uncle Lw.3 / Srinivasa

Rao’s wife fell sick then she reached to Guntur to enqurie her there she received a letter form A1 levelling allegations against her then she made a call and asked why he has sent a notice written that she and her mother and maternal uncle colluded with one another and pressed her husband necked her out his mother from the home then only she will lead family life with her husband when she asked him about the letter over mobile phone then he replied that he merely sent a letter out of mood and asked excuse saying that he will look after her well and asked her to come fact on that she went to her marital home at Bangalore then he talked in a pleasant manner and however convinced but after some time, he showed his true colors and stared to harass her, and more over they treated her as an untouchable and famished several times but she bore all their acts patiently.

ii.On 18-09-2018 A1 and A2 picked up a quarrel for every trivial issues and termed her that she is a whore and she can not to do family life and caught her throat firmly and squeezed and told that they would kill there by she lost of her voice and got treated from a doctor on 18-09-2018. On 12-10-2018 in the morning hours A3 and A4 visited her house at Bangalore and talked some time with A1 and A2 then A4 told her that it is better to stay at hostel for 3 six months, then A1 will come to her but she did not agree then A1 and A2 asked her why do not she stay at hostel and A2 said to A1 to neck her out, in the evening on the same day, A3 and A4 went away. On the same day night,

A1 picked a quarrel and abused her in a offensive language and hit her to the window there by she sustained a bleeding injury to her right hand as the glass of the window lacerated and said to quit form his life and he has no interest to lead life with her and incited to die jumping room the bridge otherwise give divorce and started to squabble with her for trivial issues suspecting her fidelity. On 13-10-2018 she consulted doctor at Rama Krishna Hospital and got treated. As she failed to bear the taunts and tribulations and said the same to her friend Anuradha and lodged a report with Konapana Agraharam police station, Bangalore on 25-10-2018 on that police called A1 and A2 to the police station on the same day and conducted counseled where the police suggested to go to her maternal home for period 10 days on that she reached to her maternal home, after 10 days she went to Babgaluru then A1 and A2 convinced her to with draw the complaint and promised that they would look after her well then went to police station on 09-11-2018 and the SI of Police counseled and suggested A1 and A2 saying to lead life happily on that she withdrawn the complaint and went to home soon after reached to home, then

A1 and A2 picked a quarrel termed her as Lanja and uttered how dare does she to report the matter with the police against them and terrorized then A2 said to A1 to finalize either she or LW.1 should stay in home otherwise he went out her out that she con not exist in the home then A1 went out and after some time, he returned to home and said get out from the home and go to the home of LW.3 phoned up to LW.2 where she has been staying at Hyderabad with her brother since her marriage on that LW.2 reached to home then Lws.2 and 3 asked A1 about the things, then A1 said that he has no interest to do family life with Lw.1, if LW1 wanted to abide with him and act as he say and bring Rs.10 lakh then he will reign on that LW.2 asked A1 that she will come to Bangalore and speak with A2, in the mean time, LW.3 phoned to A1 numerous times and said to her that A1 did not respond. On 19-02-2019 LW.2 taken to Babgaluru then A1 said A2 why they had visit the home when he warned that Lw.1 would give divorce then LW.2 said if he find any fault, he has to inform to her but it is 4 not good to drop LW.1 at the home of LW.3 and A1 said to Lw.2 that he has no interest to lead life with LW.1 and intended divorce with in one weak unless the things will become dreary and went out from the home and not return to home for two days, then she went to the office of A1 and contacted A1, then he came out form the office and said angrily and said neither his office staff nor his friends not known that LW.1 is his wife and ordered not to say that she is the wife of him, then the credit of him will go wrong and said go home.

iii.While so, on 27-02-2019 A1 to home and abused her in an untold language who questioned how guts does she come to the office and shoved her and Lw.2 from the home, as there is no other go reached to the home of

LW.1 at Guntur.

iv.On 13-03-2019 LW.1 turned up to the police station and lodged a complaint with Lw.6 / Sk. Khaji Babu, SI of Police, Women PS, in turn registered the same as a case in Cr.No.67/2019 u/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act of Women PS, Guntur urban and submitted original FIR. and submitted the copies of FIR to all the officers concerned and he took up investigation in this case.

v.During the course of investigation, Lw.6 examined as many as 5 witnesses including the defacto complainant and also inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene. Lw.6 served notice to the accused u/s.41A of Cr.P.C on 15-03-2019 to A1 to A4. After completion of entire investigation, LW.6 filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4.

Hence, the charge.

3.This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable u/Secs.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and issued summons to him.

4. On appearance of the accused, this court furnished copies of relevant case records to him as required u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. This Court examined the accused A1 to A4 U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and 5 framed charges for the offences U/Secs.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP

Act read over and explained the same in Telugu to which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 on its behalf. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.3 / J. Sai Srinivasa Rao, LW.4 / Y.

Audilakshmi, Lw.5 / K. Devi, and LW.6 / Sk. Khaji Babu, SI of Police, Women

PS. No witnesses were examined on behalf of accused and no exhibits were marked on behalf of defence.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, as no incriminating material is available against the accused A1 to A4 from the prosecution evidence, their examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the charges punishable u/Secs. 498A of IPC

and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act beyond reasonable doubt” ?

10. POINT:

i.To constitute the offence punishable under sections 498A of IPC and

Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against accused A1 to A4, the prosecution in all examined the defacto complainant as PWs.1 and PW.2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3.

ii.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant namely G.S. Durga Tejaswi (LW.1) who is the defacto complainant as PW1 and she got exhibited Ex.P1 and P2. During the examination-in-chief of PW1, she deposed that she was married to A1 on 01-10-2017 in Guntur.

Initially, she has peacefully co resided with A1 for brief period of time. She further deposed that she has reported the said incident because of petty issues on the directions of family members. She further deposed that she does 6 not know the fact of the case. She has affixed her signature on blank paper approximately about 3 to 4 years ago, and she does not know the contents of the report. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on the report. She further deposed that she was not examined by the police.

iii. Now, coming to the evidence of Pw.2, who is the mother of PW.1, during the chief examination of PW.2, she deposed that she does not know the facts of the case, and that she was not examined by the police.

iv.Though, PW.1 and 2 did not make any incrimination against A1 to A4 including presenting the report except admitting PW.1 signature on the report.

As PW1 and 2 resiled from their earlier statements, the Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile and cross examined PW1 and 2 after obtaining permission under section 154 of Indian Evidence Act. In the cross examination of PW1 and 2, nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination to establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt except putting suggestion. Moreover in this case, the investigating officer was also not examined on behalf of the prosecution and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidences of remaining witnesses as PW1 who is the defacto complainant and PW.2 is the mother of PW.1 turned hostile and no purpose will be served by examining them. No other evidence is placed on behalf of the state to prove that A1 to A4 have harassed PW.1 to bring additional dowry from her parents house, and that A1 to A4 are liable for the offences under sections 498-A of IPC and

Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.

v. So, there is no iota of evidence placed on behalf of the prosecution to prove the offence leveled against the A1 to A4 beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered against the State and in favor of the defence.

11.In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act , accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail and surety bonds of the 7 accused, if any shall be remained in force for a period of six months

U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No order needs to be passed as to the property since no property is recovered by police in this case.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court, this the 03 rd day of April, 2024.

Sd/- K. Srutavinda

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: -none -

Pw.1 :G.S. Durga Tejaswi

PW.2 : G. Sujatha

Exhibits marked

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR

DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on the report. -none-

Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.

Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Material Objects Marked

- none -

Sd/- K. S. Vinda

VI AJCJ, Guntur FAC IV AJCJ, Guntur.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CC.No.1857 of 2019.

Date of Offence: Prior to 13-03-2019 Date of giving report: 13-03-2019 Date of Apprehension of accused: 15-03-2019 Date of Released on bail: 41A of Cr.P.C Date of Date of Commencement of trial: 03-04-2024 Date of Close of trial: 03-04-2024 Date of Sentence or order : 03-04-2024 Explanation for delay: No delay. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Between :-

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Women Police station, Guntur. ...Complainant

-And-

1. Chittela Naga Venkata Aditya Vardhan S/o Pulla Rao, 28 years, Telaga, 4th lane, Near Ramanakshetram, Guntur. Now at 48/49, Anandareddy Layout, Electronic city Phase – II, Bangalore town.

2. Chittela Maruthi Bhavani W/o Pulla Rao, 50 years, Telaga, Telaga, 4th lane, Near Ramanakshetram, Guntur. Now at 48/49, Anandareddy Layout, Electronic city Phase – II, Bangalore town.

3. Setty Alekhya W/o Srinivasa Rao, 34 years, Telaga, R/o Kalyana Nagar, Phase I VET Nivas, Hyderabad.

4. Setty Srinivasa Rao S/o Late Maruthi Prasad, 38 years, Telaga, R/o Kalyana Nagar, Phase I VET Nivas, Hyderabad.

... Accused

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence:- U/Secs. 498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act Plea of accused :- Pleaded Not guilty. Finding:- Found not guilty SENTENCE OR ORDER:-

In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act , accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail and surety bonds of the accused, if any shall be remained in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No order needs to be passed as to the property since no property is recovered by police in this case.

Sd/- K. Srutavinda

FAC IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR

PRESENT:- Kum. K. Sruta Vinda,

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 14th day of July, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.861/2018

Between :

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani P.S.

…. Complainant.

-And-

Maturi Vijay Kumar S/o.Apparao, age 40 years, Vysya, D.No.26-23-5/B, Jenda tree centre, Opp: Vijaya Lakshmi Cinema hall, Nagarampalem, Guntur.

Proprietorof M/s Indira Lubricants Sales & Commission Company, Plot No.15,

Block-12, 14th phase, Indira Auto Nagar, Pedakakani Mandal.

...... Accused.

This case is coming on 14.07.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP and of Sri C.D. Bhagavan, the learned counsel for the accused and after hearing both sides and having perused the material available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.05/2017 for the offences punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code (herein after it is referred as I.P.C).

2.The Case of the prosecution is that the accused is resident near

Jenda tree center, opposite to Vijaya Lakshmi Cinema hall, Nagarampalem,

Guntur andhe is the proprietor of M/s Indira Lubricants Sales & Commission

Company situated at Plot No.15, Block-12m 4th phase, Indira Auto Nagar,

Pedakakani Mandal, and in the year 2002 the father of the accused started the business of manufacturing of lubricants and since then LW.1 is working as recycling by using the engine oil as well as grease from by-product of engine oil, and used sale the engine oil and grease in barrels without mentioning any brand name, in the year 2010, the father of the accused demised and after transferring the unit on the name of the accused besides having license from

Industries Department, Commercial Tax Depatment and Electricity Department without any brand name with the help of LWs.1 to 5 the accused used to purchase used engine oil in bulk from motor mechanic sheds and recycling the same by adding some chemicals, refine the same extract as good quality engine 2 oil, and the by produce is used for manufacturing grease, and selling the engine oil to vehicle owners to be as genuine and cheating the vehicle owners & Auto mobile shop keepers by causing damage to the life time of the vehicles by the low standard engine oil and grease. Further the FSL Department, Hyderabad also analyzed Grease & engine oil and opined that the contents of Grease &

Engine Oil are found to be spurious in Nature. On receipt of information LW.8 conducted a raid on the company of the accused in the presence of LW.6 and 7 and drafted mediatornama duly attested by LW.6 and Lw.7.

3.Basing on the Mediatornama, Lw.9 registered a case in Cr.No.5/2017

U/Sec.420 I.P.C. He served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice on the accused and also examined Lw.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and also sent both seized Grease & Engine oil to

FSL, Hyderabad for chemical analysis and report vide file No.CHE/82/2017 after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge sheet.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and examined him U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C.

for the substance of allegations leveled against the accused by explaining to him the contents of Charge Sheet in Telugu, for which the accusedpleaded not guilty. Charges for the Offences U/Sec.420 of I.P.C framed against Accused and explained the same to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, to prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 and Pw.8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. The learned A.P.P. has given up the evidence of Lw.2 and Lw4.

6.On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence by explaining the same in Telugu, for which the accused denied the same and stated that they have no defence evidence on theirbehalf.

7. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

The accused for the offences punishable

U/Sec.420 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt?” 3

POINT:

9.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused is resident near

Jenda tree center, opposite to Vijaya Lakshmi Cinema hall, Nagarampalem,

Guntur andhe is the proprietor of M/s Indira Lubricants Sales & Commission

Company situated at Plot No.15, Block-12m 4th phase, Indira Auto Nagar,

Pedakakani Mandal, and in the year 2002 the father of the accused started the business of manufacturing of lubricants and since then LW.1 is working as recycling by using the engine oil as well as grease from by-product of engine oil, and used sale the engine oil and grease in barrels without mentioning any brand name, in the year 2010, the father of the accused demised and after transferring the unit on the name of the accused besides having license from

Industries Department, Commercial Tax Depatment and Electricity Department without any brand name with the help of LWs.1 to 5 the accused used to purchase used engine oil in bulk from motor mechanic sheds and recycling the same by adding some chemicals, refine the same extract as good quality engine oil, and the by produce is used for manufacturing grease, and selling the engine oil to vehicle owners to be as genuine and cheating the vehicle owners & Auto mobile shop keepers by causing damage to the life time of the vehicles by the low standard engine oil and grease. Further the FSL Department, Hyderabad also analyzed Grease & engine oil and opined that the contents of Grease &

Engine Oil are found to be spurious in Nature.

10.Perusal of evidence on record:

PW1 has deposed that he did not know the facts of the case. PW1 also stated that he does not know the job of the accused. PW2 in a similar fashion stated that he does not know the facts of the case and the job designation of the accused. He also deposed that he does not know the financial and business transactions of the accused. PW3 also stated that he does not know the facts of the case and the business transactions with regard to the occurance of the offence. PW4 also stated that he does not know the facts of the case and that he does not know the accused and his designation.

11.PW5 stated that he has acted as a mediator and they have proceeded to Indira lubricants sales and commissions godown in auto nagar along with the police. Upon seeing the police, as stated by PW5, LW1 who was at the godown tried to flee and was apprehended by the police. Upon being questioned by the police, LW1 stated that accused who is the owner of the said company procured mud oil from the neighbouring areas and the same is purified 4 and sold as engine oil under the directions of the accused. As stated by the witness, at the scene of offence , 300 barrel empty barrels, 30 barrels of engine oil and 3 barrels of grease oil were found. LW1 stated that the accused was not present at the godown at that particular time. In the cross examination it has been stated by the witness that there is no official document to show that he was officially summoned by the police to act as a meditor. It has also been stated that he has been officiating as the mediator to the pedakakani police in approximately about 20 cases prior to the said offence. It has also been stated that the contents of the mediatornama are not specifically known to him and that he has affixed his signature. The witness also stated that no official license and ownership details were seized or looked into by the police in his presence.

12.PW6 stated that he has proceeded to the scene of offence along with other police personnel and the mediators proceeded to the scene of offence and secured the presence of LW1 on the scene who has stated that the accused is the owner of the godown. LW1 as stated by PW6 has stated that there has been filtering of the lubrication oil that was being sourced from the general market and is being sold as engine oil after the filtering process. The wastage so obtained as stated by the witness, is mixed with pellets to make grease oil. The witness stated that the said products are being masked as original products and being sold in the open market for profits.

13.The witness PW6 in the cross examination has stated that he has received credible information with regard to the aid manufacturing but cannot specify the source and that no immediate G.D entry was made. It has been stated by the witness PW6 that the F.I.R ahs been drafted solely on the mediatornama. It is also stated that no expert was procured before proceeding to the scene of offence. It has been stated that no official complaint with regard to the manufacture of the engine oil and grease oil has been received by the police with regard to which the proceedings were initiated at the scene of offence.

14.PW7 stated that he has received a mediatornama with regard to the procedings that were conducted in relation to the said offence. The investigation process further as stated by PW7 was taken up by him subsequent to the registering of the F.I.R . further in the presence of the mediators PW5 and LW7 and in the presence of LW1, the locks of the factory were opened in the presence of the mediators and from the scene of offence one packet of grease and one litre of engine oil were seized and the same were marked as material objects before the court. The witness in his cross examination has stated that 5 there was no information that was received from the general public, and that he specifically holds no expertise in analysing the manufacturing of the said engine oil and the grease oil with regard to selling the same for higher profits. No expert as stated by the witness was either taken to the scene of offense to analyse the same. The material objects that were seized from the scene of offence were stated by the witness to be found in the open market in branded forms. There are no sources examined as to where the end product of the grease oil or the engine oil was being sold in the market. No documents like official bills were put up before the court to show that the said end products were being circulated in the open market after necessary filtering process and that they are being circulated as original products.

Analysis of the evidence on record in accordance with the standard

legal principles:

1. In criminal proceedings, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. While the prosecution has presented evidence suggesting the accused's involvement in the alleged offense, this evidence has not been sufficient to meet the high standard of proof required in criminal cases. Witness testimonies have been inconsistent, as to upon perusal of the record, there has been an observation by the court wherein a few witnesses denied to support the stand taken up by the prosecution against the accused documentary evidence has been questioned with regard to the lack of seizure of the license of the said establishment and doubts have, thus, been raised regarding the prosecution's case.

2. Section 420 of the IPC states:

3. "Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

4. To secure a conviction under Section 420, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

6

Cheating: The accused must have engaged in an act of cheating, which involves deceiving another person by making false promises, misrepresentations, or fraudulent conduct.

Dishonest Inducement: The cheating must have resulted in dishonestly inducing the person deceived to deliver property or valuable security to the accused or any other person.

Delivery of Property: There must be evidence to establish that the person deceived delivered property or valuable security to the accused or any other person as a result of the dishonest inducement.

Intent to Deceive: The accused must have acted with the intent to deceive and defraud the person deceived, thereby causing wrongful gain to themselves or another person and wrongful loss to the person deceived.

15.The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This requires presenting credible evidence to support each element of the offence. This has been totally absent from the perusal of the evidence on record as brought in by the prosecution in the said case. The credibility of witnesses is crucial in proving the allegations of cheating and dishonest inducement. Inconsistencies or contradictions in witness testimonies have been observed which has weakened the stance taken up by the prosecution against the alleged accused in the said case.

16.Establishing the accused's intent and motive is essential in proving the offense under Section 420. However, proving dishonest intent based on circumstantial evidence could not be successfully achieved by the prosecution.

17.Acquitting the accused in the said case under Section 420 of the IPC is based upon a comprehensive analysis of the evidence on record and legal principles as discussed above. The court has ensured that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof by presenting credible evidence to establish each element of the offence as mentioned above beyond a reasonable doubt. By upholding the principles of justice and fairness, the court here ensures that individuals are not convicted based on conjecture or suspicion, but rather on the basis of credible evidence and due process of law and the same has not been 7 proved by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused through the trial process and with regard to the material that was brought on the record in the course of the same.

18.IN THE RESULT, the court found that the accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 420 of IPC. As such the accused is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused if any shall be in force for six months u/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed by me personally on my laptop and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Sd/-Kum. K. Sruta Vinda.

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: K. Venkatappaiah. -None-

P.W.2: Shaik Nagoor Basha.

P.W.3: Shaik Kalesha.

P.W.4: Shaik Mastanvali.

P.W.5: S. Kumar Babu.

P.W.6: D. Venkata Krishna.

P.W.7: Ch. Chandra Mouli.

P.W.8: B. Seshagiri Rao.

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P.5: Mediators Report. Ex.P.6: Scene Observation Report.

For Defence: -NIL-

Material Objects Marked.

1. M.O.No.1 is one packet of grease oil.

2. M.O.No.2 is one Liter of Engine oil.

Sd/-Kum. K. Sruta Vinda.

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JR. DIVISION), GUNTUR

PRESENT:- Kum. K. Sruta Vinda,

VI Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur.

Thursday, this the 24thday of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.3171/2021

Between :

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Old Guntur P.S.

…. Complainant.

-And-

1. Nallabothula Sivakumari W/o.Bramham, age 42 years, C/Boya, R/o.Uppalapadu village, Old Guntur Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Meenuga Gopi S/o.Venkata Rao, age 27 years, C/Boya, R/o.Pedavadlapudi village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Shaik Raheema W/o.Subhani, age 50 years, C/Muslim, R/o.D.No.63-3-444, 1st lane,Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

4. Shaik Arifa W/o.Nagoora, age 27 years, C/Muslim, R/o.D.No.63-3-445, 1st lane,Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

5. Shaik Salma,W/o.Abdul Saleha, age 26 years, C/Muslim, R/o.D.No.63-3-446, 1st lane,Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

6. Shaik Fazulun W/o.Jilani, age 48 years, C/Muslim, R/o.D.No.63-3-459, 1st lane,Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

7. Cherukuri Pushpa Leela W/o.Nageswara Rao, age 45 years, C/Mala, R/o.1st lane,Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

8. ShaikNoorjaha W/o.Rafi, age 50 years, C/Muslim, R/o.D.No.63-4-581, 2nd lane, Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

9. Vanga Prameela Rani W/o.Veera Reddy, age 45 yers, C/Reddy, R/o.D.No.63-5- 714, 4th line, Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town. 10.Syed Muntaz W/o.Subhani, age 45 years, C/Muslim, R/o.D.No.63-2-74, 0 lane,Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

11. Gonepati Yamini W/o.Venkateswarlu, age 35 years, C/Yadava, R/o.0 line Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town. 12.Perika Mariyamma W/o.Deva Sahayam, age 60 years, C/Madiga, R/o.D.No.63- 2-85, 0 lane, Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

...... Accused.

2

This case is coming on 24.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP and of Sri M. Sreevani, Advocate for the accused and after hearing both sides and having perused the material available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Old Guntur Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.250/2019 for the offences punishable under section

Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act (herein after it is referred as E.C.Act).

2.The Case of the prosecution is that the offence took place near Railway gate, Nandivelugu Road, Guntur Town. The accused No.1 is residing of Uppalapadu village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District. A2 is the brother of A1, A1 lives by agricultural coolie works, A2 is having auto bearing No.AP07 TM 6891 and lives by auto driver. As A1 and A2 got addicted to vices, they decided to purchase PDS for lower rates and sell the same for higher prices to get easy money. A1 an dA2 purchased the

PDS rice from the villagers for Rs.10 per Kg and selling the sme to one Murali who is working as clerk in tehrice mill at Mangalagiri for Rs.13/- per Kg. On 05.07.2019 the accused No.1 and 2 moved Balajinagar, Old Guntur area in eh auto bearing No.AP 07

TM 6891 of A1, purchased the PDS rice from the accused No.3 to 12 total 14 bags weighing about 5 ½ quintals, loaded win the auto for illegal transport and proceeded to mangalagiri for sale the sme PDS rice with higher rate got more profits.

On information, Lw.1 along with Lws.2 to 4 visited the near Railway gate,

Nandivelugu road, Guntur Town, taken the accused in to custody on 05.07.2019 at06.15 pm., U/Sec.7 EC Act, seized auto bearing No.AP07 TM 6891 containing 14 bags of PDS rice weighign about 5 ½ quintls under the cover of police proceedings.

3.Basing on the police proceedings, Lw.9, registered a case in

Cr.No.250/2019 U/Sec.7 of E.C. Act. He served Sec.41-A Crpc notice on the accused and also examined Lws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements. He also prepared rough 3 sketch of the scene of offence and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and examined him U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of allegations leveled against the accused by explaining to him the contents of Charge Sheet in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty. Charges for the

Offences U/Sec.7 of E.C. Act framed against the Accused and explained the same to the accused in Telugu for which they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, to prove its case, the prosecution examined

Pws.1 and Pw.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6.

6.On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence by explaining the same in Telugu, for which the accused denied the same and stated that they have no defence evidence on theirbehalf.

7. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.7 of E.C. Act beyond reasonable doubt?” POINT:

9.It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused procured PDS rice from the white ration card holders to sell the same at exaggerated prices for wrongful gain and intending to transport the same. Lw.9 has been registered the police proceedings as FIR in Cr.No.250/2019 under section 7 of EC Act, of Old Guntur PS on 05.07.2019. The complainant has seized PDS rice under the cover of police mediatornama as none come forward to act as mediators.

10.PW.1, deposed in his evidence that on 05.07.2019 at about 6.15 PM, on credible information to LW1/Shaik Meeraj, while he along with other staff went to

Nandivelugu road and then they observed one auto bearing No.AP 07 TM 6891 they 4 stopped the vehicle and LW1 questioned and they revealed their names as N.Siva

Kumari/A1 and M.Gopi/A2 and other identity particulars and enquired about the contents in the auto. He furter deposed that then the accused No.1 confessed that he purchased the PDS rice for Rs. 10/- per kg and selling the same to one Praveen of

Mangalagiri for Rs.13/- per kg and found 5½ quinttals of load, then LW1 seized the above said stock, arrested the accused under the cover of police proceedings and returned to Old Guntur PS and handed over the same to Lw1 Ex.P1 is the Police proceedings. He was examined by the police.

11.In the cross examination of Pw.1 it is elicited that Lw.1 is the complainant and the investigation oficer and that the scene of offence is a busy localiaty and also a residential area. It is also stated that no notices or summons were served on anyone.

The names of persons to hwom enquired and the names of persons to act as metiaros and that no certificate is obtained from Civil supplies and to show that stock is the PDS rice. He further deposed that he does nto know whether Lw.1 went to Tenali andinquired Praveen and that he has signed on Ex.P1 and he deposed the auto number after going through the record. He denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused that no such instance was taken place as such his signature was not present int eh mediators report and he was deposing false on the instigatin of superiors.

12.PW.2, Inspector of Police, deposed in his evidence that on 05.07.2019 at about 5.30 AM, he received police proceedings/Ex.P1 recorded by PW1, basing on it and that he registered a case in Cr.No.250/2019 U/sec.7 of EC Act and that he sent original FIR to Hon'ble court and copies to concerned authorities and that Ex.P2 is the

FIR Then and there he examined LW.1 to Lw3 at police station and recorded their statements U/sec. 161 Cr.Pc. On the same day. He furather deposed that he again visited the scene of offence which is situated at Nandivelugu road, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch Ex.P3 is the Rough Sketch and that there he examined

LW5 and Lwe and recorded their statements under sec. 161 Cr.PC. He further deposed that then after returning to the police station he reexamined the acused in the presence 5 of mediators and a mediatornama was drafted. Ex.P4 is the Mediatornama and based on Ex.P4, he added the accused A3 to A12. He further deposed that subsequently, a plea was put up before the court seeking judicial remand for A1 and A2 and on 8.7.2019 he sent samples of PDS rice to District manager, Civl supplies manager he also handover the pds rice bags to Asst. Civil Supplies officer, Guntur and received acknowledgment/Ex.P5 and subsequently, a charge sheet field by LW10, after obtaining the analysis report from the commissioner of Civil supplies office and that

Ex.P6 is the Analysis report from the civil supplies office.

13.In the cross examination of Pw.2 it is elicited that he has not furnished any proofs with regard to him beign officially on duty on 05.07.2019 when the accused No.1 and 2 wer apprehended and that the scene of offence is a busy locality and that Lw.5 and 6 are the local mediators extracted at the scene of offence where the accused No.1 and 2 wer apprehended and that he has not examined any localites in the resdential area. He furtehr deposed that he has not been a aprt of preparation of police proceedings at the scene of offence and hence he was not responsible for forwarding information to the civil supplies department immediate after theseizure of PDS rice. He denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused that he has conducted a table investigationfo theprupsoe of statistics and A1 to A12 are not responsible for the commission of the said offence.

14.Moreover, the independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. Non examination of independent witness is fatal to the case of prosecution. Hence, as the prosecution failed to prove the basic criteria of very collection of rice by the accused, let alone its confirmation as PDS rice, this Court holds that the accused did not have to discharge their burden of proof. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were transporting PDS rice without any valid documents.

However, it is also the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The basic mandatory provision is to verify whether the confiscated rice is a PDS rice or not. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 they did not have any qualification to confirm that the rice herein is PDS rice and even they did not 6 make any efforts to confirm the said seized rice is PDS rice. However, it was not sent for chemical analysis and no report has been obtained from the laboratory to prove that the seized material is PDS rice. So, once the charge is specific that the accused was transporting PDS rice, it is duty of the prosecution to prove the same. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to examine the witnesses and mark any documents to show that the rice seized is PDS rice.

15. IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 to 12 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955, and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Bail bonds of the accused, shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-K. Sruta Vinda.

VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: Ch. Jitendra. -None- P.W.2: K. Ameer.

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution: For Defence: -NIL- Ex.P.1: Police proceedings. Ex.P.2: FIR. Ex.P.3: Rough sketch. Ex.P.4: Mediatornama. Ex.P.5: Acknowledgement. Ex.P.6: Analysis report from the civil supplies office.

Material Objects Marked: -NIL -

Sd/-K. Sruta Vinda.

VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

7 // TRUE COPY // 8

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

CALENDAR CASE No.3171/2021

1. Date of Offence: 05.07.2019

2. Date of Complaint or report : 05.03.2021

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : --

4. Date of release on bail: --

5. Date of commencement of trial : 17.02.2025

6. Date of close of trial : 24.04.2024

7. Date of Sentence or Order :24.04.2025

8. Explanation of delay if any: Due to non service of summons to the accused and witnesses by the police, the delay has occurred. COMPLAINANT:

State Rep by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Old Guntur Police Station. ACCUSED:

1. Nallabothula Sivakumari W/o.Bramham, age 42 years, C/Boya, R/o.Uppalapadu village, Old Guntur Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Meenuga Gopi S/o.Venkata Rao, age 27 years, C/Boya, R/o.Pedavadlapudi village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Shaik Raheema W/o.Subhani, age 50 years, C/Muslim, R/o.D.No.63-3-444, 1st lane,Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

4. Shaik Arifa W/o.Nagoora, age 27 years, C/Muslim, R/o.D.No.63-3-445, 1st lane,Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

5. Shaik Salma,W/o.Abdul Saleha, age 26 years, C/Muslim, R/o.D.No.63-3-446, 1st lane,Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

6. Shaik Fazulun W/o.Jilani, age 48 years, C/Muslim, R/o.D.No.63-3-459, 1st lane,Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

7. Cherukuri Pushpa Leela W/o.Nageswara Rao, age 45 years, C/Mala, R/o.1st lane,Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

8. ShaikNoorjaha W/o.Rafi, age 50 years, C/Muslim, R/o.D.No.63-4-581, 2nd lane, Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

9. Vanga Prameela Rani W/o.Veera Reddy, age 45 yers, C/Reddy, R/o.D.No.63-5- 714, 4th line, Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town. 10.Syed Muntaz W/o.Subhani, age 45 years, C/Muslim, R/o.D.No.63-2-74, 0 lane,Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

11. Gonepati Yamini W/o.Venkateswarlu, age 35 years, C/Yadava, R/o.0 line Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town. 12.Perika Mariyamma W/o.Deva Sahayam, age 60 years, C/Madiga, R/o.D.No.63- 2-85, 0 lane, Balajinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur Town.

9

Section of Law: Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty.

Finding of Court : Accused found not guilty.

Sentence/ Order : IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 to 12 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955, and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Bail bonds of the accused, shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- K. Srutavinda

VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JR. DIVISION), GUNTUR

PRESENT:- Kum. K. Sruta Vinda,

VI Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 16thday of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.3352/2024

Between : State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani P.S. …. Complainant. -And-

1. Meda Nageswara Rao, S/o.Anjaiah, age 43 years, C/Yerukala, R/o.Phirangipuram village and mandal, Guntur District.

2. UsarthiSrinivas, Siva Subramanyam, age 30 years, C/Yerukala, R/o.Phirangipuram village and mandal, Guntur District.

3. Yadagiri Shiva Naga Malleswara Rao, S/o.Ramulu, age 37 years, C/Haridasu, R/o.Phirangipuram village and mandal, Guntur District.

4. Valluri Lakshminarayana S/o.Sambaiah, 48 years, C/Kummari, R/o.Namburu village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District.

...... Accused.

This case is coming on 16.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP and of Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused and after hearing both sides and having perused the material available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.405/2023 for the offences punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code (herein after it is referred as I.P.C.) and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act (herein after it is referred as E.C.Act).

2.The Case of the prosecution is that the offence took place on 19.10.2023 at about 21.00 hours, Namburu village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur Town. All the accused used to purchase PDS rice for lower rates from Ration Card Holders and selling the same at high rate to the needy persons and transporting the same PDS rice by the auto of his younger brother. On 19.10.2023 A1 to A3 bought ration rice from unidentified ration card holders in Pedakakani Mandal, Namburu village and surrounding villages. A4 also buys ration rice and sel to A1 to A3. A4 called A1 and told that he has ration rice, ont hat A1 to A3 went to A4, pruchased the ration rice and while they were loading the said rice, meanwhile 2 they saw police coming towards them and tried to run away in afraid that police would catchem. Thus the accused No.1 to 4 got apprehended under a cover of mediatornama.

3.Basing on the police proceedings, Lw.8, registered a case in Cr.No.405/2023 U/Sec.420 of I.P.C. and Sec.7 of E.C. Act. He served Sec.41-A Crpc notice on the accused and also examined Lws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and examined them U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of allegations leveled against the accused by explaining to them the contents of Charge Sheet in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty. Charges for the Offences U/Sec.420 of I.P.C. and Sec.7 of E.C. Act framed against the Accused and explained the same to the accused in Telugu for which they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, to prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to Pw.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

6.On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence by explaining the same in Telugu, for which the accused denied the same and stated that they have no defence evidence on theirbehalf.

7. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.420 of I.P.C. and Sec.7 of E.C. Act beyond reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused procured PDS rice from the white ration card holders to sell the same at exaggerated prices for wrongful gain and intending to transport the same. Lw.8 has been registered the police proceedings as FIR in Cr.No.405/2023 under section 420 of IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act, of Pedakakani PS on 3 19.10.2023. The complainant has seized PDS rice under the cover of police mediatornama as none come forward to act as mediators.

10.PW.1, deposed in his evidence that on 19.10.2023 on credibile information received by UW2 with regard to the distribution of pas rice, they, the police personnel along with LW6 and LW) who are the mediators reached the scene which is situated in Namburu to the house of you Valluru Lakshmi Narayana/A4 and that on reaching the scene, 4 persons tried to flee and were apprehended by the police and on enquiry they specified the details to be that of you A1 to A4. He further desposed that there was a personal car at the house of you A4 by the Regn. No AP 07 AN 0179, on search, about 15 bags of pds rice were found in the said car and that the car belongs to you A1 and that the said pds rice was bought by you A4 for the purpose of illegally selling the same to you A1 to A3. He further deposed that the consolidated goal of you A1 to A4 was to transport the same illegally to Chilakaluripet. There are 15 bags pds rice was seized containing 500 kgs in gross and that a mediatornana was drafted at the scene in the presence of mediators and he has affixed his signature on the mediatomama/Ex.P1. The said seized rice and vehicles along with you A1 to A4 were produced before LW8 and a crime was registered based on the same.

11.In the cross examination of Pw.1 it is elicited that he does not know the details with regard to the receival of information by Lw.1 as it was received by him and that the distance between the scene of offence which is the house of A4 and the police station is about 10 Km and that there was no clicking of photographs after reaching the house of A4 with regard to the commission of offence. It is also elicited that mediatornama and search and seizure took about 1 ½ hour. Samples were drawn by Lw.1 from the seized bags. He cannot specify the variety of rice present in the 15 bags, the only reliable source is the confesion statement and the gunny bags used for packing which are government bags. He further deposed that the said scene of offence is residential area and that tahere was no effort to procure local mediators as A4 belongs to the said locality. He denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused that Lw.6 and 7 are the stock mediators of Pedakakani PS and that there is no seizure or investigation subsequently which is taken palce in the said offence by the police personnel and he was deposing false for the purpose of statistical purpose.

4

12.PW.2, Inspector of Police, deposed in his evidence that on 19.10.2023 at about 8.00 pm, he has received a phone call from the Pedakakani PS with regard to illegal transportation of pds rice in Namburu and specified him to act as mediator and that he along with the police personnel proceeded to Namburu center, upon spotting the police. He further deposed that 4 persons tried to flee, and were apprehended by the police and upon enquiry, they stated their details to be that of you A1 to A4 and that he does not remember of the names of you A1 to A4 but he can identify the same. He further deposed that the witness identified the you A1 to A4 who were present in the court hall and that there were about 15 bags of pds rice weighing 500 kgs in gross in the scene of offence and you A1 to A4 specified that the said pds rice was bought and sold for high profits and that a mediatornama/Ex.P1 was drafted at the scene and he has affixed his signature in it.

13.In the cross examination of Pw.2 it is elicited that he has previously acted as mediators in other cases on the insistence of Pedakakani police and that the distance between the police station and the scene of offence is approximately about 10 KM the time period of half an hour taken by him to reach the hour at the scene of offence and that the scene of offence is a busy locality and that the investigating officer has interrogated and examined the localities at the scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that he has not specified in Ex.P1 and that the said rice was weighed was handwritten and that he was the stock mediator to the pedakakani police and he was deposing false on their insistence.

14.Pw.3, deposed in his chief examination that, on 19.10.2023 at 10:00 pm, LW1 handed over you A1 to A4 and 15 bags of PDS rice weighing about 1500 kgs along with vehicle bearing with registration No.AP 07 AM 0179 which is the sumo Grand car Basing on the same he registered a case in Cr. No 405/23 for the offences punishable U/Sec 420 IPC. sec. 7 of EC Act Ex.P2 is the FIR, proceeded to the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch. He further deposed that Ex.P3 is the rough sketch and later, he examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to LWS U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C and that he has forwarded the consignment of pds rice to MLS point to safe custody and received receipt Ex.P4 is the Acknowledgment. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

15.In the cross examination of Pw.3 it is elicited that General public did not give any intimation with regard to the illegal of selling of PDS rice and that there were no presence of government seals on the bags in which the pds rice was packed and that the 5 scene of offence is a busy locality. He denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel

for the accused that he has conducted table investigation and that he was deposing false

for the purpose of statistical purpose.

16.Moreover, the independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. Non examination of independent witness is fatal to the case of prosecution. Hence, as the prosecution failed to prove the basic criteria of very collection of rice by the accused, let alone its confirmation as PDS rice, this Court holds that the accused did not have to discharge their burden of proof. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were transporting PDS rice without any valid documents. However, it is also the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The basic mandatory provision is to verify whether the confiscated rice is a PDS rice or not. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 they did not have any qualification to confirm that the rice herein is PDS rice and even they did not make any efforts to confirm the said seized rice is PDS rice. However, it was not sent for chemical analysis and no report has been obtained from the laboratory to prove that the seized material is PDS rice. So, once the charge is specific that the accused was transporting PDS rice, it is duty of the prosecution to prove the same. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to examine the witnesses and mark any documents to show that the rice seized is PDS rice.

17. IN THE RESULT, the court found that the accused No.1 to 4 are not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 420 of IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955. As such the accused are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-Kum. K. Sruta Vinda.

VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

6

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: Siva Nageswararao. -None- P.W.2: R. Rosaiah.

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Mediatornama. Ex.P.2: FIR. Ex.P.3: Rough sketch. Ex.P.4: Acknowledgement.

For Defence: -NIL-

Material Objects Marked: -NIL -

Sd/-Kum. K. Sruta Vinda.

VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

// TRUE COPY //

VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

7

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

CALENDAR CASE No.3352/2024

1. Date of Offence: 19.10.2023

2. Date of Complaint or report : 09.10.2024

3. Date of apprehension of the accused: --

4. Date of release on bail: --

5. Date of commencement of trial : 07.04.2025

6. Date of close of trial : 09.04.2024

7. Date of Sentence or Order :16.04.2025

8. Explanation of delay if any: Due to non service of summons to the accused and witnesses by the police, the delay has occurred. COMPLAINANT: State Rep by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani Police Station. ACCUSED:

1. Meda Nageswara Rao, S/o.Anjaiah, age 43 years, C/Yerukala, R/o.Phirangipuram village and mandal, Guntur District.

2. UsarthiSrinivas, Siva Subramanyam, age 30 years, C/Yerukala, R/o.Phirangipuram village and mandal, Guntur District.

3. Yadagiri Shiva Naga Malleswara Rao, S/o.Ramulu, age 37 years, C/Haridasu, R/o.Phirangipuram village and mandal, Guntur District.

4. Valluri Lakshminarayana S/o.Sambaiah, 48 years, C/Kummari, R/o.Namburu village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District.

Section of Law: Section 420 of IPC, sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Plea of the Accused :Not guilty.

Finding of Court : Accused found not guilty. Sentence/ Order : IN THE RESULT, the court found that the accused No.1 to 4 are not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 420 of IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955. As such the accused are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- K. Srutavinda

VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JR. DIVISION), GUNTUR

PRESENT:- Kum. K. Sruta Vinda,

VI Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur.

Thursday, this the 24thday of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.1557/2024

Between : State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani P.S.

…. Complainant.

-And-

Kumba Edukondalu, S/o.Kotaiah, 38 years, C/Erukala, R/o.Phirangipuram village and Mandal, Guntur District.

...... Accused.

This case is coming on 23.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP and of Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused and after hearing both sides and having perused the material available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.444/2023 for the offences punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code (herein after it is referred as I.P.C.) and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act (herein after it is referred as

E.C.Act).

2.The Case of the prosecution is that the offence took place on 13.11.2023 at 00.30 hours, near Gollamudi village, Pedakakani Mandal,

Guntur Town. The accused used to purchase PDS rice for lower rates from

Ration Card Holders and selling the same at high rate to the needy persons and transporting the same PDS rice by the auto of his younger brother.on 2 12/13.11.20163 night while the accused was driving his Ashok Leyland Dost vehicle bearing Number AP 05 TN 0607 and went to Mangalagiri and there he hired 4 unknown persons at the bus stand and took them to Yerrabalem and Navuluru villages inhis vehicle and bourht the ration with their help.

There the accused loaded the rice in Ashok Leyland Dost bearing rice bearing number AP 05 TN 0607, and was afraid of being cuaght by the police if he loaded the vehicle on the highway and passed through the villages of Namburu, Gollamudi, Uppalapadu from Kaja road, and hen took the highway from Nandivelugu road and went to Chilakaluripet. While he was transporting the ration rice, in the charging auto and going to sell it to tiffin carts in Chilakaluripet, he saw police coming towards him and tried to run away in afraid that police would catch him. Thus the accused got appreheneded under a cover of prolice proceedings.

3.Basing on the police proceedings, Lw.4, registered a case in

Cr.No.444/2023 U/Sec.420 of I.P.C. and Sec.7 of E.C. Act. He served Sec.41-A

Crpc notice on the accused and also examined Lws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and examined him

U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of allegations leveled against the accused by explaining to him the contents of Charge Sheet in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty. Charges for the Offences U/Sec.420 of I.P.C. and Sec.7 of E.C. Act framed against the Accused and explained the same to the accused in Telugu for which they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, to prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 and Pw.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7.

3

6.On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence by explaining the same in Telugu, for which the accused denied the same and stated that they have no defence evidence on theirbehalf.

7. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.420 of I.P.C. and Sec.7 of E.C. Act beyond reasonable doubt?” POINT:

9.It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused procured

PDS rice from the white ration card holders to sell the same at exaggerated prices for wrongful gain and intending to transport the same. Lw.4 has been registered the police proceedings as FIR in Cr.No.444/2023 under section 420 of IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act, of Pedakakani PS on 13.11.2023. The complainant has seized PDS rice under the cover of police mediatornama as none come forward to act as mediators.

10.PW.1, deposed in his evidence that on 12.11.2023 at about 12.00 am, on the receival of creditie formation with regard to transport of Pds rice illegally was received, he along with police personnel reached the Golamugi cheruvu malupu, and after reacting when they were in the process of searching vehicles, a DCM was stopped with Regn. No. AP 05 TN 0607. He further deposed that the driver of the said vehicle tried to fee, and upon apprehending stated his details to be that of you the accused Upon, enquiry you the accused stated that you bought the said pds rice from Mangalagiri for the purpose of selling the same to Chilakaluripet. There are 28 bags pds rice was seized conting 1200 kgs in gross. A police proceedings was drafted at the scene in the presence of mediators and he has affixed his signature on the mediatornama and Ex.P1 is the Police proceedings.

4

11.In the cross examination of Pw.1 it is elicited that the scene of offence is about 2 km from the police station and that he has not stated in his under section 161 Cr.P.C statement that the said examination of the vehicle during the night raid as stated in his chief examination and that the scene of offence is isolated and dvoid of people. It is also admitted that the confesion statement of the accused specified tha the said seized stock of

PDS rice was taken to go to the said palce for the purpose of investigation.

He further deposed that the said PDS rice stock seized was weighed at the scene of offence. He has specified the fact that the siezed stock weighed certain weight in his under section 161 Cr.P.C statement and that the said plastic bags in which the said PDS rice was packed were examined by the

Investigating officer at scene of offence. He also evedenced that he can specify that the said rice is white coloured rice and the proceedings took about approximately 2 hours. The said investigation at the scene of offence was done with the help of torch lights because of night time and that the scene of offence is an isolated place.

12.PW.2, Inspector of Police, deposed in his evidence that on 12.11.2023 at about 12.30 AM he received information he along with the staff and two mediators went to Gollamudi village, Pedakakani mandal and there observed you the accused with custody of one Ashokleyland bearing No. AP 05TN 0607 and 28 bags of PDS rice weighing about 1200 kgs in gross. He further deposed that then in the presence mediators, seized vehicle and that PDS rice bags after drawing samples, arrested you the accused under the cover of mediators report and that the said samples, along with pds rice bags and you the accused were forwarded to Lw4 Basing on it, Lw4 registered a casein Cr.No.444/2023 U/sec 420 IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act. He further deposed that LW4 sent original FIR to Hon'ble court and copies to concerned authorities Ex.P2 is the FIR, then and there LW4 examined PW1 and LW3 at police station and recorded their statements U/sec. 161 Cr.PC. He further deposed that on the same day, LW4 again visited the scene of offence, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch Ex.P3 is the Rough Sketch and subsequently, a 41-A CrPC notice was 5 issued to you the accused on 15.11.2023 the 28 bags of pds rice and seized vehicle were handed over to the CSDT Ponnur Ex.P4 is the Receipt and he has verified the said investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Honorable court and as per his knowledge, today, Lw4 has died and is no more today.

13.In the cross examination of Pw.4 it is elicited that the distance between the police station and the scene of offence is approximately 5 km and that the pds rice bags have been handedover to the CSDT by Lw.4 himself. He further deposed that he does not know if Lw.4 received any grievances from the public against the accused with regard to the illegal distribution of PDS rice.

14.Moreover, the independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. Non examination of independent witness is fatal to the case of prosecution. Hence, as the prosecution failed to prove the basic criteria of very collection of rice by the accused, let alone its confirmation as PDS rice, this Court holds that the accused did not have to discharge their burden of proof. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were transporting

PDS rice without any valid documents. However, it is also the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

The basic mandatory provision is to verify whether the confiscated rice is a

PDS rice or not. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 they did not have any qualification to confirm that the rice herein is PDS rice and even they did not make any efforts to confirm the said seized rice is PDS rice. However, it was not sent for chemical analysis and no report has been obtained from the laboratory to prove that the seized material is PDS rice. So, once the charge is specific that the accused was transporting PDS rice, it is duty of the prosecution to prove the same. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to examine the witnesses and mark any documents to show that the rice seized is PDS rice.

6

15. IN THE RESULT, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 420 of IPC and section 7 of Essential Commodities

Act 1955, and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Bail bonds of the accused, shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-K. Sruta Vinda.

VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: K.Siva Naga Malleswara Rao. -None- P.W.2: Shaik Mohammad Miraz.

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Police proceedings. Ex.P.2: FIR. Ex.P.3: Rough sketch. Ex.P.4: Receipt.

For Defence: -NIL-

Material Objects Marked: -NIL -

Sd/-K. Sruta Vinda.

VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

// TRUE COPY //

VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

7

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

CALENDAR CASE No.3183/2024

1. Date of Offence: 13.11.2023

2. Date of Complaint or report : 25.09.2024

3. Date of apprehension of the accused: --

4. Date of release on bail: --

5. Date of commencement of trial : 09.04.2025

6. Date of close of trial : 23.04.2024

7. Date of Sentence or Order :24.04.2025

8. Explanation of delay if any: Due to non service of summons to the accused and witnesses by the police, the delay has occurred. COMPLAINANT:

State Rep by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani Police Station. ACCUSED:

Kumba Edukondalu, S/o.Kotaiah, 38 years, C/Erukala, R/o.Phirangipuram village and Mandal, Guntur District.

Section of Law: Section 420 of IPC, sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty.

Finding of Court : Accused found not guilty.

Sentence/ Order : IN THE RESULT, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 420 of IPC and section 7 of

Essential Commodities Act 1955, and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Bail bonds of the accused, shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- K. Srutavinda

VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur District.