Miss Kshama Deshpande

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

THURSDAY THIS THE 18 th DAY OF April, 2019

Present: Smt. Kshama Deshpande

VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

C.C. No. 549 of 2015

Between:­

State of Telangana, Rep. by S.I of Police, PS Dabeerpura, Hyderabad … Complainant.

A N D

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, S/o Surajmal Agarwal, aged 40 years Occ: Business, R/o H.No 21­7­451, Shakker Kotha, Hyderabad.

... Accused

This CC came before me for final hearing on 02.04.2019 in the presence of APP for the state and Sri Md Vaseeduddin, Sri Shaik Md Mujeeb, sri Naseeruddin Salman, Sri Md Aqheel Ahmed, Sri Md Saleem Ahmed Khan, Sri Sameer Kausar Advocate for Accused, Upon hearing and perusing the material papers on record and 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 Dabeerpura filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.20 of 2015 for the offence under section 384 IPC and 3 & 5 of AP Telangana Money Lending Act 1349.

2.The contents of charge sheet are that on 13­02­2015 at about 20.00 hours received a complaint from Smt. Durdana Khatoon/Lw­1 in which she stated that her husband is running the cloth shop namely NEW INDIAN

GARMENTS from last several years. But, unfortunately in year 1999 the cloth shop was burnt due to short circuit fire accident occurred suddenly. The whole cloth stock and show case furniture nearly worth Rs. 70,00,000/­ was burnt in the fire accident. At that movement her husband need financial help for restore the cloth business for their family livelihood. In this connection 2 her husband has approached Financier Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal /Accused and asked financial support with reasonable interest for restoration of cloth business. The financier was accepted, her husband borrowed Rs. 10.00 Lakhs on 01­07­2010 + Rs, 3.00 Lakhs on 20­05­2011 = total Rs. 13.00 Lakhs for the purpose of cloth business investment. After that her husband had already paid total Rs. 26,16,000/­ till 12­12­2014 out of borrowed Rs. 13.00 lakhs. In this juncture, the both wife and husband requested to the financier that they are not in a position for further payment since they already paid Rs.

26,16,000/­ till 12­12­2014 out of total Rs. 13.00 lakhs. Due to their cloth business is not well and also spending huge amounts for her husband ealth kidney problem. The financier refused their requests and demanded them as “again extra Rs.55,00,000” after receipt of this amount he will give her deed of simple mortgage and agreement of their properties and also he said that “what do you think about me? I am a cruel and dangerous person in money matters, you must pay extra Rs. 55,00,000/­ immediately or otherwise he will lock shop and house. Hence the complainant requested for necessary action.

3.On the complaint of Lw­1, B. Vijay Bhasker Reddy/Lw­10, SI of Police

Dabeerpura PS has registered a case in Cr. No 20 of 2015 U/s 384 IPC and 3 & 5 of AP Telangana Money Lending Act 1349 and Lw­10 took up the investigation. 

During the course of investigation, Lw­10 recorded the statement of

Lw­1 to 7. Later LW­10 collected 2 small daily finance collection dairies from

Lw­3/Md Abdul which containing daily transaction and entries made by the accused at the time of taking amounts in the presence of Lw­6/Md Haseeb & 7/ Shaik Mujeeb. Later LW­10 deputed staff to apprehend the accused.

While the investigation was in progress, on 11­03­2015 at 13.30 hrs the accused surrendered before the LW­10 as per the directions of Hon’ble IV

AMSJ court Hyderabad vide Crl. M.P.No. 519/2015, in which Hon’ble court granted anticipatory bail to accused with condition to execute a bond of 10,000/­ with two sureties and furnished the sufficient sureties and voluntary confessed his guilty of offence. Immediately Lw­10 summoned the

Lw­8 & Lw­9 and accused went to the shop of the accused situated at Manoj 3

Collections bearing No. 21­2­583 to 589, LB State, Urdu Shareef Galli, Patel

Market and seized original property documents of LW­2 i.e. document bearing No. 1550/2000 contains 22 papers, document bearing 1679/2006 contains 14 papers and documents bearing No. 626/2011 containing 10 papers in the presence of LW­8/Md Zakir Hussain & Lw­9/MA Gaffar. Later

Lw­10 released the accused on bail. After completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet .

4.The charge sheet was taken on file for the offences U/s 384 IPC and 3 & 5 of AP Telangana Money Lending Act 1349 against the accused.

5.After appearance of the accused copies of documents furnished to as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.Subsequently the accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. Charge for the offence U/s 384 IPC and 3 & 5 of AP Telangana Money Lending Act 1349 is framed, read over and explained the accused in Telugu/Hindi. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution in support of their case have examined PWs1 to 7 and marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P11.

bAfter closure of the prosecution side evidence the accused was examined u/sec 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution witnesses, which he denied and reported no defense evidence.

9.Heard both the prosecution and counsel for the accused

10. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution has

established the accusation leveled against accused beyond reasonable

doubt?

POINT:

 11.The evidence of pw1 is eschewed as she was reported died.

12.Pw2 deposed that their family is doing ready made garment business.

His father used to do garments business in the name and style of New Indian garments. In the year 1999 shop of his father was set to fire due to short 4 circuit and they have sustained financial problems of Rs. 70 lakhs. On 1­7­ 2010 his father has borrowed Rs. 10 lakhs and in the year 2011 his father has borrowed Rs. 3 lakhs from the accused. His father has mortgage their shop with the accused by depositing sale deeds with the accused by way of mortgage deed, Sale deed dated: 29­5­2000, Sale deed dt: 30­5­1980, Sale deed dt:24­11­2006 his father has repaid an amount of Rs. 26, 16,000/­ till 2014. The accused has also endorsed on the books when ever he received the amount. The accused has further demanded Rs. 25 lakhs to return back and also threatened that if his father not paid Rs. 55 lakhs he will lock their shop and house.

13.Pw3 has deposed that in the year 2010 his father i.e. LW2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs from the accused for the purpose of investment in the cloth business. In the year 2011 LW2 again borrowed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs from the accused. In that connection LW2 mortgaging the shops in favour of the accused. It was agreed that daily LW2 has to pay Rs.6,000/­ towards the said debt. Accordingly LW2 used to pay daily amounts to the accused and he used to note down the payments in small pocket note book. As and when the accused received Rs. 6,000/­ or Rs.4,000/­, or Rs.1,000/­ he used to note down as Rs.60­00/­, Rs.40­00/­ and Rs. 10­00/­. By the year 2014

LW2 paid total sum of Rs. 26,16,000/­ to the accused towards said debt.

Then LW2 and PW2 requested the accused to redeem the mortgage as they already paid Rs. 26,16,000/­ in respect of the borrowed amount of Rs.

13,00,000/­ but the accused further demanded to pay Rs. 55,00,000/­ and then only he will redeem the mortgage and will not return the mortgage deed till then. The accused also threatened that he will see that their shop will be closed and also threatened with dire consequences if his father i.e LW2 fails to pay the demanded amount of Rs. 55,00,000/­ . Inspite of the request made by all their family members the accused did not heed their words and sticked on to his demand. By that time father i.e LW2 was suffering with kidney problem and under going dialysis treatment. Then PW1, himself and other family members together went to the police station and PW1 lodged a complaint before the police. 

14.PW4 Sri.Mohd Haseeb, witness has deposed that the accused lend an 5 amount of Rs. 55 lakhs to LW2 in the year 2010 and he used to visit the

Garment shop to collect the amounts on daily basis towards recovery of the said debt. He used to collect Rs. 4,000/­ or Rs.6,000/­ daily. The said payments are noted down in a small diary maintained by LW2 and the payments are noted down in the own handwriting of the accused. Whenever the accused collects Rs. 6,000/­ then he used to note it down as Rs.60/­ .

Whenever the accused collects Rs. 4,000/­ then he used to note it down as

Rs.40/­ . When the said diary was fallen down then he saw the said entries in the diary and he asked LW2 as to why the accused has made the entries as such though he received Rs.6,000/­ and Rs.4,000/­ respectively on different dates and on that LW2 replied that the financier will make entries in such a manner and it is their practice. In the year 2011 the accused demanded for repayment of Rs. 55 lakhs otherwise he will initiate criminal action against

LW2 and he will get the shop closed.

15.PW5 deposed that on 11.03.2015 at about 8 PM Dabeerpura Police called him to the police station and by that time the accused by name Manoj

Kumar Agarwal was present in the police station and in his presence LW10 enquired the accused and on that he revealed that he lent amount to LW2 i.e., Rs.10,00,000/­ and Rs.3,00,000/­ respectively and in that connection

LW2 deposited the documents pertaining to his shop and those documents are available in his shop. The police recorded the confession statement of the accused in his presence and in the presence of LW8.

16.Evidence of PW6 is eschewed.

17. PW7 stated about receiving complaint, registering the case, issuing the fir, investigation and filing charge sheet .

18. The accused is charged with the offences under section 384 IPC and 3 & 5 of AP Telangana Money Lending Act 1349.

19. The facts elicited in the cross examination are pw2 stated that the accused is doing finance business . He has filed the documents to show that his father borrowed Rs 10 lakhs and also Rs. 3 lakhs from the accused . The mortgage deed was registered at sub registrar Charminar that himself and his brother has signed on mortgage deed as witnesses. As per mortgage document his father has borrowed Rs 20 lakhs from the accused. That his 6 father has agreed to repay the loan amount to the accused at the rate of 12 percent per annum to the accused. He has not filed any documents except Ex.

P6. His father repaid Rs 26,16,000/­ to the accused. He did not mention the names of other borrowers who has borrowed amount from the accused . the accused has filed civil suit for recovery of loan amount against his father .

that after the death of his father they were all added as defendants in the civil suit as on the date of present complaint his father is alive.

20.PW­3 stated in cross examination that he do not know as to whether the father of the accused also carries cloths business or not. That he has not mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint and nor stated in his sec. 161 statement about the names of borrowers who borrowed amounts from the accused. That the accused has filed a civil suit in OS No 166/2015 on the file of IX Addl. Chief

Judge, City civil court, Hyderabad against his father.

21.PW­4 stated that the LW­2 borrowed an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs in the year 2010 and Rs. 3 lakhs in the year 2011. That LW­2 and his sons later paid total amount of 26 lakhs on daily installment basis to the accused. That the accused demanded to pay an amount of Rs. 55 lakhs to return the documents to Lw­2 and his sons i.e. to redeem the mortgage. That the accused even threatened LW­2 that if he fails to pay Rs. 55 lakhs he will lack the house and shop of LW­2. 

22.Pw­4 further stated that he is working under LW­2 since 10 years. Even now he is working under the sons of LW­2 in the same Garments shop. That

LW­2 borrowed amount from the accused in connection with his cloth business. He never borrowed any amount from the accused. That he cannot say the name of any person who borrowed amounts from the accused. 

23.PW­5 stated that Ex.P8 panchanama was drafted initially in the handwriting of SI of Police and later it was typed by constable. They went to the shop of the accused at about 9.30 PM and there SI of police seized some papers. The police seized 2 documents and one among them was mortgage deed. He did not read Ex.P2 to P5 and only he saw them. He did not know the contents of Ex.P2 to P5.

24.PW­7 stated that there is no documentary proof to show that the husband of PW­1 borrowed an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs on 1­7­2010. That no 7 documentary evidence is furnished to him by PW­1 to show that husband of

PW­1 again borrowed an amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs on 20­5­2011 except Ex.P6 small note books, no other document is furnished to him by Pw­1 to show that her husband have repaid 26,16,000/­ to the accused. That he has not examined any other borrowers to show that the accused lent amounts to them as financially. Except Ex.P6 small note books there is no other documentary evidence to show that the accused is running finance business.

That as per Ex.P2 which registered document, Lw­2 received an amount of

Rs.20 lakhs from the accused for interest at a rate of 12%.

25.The PWs 1 and 2 deposed on same lines with regard to their father obtaining Rs 13,00,000/­ frm the accused and further repaid Rs 26,16,000/­ and further the accused demanding to pay Rs 55 lakhs and threatened their father. 

Section 384 deals with punishment of extortion the word extortion is

defined under section 384 of IPC as follows:­ “Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or any valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.”

As per Section 3 of the Act “The Money lender should get their names registered and no money lending shall carry on the business of money lending without obtaining license.”

In this case the accused is found to be carrying on money lending business as per the section 3 of the Act he did not obtain any license violating the provisions of the Act.

As per Section 5 of the Act “The money lender should maintain regular accounts of loan for each debtor separately and also shall furnish the statements to the debtors in respect of the outstanding loan amounts.” 

Sec 2(7) defines money lending as follows:­

A person including pawn broker who, within the meaning of this Act, only advances loan in the ordinary course of his business or it is so alone with 8 other business, and shall also include the legal representative of such person and the person claiming to be his representative on the ground of accusition or assignment of otherwise consider.”

26.In this case the evidence of PW1 and PW6 was eschewed and there remains the evidence of PW2 & PW3 who are the family members of Abdul

Sattar and they deposed on same lines with regard to their father doing

Garment business as he suffered financial loss due to short circuit he obtained loan from the accused mortgaging the shop in favour of the accused and also about repaying the amount of Rs. 26 Lakhs and inspite of that the accused demanded an amount of Rs.55 Lakhs and threatened with dire consequences.

27.PW4 who is the independent witness also supported the version of

PW1 & PW2 though, he was declared hostile he admitted in cross­ examination about LW2 borrowing Rs.13Lakhs and paid Rs.26 Lakhs to the accused and accused demanded to pay Rs.55 Lakhs to redeem the mortgage.

The facts elicited in cross examination goes to show that the father of PW2 and he borrowed Rs.20 Lakhs from the accused by mortgaging the shop and the accused filed Civil Suit for recovery of loan amount against LW2.

28.It is a fact that there is no mention of names of other borrowers who obtained loan from the accused and also PW7 did not examine any other borrowers to show that the accused lent amounts to them financially and also there is no documentary evidence to show that the accused is doing money lending business.

29.In support of the case the documents were filed. As per the evidence of

PW5 the accused confessed about he lent amount to LW2 and further the documents at his instance were seized under the cover of seizure panchanama which are marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P5.

30.As per his evidence one among the documents is mortgage deed and the fact that PW5 did not know the contents of Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 does not make his version to disbelive with regard tot he confession and seizure by the accused since he deposed all the facts about the accused confessed about the advance and the documents were seized at his instance. Ex.P2 is the mortgaged deed showing Abdul Sattar mortgage the Mulgi bearing no. 22­7­ 9 166 & shop bearing no. 22­7­267/A/18 for Rs. 20 Lakhs. Ex.P3 is the sale deed executed by Abdul Habeeb in favour of Md Abdul Sattar in respect of property bearing no. 22­7­166. Ex.P4 is the sale deed executed by Qyam

Hussain in favour of Abdul Habeed in respect of the property Mulgi bearing no. 22­7­167 in Ex.P5 is the sale deed executed by Md Ali Zahid in favour of

Abdul Sattar in respect of the property bearing no­ 22­7­267/A/18 and the said property were mortgaged by the LW2 in favor of the accused for obtaining loan of Rs.20 Lakhs, the suggestion to PW3 that accused never lent amounts to any one is denied by PW3 and from the fact that the accused filed suit for recovery of amount it can be stated that the accused lent amounts to

LW2 and seizure of documents from the possession of the accused show that the property is mortgaged in favour of the accused for Rs.20 Lakhs. Ex.P6 is marked on behalf of the complainant which are the note books mentioning amounts but the same does not reflect that the amount was paid towards the discharge of loan amount received by LW2.

31.In this case LW2 being the victim could have deposed all the facts in respect of the acts of the accused but though the evidence of PW2 & PW3 are circumstantial evidence their evidence cannot be brushed aside since they deposed all the facts and deposed on the same line with regard to the accused lending the amount and further demanding excess amount from

LW2 and threatening with dire consequences but as per the evidence there are no other names of the borrowers mentioned and also from the evidence on record it is seen that the accused filed suit for the recovery of amount as such the fact that the accused is doing money lending business is not found to be established in the evidence, and the evidence of PW2 & PW3 is corroborating with the evidence of PW4 with regard to accused threatening

LW2 with dire consequences for failure of payment of excess amount and from the material on record this court finds that the ingredients of the offence of extortion are established but the accusation under Sec. 3 & 5 of

Money Lending Act are not found to be established. In this circumstance this court finds that the accusation leveled against the accused are established by the prosecution for the offence under section 384 of IPC.

10

32. In the result the accused is found guilty for the offences under section 384 of IPC and he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C and further he is not found guilty for the offence under section 3 & 5 of Money Lending Act and as such under section 248(1) Cr.P.C he is acquitted of the offence.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed and typed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 18 day of April, 2019.

VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

On hearing the accused on quantum of sentence stated that he is having family depending upon him and he is suffering old age ailment and prayed to take lenient view. 

Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case and having opinion that the provisions of section 3 & 4 of probation cannot be applied in the present case, since the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay fine of Rs.1000/­ for the offence under section 384 IPC and in default he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 2 Months.

The accused is informed about his right to prefer appeal and legal aid. The remand period under gone by the accused person shall be set off as per section 428 Cr.P.C copy of the judgment is furnished to the accused free of cost as required under section 363 Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me, in the open Court on this the 18day of April, 2019.

VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

11

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : Doordana Khatoon -Nil- PW2 : Md Abdul Qudoos PW3 : Md Abdul Irfan PW4 : Md Haseeb PW5 : M.A Gaffar PW6 : Md Zakir Hussain PW7 : B. Vijay Bhasker Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 – Complaint -Nil- Ex.P2 - Mortgage deed Ex.P3 – Sale deed dated 29.05.2000 Ex.P4 – Sale deed dt: 30.05.1980 Ex.P5 – Sale deed dt: 24.11.2006 Ex.P6 – Two books Ex.P7 – complaint lodged by his mother Ex.P8 – The confession panchanama of accused Ex.P9 – the seizure report. Ex.P10 – complaint from PW1 Ex.P11 - FIR

M.Os MARKED

-Nil-

VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

12 2.

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

MONDAY THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

Present: Smt. Kshama Deshpande

VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 

Hyderabad. 

CALENDER CASE No.30/2016

Between:

The State represented by The Sub­Inspector of Police, Ps Mirchowk, Hyderabad. … Complainant

And 

A1: Nader Rizawan Ali Mirza @ Rizwan, S/o Nader Abbas Ali Mirza, Age­ 24 years, H.no­ 18­7­316/B/5, Aman Nagar­A, rengeli Khidiki, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad

A2:Mir Mubashir Ali Baqri @ Mubashir @ Hyder, S/o Mir Raza Ali Baqri, Age­ 19 years, R/o Near Shaik Faiz Kaman, Bada Bazar, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad

A3: Taqi Ali @ Chotu S/o Late Rahath Ali, Age­ 24 years, H.no­ 23­1­432/6/C, Alijha Kotla, Hyderabad

A4: Mohammed Sameer, S/o Late Mohammed Shukoor, Age­ 21 years, H.no­ 17­3­433/18/I Ganga Nagar, Yakuthpura, Charminar, Hyderabad … Accused nos.1,2 & 4 (A3 abated) (The present case is against A1, A2 and A4)

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the A.P.P for the state and Sri. Bhoopal Raj, Advocate for A2, A4, Smt Naseem Banu , Advocate,Legal Aid Counsel for A1; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Mirchwok in Crime

No.168/2014 against the accused no’s.1, 2 and 4 for the offence under

Section.382,411 IPC .

2 OF 10 CC.No. 30/2016

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet filed by the police against the accused are:-

3.That on 21.10.2014 at 0715 hours LW1/ CH Shanker Swamy lodged a complaint and stated that he along with his mother left from their residence to MGBS bus stand along with some grocery to go to village near

Yadagirigutta on their bike, while they reached at Abidali eye hospital at about 0600 hours 2 unknown persons came on Black pulsar bike from back side and snatched away his mothers gold pustela thadu weighing about 2 tolas and Nallapusala dhanda weighing about 3 tolas from her neck and due to force she fell down from bike on the road. Hence, prayed police to take necessary action

4.Basing on the compliant registered a case in Cr.No. 168/2014 and took up the investigation.

5.LW14/B. Anji Reddy examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and also recorded the statement of LW2/ Janamma, visited scene of offence secured two mediators LW 3 & 4 / Mohd Hussain and Syed Mubeen, drafted rough sketch of scene in the presence of panchas. On 11.08.2015 LW14/ B.

Anji Reddy along with his staff Lws 9 to 11/ Khaja Hamed Ali, T. Praveen

Singh, M. Harishwar Reddy chased and apprehended A1 and A2, brought them to PS interrogated them thoroughly and they confessed that they had committed the offence. LW14 secured presence of Lws 5 & 6/ Mohd Yousuf and Mohd Ghouse recorded their confession panchanama of accused and effected the arrest fo the accused no.1 & 2.

6.LW14 obtained PT warrant against A3 and took custody of A1 to A3 for one day and also recorded the confession statement of A3 remanded them to judicial custody.

3 OF 10 CC.No. 30/2016

7.On 23.10.2015 LW15/ Ranga Reddy sent LW9 and LW12/ Khaja

Hamed Ali and PN Srikanth and found A4 in suspicious circumstance apprehended him brought him to PS on interrogation he revealed his name and confessed to have committed the offence. LW15 secured the presence of

LW 7 & 8/ Javed Khan and D. Sai Teja recorded his confessional cum seizure panchanama and sent him to judicial remand and after completion of investigation he filed charge-sheet.

8.This case is taken on file for the offence u/sec.382, 411 IPC . On appearance of the accused no.1,2 & 4, they were supplied with copies of relevant documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

9.This court having considered the record, accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. charge was framed for the offence under section 382, 411

IPC for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and MO1.

11.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence.

12.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

13.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove and establish the

Guilt of the accused for the offence under section 382, 411

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

14. P O I N T :

PW1 deposed that on 21-10-2014 at about 5.30 AM himself

4 OF 10 CC.No. 30/2016

along with his mother started on his motorcycle to go to MGBS. When they reached near Dharushifa X Road they have noticed A1 and A2 on a bike in suspicious. They have proceeded towards MGBS when they reached near

Abeed Ali eye hospital. A1 and A2 has came on their motorcycle and snatched away gold Pustaltadu and gold Blackbeet chain from neck of his mother. His mother has fallen from his motorcycle and sustained injuries to her hands and legs. He shifted his mother to hospital and went to police station and lodged the complaint.

15. PW2 deposed that on 21-10-2014 at about 5.30 AM herself along with

PW1 started on motorcycle to go to MGBS. When they reached near

Daharushifa X Road they have noticed A1 and A2 on a bike in suspicious.

They have proceeded towards MGBS when they reached near Abeed Ali eye hospital. A1 and A2 has came on their motorcycle and snatched away gold

Pustaltadu and gold Blackbeet chain from her neck due to which she fell from motorcycle. She sustained injuries on her head, hands and legs and she was shifted to hospital.

16. PW3 deposed that on 21.10.2014 police called him to scene of offence situated near one eye hospital and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drafted rough sketch in his presence.

17.PW4 deposed that on 11.08.2015 police called him to PS wherein he have found one persons by name Rizqan Ali Mirza and other persons and both of them has voluntarily confessed before them that they have committed theft of one gold chain from one woman bear Dharushif and sold said item to third person. Police recorded confession of both the persons in his presence and he can identify both the persons thereafater he identified A1 and A2 standing in the court dock box .

5 OF 10 CC.No. 30/2016

18.PW5 Javeed Khan deposed that On 25.8.2015 police Mirchowk called to Police station and there one person was present on enquiry he revealed his name as Taqi Ali i.e A3 and he confessed his guilt by stating that he is maintaining a gang and further confessed that he sold away one gold chain for Rs.12,000/- his confessional statement was recorded in his presence and in the presence of another mediator. That after 2 months the police again called upon to the police station and there found one person and he confessed that he sold away on gold chain and he cannot identify the culprit who sold away the gold chain.

19.PW6 deposed that there were two persons present in the police station and on enquiry they confessed that the snatched chain from the neck of one lady near Abed Ali Hospital Darushifa, Hyderabad and they further confessed that they sold away the snatched chain to another person for amount fo

Rs..12,500/- and spent the amount. The police drafted confession cum seizure panchanama of accused and the present in the court hall were the said two persons.

20.PW7 deposed that LW13 recived complaint, registerd a case , issued

FIR and handed over CD file to him for further investigation , after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

21.PW8 deposed that On 25/8/2015 he obtained PT Warrant in respect of

A3 and recorded his confession statement and sent to judicial custody. On 23/10/2015 he apprehended A4 and recorded his Confession cum seizure panchanama of accused and seized 3 tulas of nala Pusthalatadu gold in presence of panchas Pw5 and Lw8 and remanded him to judicial custody. He handed over case file to Pw7 for further investigation.

22.The accused are charged with the offence under sections.382, 411 IPC .

6 OF 10 CC.No. 30/2016

23.It is allegation against the accused that they snatched the gold chain of

PW2 while she was going on bike .PW1 and 2 deposed on the same lines with regard to the incident and they identified A1 and A1 and A2 to be the said persons who snatched away pusthelathadu and black beads chain from the neck of PW2. PW2 deposed police conducting scene of offence panchanama and PW4 is the panch for confession stated about A1 andA2 confessed the offence of theft and identified A1 and A2 before the court .

PW5 is the panch for confession of A3 . PW6 also deposed about A1 and A2 confessed offence and they further confessed that they sold away snatched chain . PW7 and 8 are investigating officers.

24.As per facts elicited in cross examination PW1 stated that the incident took place in dark time he noticed the incident when his mother has fallen from the mother vehicle he has not scene culprits snatched away from his mothers neck he has not seen the faces of culprits at the time of the incident.

PW2 stated that the culprits came to her side and taken away the gold chain and she has fallen from moter bike at the time of incident she further stated that she has seen A1 and A2 at the time of incident as they came to her side and that she became unconsciousness when she fallen from motor cycle she denied the police shown A1 andA2 in the court . In cross examination of

PW3 no material facts were elicited.

25.PW4 stated that there were four persons present in the police station his signature was obtained on white paper and saw the accused in the police station and again stated that he deposed at the instance of police. PW5 is declared hostile as he did not identified accused and in his cross examination by APP no material facts were elicited to support the prosecution and PW6 stated that accused confessed that they committed theft, he denied that he do

7 OF 10 CC.No. 30/2016

not know anything about the case.

26.In cross examination of PW7 & 8 no material facts were elicited except suggesting that nothing was seized from the possession of the accused which was denied by them .

27.The essential ingredients required to prove for the offence under sec.

382 IPC are follows:-

1. The accused removed the movable property 2. That he removed out of the possession of another person without his consent 3. that he did so with a dishonest intention 4. That he committed it after preparation for causing death hurt or restraint in order to commit of theft.

28.Sec. 411 IPC deals with “ Dishonestly receiving stolen property.

29.In the instant case PW2 is victim. PW1 is complainant who set the law in motion by lodging the complaint with regard to the incident and they both identified accused to be the said persons.

30. Though the evidence of PW1 that he has not seen faces of the culprits at the time of incident is taken into consideration the evidence of PW2 is on record who has seen the accused at the time and identified the accused to be the said persons and she denied that she identified at the instance of police and she being the victim has deposed all facts with regard to the incident and her evidence is supported by PW1.

31. The panch for confession also identified A1 and A2 to be said persons who has confessed offence.

32. The cross examination of PW4 that his signature has been obtained on white paper and deposed at the instance of police does not make the case of prosecution fatal since the said witness appeared before the court after long gap after his chief examination wherein he identified A1and A2 and deposed

8 OF 10 CC.No. 30/2016

the facts with regard to accused confessed the offence and his evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW6 who also identified accused to be the said persons who confessed the offence. PW8 recorded the confession and seizure panchanama of A4 and seized 4 tulas of gold pusthalthadu from the confession of the accused and though panch witness turned hostile, the evidence of PW8 cannot be brushed aside, since it is proved that the property of PW1 was subjected to theft and that tt is A1 and A2 who committed offence and in turn they sold the property to A3 and A4.

33.In “ State of Gujarat V. Satish @ kalu @ Hathoda Bhikhabhai Patel ,

the Hon’ble Court observed that ‘it is well settled that merely because

the panch witnesses do not support the case of the prosecution, the case

of the prosecution need not be thrown over-board as unreliable. It must

be realized that the phenomenon of panch witnesses turning hostile to the

prosecution is not unknown and is ever on the increase. It needs hardly

to be emphasized that the decision of a case does not depend solely on the

question whether the panch witnesses support the prosecution or turn

their back on it. IF the decision of the case were to depend solely on the

testimony of panch witnesses regardless of the evidence of police officers,

in theory, it would be giving a right of veto to the panchas so far as that

question of culpability of an accused is concerned, which is not

permissible in criminal jurisprudence. It is well settled that without good

ground being pointed out, testimony of police officer, if other-wise found

to be true and dependable, cannot be discarded by court on the ground

that he is a police officer.’

34.The material on record goes to show that the accused are involved in the offence hence the ingredients of the offence under sec. 382 IPC are

9 OF 10 CC.No. 30/2016

proved against A1 & A2 and the offence under sec. 411 is proved against A4.

35. In the result, accused no.1 & 2 are found guilty for the offence under sections 382 IPC as such under section 248(2) Cr.P.C they are convicted of the same. The accused no. 4 is found guilty for the offence under sec. 411 of

IPC as such under sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C he is convicted of the same.

Typed to my dictation, by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 22nd day of March, 2021.

VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

On hearing the accused on quantum of sentence A1, A2 and A4 , A1 stated that he is working as erecting sign boards, A2 stated that he is working as screen printer and A3 stated that he is working as polisher and they prayed to take lenient view.

Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case and having opinion that the provisions of section 3 and 4 of probation of offenders Act cannot be applied in the present case, since the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused no.1, 2 and 4, the accused no.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of One year each and shall pay fine of

Rs.500/- each for the offence under section 382 IPC and in default of payment of fine A1 and A2 shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Further The accused no.4 is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under sec. 411 IPC and in default of payment of fine shall he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each . The accused are informed about their right to prefer appeal and legal aid. The remand period

10 OF 10 CC.No. 30/2016

under gone by the accused persons shall be set off as per section 428 Cr.P.C.

Copy of the judgment is furnished to the accused free of cost as required under section 363 Cr.P.C.

MO1- black beeds chain was already given to PW1 towards interim custody and the same shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1 : Shnaker Swamy -NIL- PW2 : Janamma PW3 : Mohd Hussain PW4 : Syed yousuf PW5 : Javeed Khan PW6 : Mohd Ghouse PW7 : B. Anji Reddy PW8 : K. Ranga Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 – complaint Ex.P2 –Scene of offence panchanama and also drafted rough sketch Ex.P3 –Confession panchanama of A1 Ex.P4 –Confession panchanama of A2 Ex.P5 – confession panchanama of A3 Ex.P6 – signature portion of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanam of accused no. 4 dt 23.10.2015 Ex.P7 – FIR Ex.P8 – the relevant portion of confession and seizure panchanama of A4.

M.Os MARKED

MO1- black beeds chain

VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

1 Of 10C.C.No. 395 Of 2015

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. Kshama Deshpande VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated This The 01st Day Of March, 2021

C.C.No. 395 of 2015

Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub­Inspector,

P.S. Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. ..Complainant

And

A1. Zubeda Begum, W/o.Md Haneef, Aged about 25 years, Occ:House Keeping(unemployee), R/o.H.No.:11­1­900/3/A/Z, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

A2. Tahera Begum, W/o.Late Anwar Khan, Aged about 27 years, Occ:Maid Servant, R/o.H.No.:11­1­900/3/A/2, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

A3. Fareeda @ Farro, W/o.Azhar Ali, Aged about 24 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.:11­1­900/3/A/Z, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

A4. Sabera Begum, W/o.Md.Shareef, Aged about 29 years, Occ:House Keeping, R/o.H.No.:11­2­425/5/1/B, Bhavaninagar, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

A5. Mohd Azher Ali, S/o.Mohd Asgar Ali, Aged about 25 years, Occ:Auto Mechanic Cum Auto Driver, R/o.H.No.:11­1­900/3/A/Z, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

A6. Mohd Haneef Shaik @ Haneef, S/o.Noor Mohd Shaik, Aged about 30 years, Occ:Auto Driver, R/o.H.No.:11­1­900/3/A/Z, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad, N/o.Nalasupara, Tulig Road near Anderi, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the prosecution and Sri.S.Srinivasa Rao, Counsel for the accused persons and after having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 Of 10C.C.No. 395 Of 2015

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Humayun Nagar P.S laid charge sheet against the A1 to A6 for the offences U/Secs.380 & 420 r/w 34 IPC in Crime

No.384/2014.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are that on 07.10.2014 at 1800 hours, the Lw1 Sri.Vinay Kumar Agarwal, lodged report to the Police stating that on 02.10.2014, two ladies visited his showroom with an intention to purchase jewelers, but in turn performed theft by diverting attention of Mr.Utkarsh Agarwal and Rajnikanth Reddy i.e., Lws2 & 3 who are the sales representative of his shop and it was came to his light on the next morning when stock keep were unable to match the stock with their books of accounts and on inspecting CCTV footage, it was confirmed that theft took place between 08.00 to 08.45 p.m., and it was a tray consisting 8 gold chains of total weight 204.190 grams (20 tulas approximately) of 91.6 KDM purity hallmarked gold jewellery and that individual weights of stolen articles are 1)465 wg.25.390, 2)1503 wg.25.490, 3)2212 wg.25.350, 4)2574 wg.25.730, 5)4330 wg.25.360, 6)2931 wg.25.770, 7)9618 wg.25.220, 8)7356 wg.25.880 and hence he requested to take necessary action. 

3.Basing on the said report, the Police registered a case in Crime

No.384/2014, U/Sec.380 IPC and then examined Lw1, recorded his statement and thereafter visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators and observed the scene of offence panchanama in crime detail form by depicting its surroundings and thereafter Police got examined Lws 1 to 3 and recorded their statements and also collected the CCTV footages in DVD from Lw1’s shop. While 3 Of 10C.C.No. 395 Of 2015 investigation was in progress, on 21.10.2014 while Police was conducting vehicle checking at Mehdipatnam Bus Stop near Rythu Bazar, at about 1530 hours found six persons travelling in an auto bearing No. AP 10V 8769 under suspicious manner and on interrogating them separately, the A1 to A6 voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and also other shops situated at Somajiguda,

Panjagutta, Gulzarhouse and Mehdipatnam by diverting the attention of salesman and thus, Police secured the presence of two mediators and recorded their confessional statements cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A6 and seized eight gold chains of this case and other case properties pertaining to different crimes of different police stations along with said auto and thereafter accused were produced before the Court and were remanded to judicial custody and deposited the case property before the Court. Later, on completion of investigation, the

Police filed charge sheet before this Court.

4.The charge sheet as filed is taken cognizance for the offences

U/Secs.380 & 420 r/w 34 IPC against the A1 to A6. On appearance of the accused, the copies of charge sheet and other documents were furnished to them

U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and they were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in respect of the charges for the offences U/Secs.380 & 420 r/w 34 IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and also M.Os.1 & 2. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material and they reported no defence. No evidence is adduced on their behalf.

4 Of 10C.C.No. 395 Of 2015

6.Heard the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for accused at length.

7.Now the point for determination is Whether the Prosecution has

proved the guilt of A1 to A6 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences

punishable U/Secs.380 & 420 r/w 34 IPC ?

POINT: 

8.Sri.Vinay Kumar Agarwal, Pw1 deposed that he is running gold shop by name P.Satyanarayana Jewellers and Sons at Mehdipatnam & Gulzar House near

Charminar and that the incident occurred at Mehdipatnam shop on 02­10­2014 and on the relevant day Pws2 & 3 were present in their shop and that he was told by them that two ladies in burkha came to the shop on the pretext of purchasing the gold items, they diverted the attention of Pws2 & 3, committed theft of one full tray of gold chains consisting of 8 gold chains weighing around 170 grams and that on the next day when they checked the stock it came to light and that he sent the Pws2 & 3 to the police station for lodging report, but the police did not receive and insisted the presence of their owner as he was out of station, hence he was lodged report before Police on 07­10­2014 along with the print outs of stock, even he handed over CCTV footage to the police and Ex.P1 is his report along with list of stock. M.O.1 is the CCTV footage and later, the Police recovered the 8 gold chains and he received the same i.e., M.O.2 for interim custody from this Court.

9.Sri.Uthkarsh Agarwal, Pw2 deposed that Pw1 is his father and that his father is running gold shop by name P.Satyanarayana and Sons at Mehdipatnam and that on 02­10­2014 he was attending the shop, even Pw3 was present along 5 Of 10C.C.No. 395 Of 2015 with him, two ladies came to their shop and they were in burka, they asked him to show the gold chain and that he showed them the gold chains and that on the next day when they were checking the stock, he found that 8 chains were missing and that he realized that at the relevant time when he was showing the gold chains both the ladies diverted his attention and committed theft of gold chains, even they found the same in CC TV footage also.

10.Sri.Rajinikanth Reddy, Pw3 deposed that he is working as a salesman in

P.Satyanarayana and Sons, situated at Mehdipatnam and that on 02­10­2014 he was attending the shop, even Pw2 was also present along with him, two ladies came to the shop, they were in burka, asked Pw2 to show the gold chains and that he showed them the gold chains and on the next day when they were checking the stock, they found that 8 chains were missing, they even checked the CCTV footages and realized that at the relevant time when Pw2 was showing the gold chains both the ladies diverted his attention and committed theft of gold chains and on 03­10­2014 they went to the police station but the police insisted the presence of their owner as he was out of station, hence Pw1 lodged report on 07­ 10­2014 and that approximately the weight of gold chains are 200 grams.

11.Sri.Nithin Agarwal, Pw4 deposed that on 02­10­2014 he attended the proceedings of panchanama of scene of offence and rough sketch as in Exs.P2 &

P3 respectively and that the Police read over the contents of Ex.P2 to him, after verifying the same, he signed the said proceedings.

6 Of 10C.C.No. 395 Of 2015

12.Shaik Zahedha Begum, Pw5 deposed that on 21­10­2014 she attended the proceedings of confession of all the accused and that Police seized M.O.2 and also one gold necklace, other 1 tula gold chain from the possession of A1 to A4, the proceedings were prepared in his presence and that he along with Lw7 signed the same and that the relevant portion in the panchanama of A1 is marked as

Ex.P4, the relevant portion in panchanama of A2 is marked as Ex.P5, the relevant portion in panchanama of A3 is marked as Ex.P6 and the relevant portion in panchanama of A4 is marked as Ex.P7.

13.Sri.B.Karunaker Reddy, Pw6 deposed that while he was working as SI of

Police, P.S.Humayun Nagar, on receipt of report from Pw1 as in Ex.P1, he registered this case and issued FIR as in Ex.P8 and then he examined the Pw1 and recorded his statement and then visited the scene of offence and prepared the proceedings of panchana of scene of offence and rough sketch in the presence of

Pw4 & Lw5 i.e., Exs.P2 & P3 and that on 21.10.2014 he along with Lw16 were on vehicle checking duty near Mehdipatnam, Rythubazar and observed that there was an auto bearing no. AP 10V 8769 moving in a suspicious manner along with all the accused in this case and thus, they apprehended and took them to Police

Station.

14.The accused are charged for the offence U/Sec.380 & 420 r/w 34 IPC.

15.It is alleged that the accused committed theft of gold from the shop of complainant.

7 Of 10C.C.No. 395 Of 2015

16.The Pws1 to 3 deposed on the same lines with regard to two ladies came to their shop on the pretext of purchase of gold items and committed theft of gold items by diverting their attention.

17.Pw4 is the panch for scene of offence. Pw5 deposed about Police seized

M.O.2 from the accused. Pw6 is the Investigating Officer.

18.As per the facts elicited in cross examination Pw1 stated that he did not mention in 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he was out of station. Pw2 deposed that total weight of gold chain is 170 to 180 grams. Pw3 is not cross examined. Pw4 stated that he do not know the owner of Satyanarayana Jewellers. Pw5 deposed that she cannot say how many persons were present in the Police Station including the Police at the relevant time that she cannot remember the weight and design of gold chains, that the Police did not take her in any of the proceedings of panchanama for seizure of gold, that she did not question the accused that whether all lady accused were wearing burka on the relevant day with nakab, he further stated that they removed nakab on her reaching to Police Station for the proceedings, that she cannot identify the accused with their names as it was about 4 years back, she deposed before the Court as panch witness in other cases including inquest panchanama. 

19.As per Pw6 the alleged incident is said to be occurred on 02.10.2014 and the report was lodged after five days of the incident. It is stated by Pw1 that on receive of information about the theft, he stated Pws2 & 3 to lodge report, but the Police did not receive the complaint and insisted the presence of owner and as he was out of station, he lodged complaint after returning, as such the delay in 8 Of 10C.C.No. 395 Of 2015 lodging the complaint is sufficiently explained.

20.In the instant case there is the evidences of Pws1 to 5 and the accused are charged with the offence U/Sec.420 IPC.

21.It is the case of the complainant that accused persons diverted the attention and committed the theft of gold ornaments, in this regard the possession of the gold ornaments from Pws2 & 3 and merely putting the same before the accused persons in the shop cannot be considered that he hand over the property acting upon inducement of the accused.

22.With regard to offence U/Sec.380 IPC, the M.O.1 i.e., CD is filed showing that two ladies came to the shop of complainant and verifying the ornaments and it is seen in the M.O.1 that one of the lady took the tray and kept with her but the said lady was in burka and as such from the CD i.e., M.O.1 the identification of the accused is not established.

23.Pws1 to 3 did not state anything about the accused committing the offence and they did not identify the accused. From the evidences of Pws1 to 3, it is established that there was theft took place in the shop of Pw1.

24.The learned counsel for the accused cited decision reported in Public

Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Vs. Pedaganti Sreenu and another

wherein the Hon’ble Court referred to decision Trimbak Vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 39 held that “it is the duty of the prosecution in order to 9 Of 10C.C.No. 395 Of 2015 bring home the guilt of a person under section 411 IPC to prove (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property”.

25.The material witness is Pw5, who is the panch witness for confession and seizure, she deposed about the property seized from the possession of A1 to

A5 and identified the accused to the said persons, but as per her cross examination, she did not question the accused and further she stated that she acted as panch witnesses in other cases and including Inquest Panchanama.

26.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bahadul @ Ghanshyam Padhan Vs.

State of Orissa, held that “as there is nothing to do to show that the appellant had made any statement U/Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act relating to recovery of the weapon, hence the fact of recovery can there of cannot be admissible U/Sec.27 of

Indian Evidence Act”.

27.In the instant case though the fact of theft is established and though the gold ornaments is said to have been recovered but the very identity of the accused is not established, since from the M.O.1 there is no identity of the accused established, even Pws1 to 3 did not identify the accused and also from the panch witness statement the fact is that gold ornaments were recovered from the possession of the accused is not established as such this Court having found that the allegations with which the accused are charged are not proved, holds the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused.

10 Of 10C.C.No. 395 Of 2015

28.In the result, the A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence

U/Secs.380, 420 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the Accused No. 1 to 6 if any shall stands cancelled.

M.Os.1 & 2 i.e., CCTV Footage CD & 8 Gold Chains are ordered to be returned to complainant after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr­II, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 01st day of March, 2021.

FAC VI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Pw1 Sri.Vinay Kumar Agarwal, the Defacto Complainant. None Pw2 Sri.Uthkarsh Agarwal, the Eye Witness. Pw3 Sri.Rajinikanth Reddy, the Eye Witness. Pw4 Sri.Nithin Agarwal, the Panch Witness. Pw5 Shaik Zahedha Begum, the Panch Witness. Pw6 Sri.B.Karunaker Reddy, the SI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1 Report of Pw1. Nil Ex.P2 Scene of Offence Panchanama. Ex.P3 Rough Sketch. Ex.P4 Relevant portion in the panchanama of A1. Ex.P5 Relevant portion in the panchanama of A2. Ex.P6 Relevant portion in the panchanama of A3. Ex.P7 Relevant portion in the panchanama of A4. Ex.P8 FIR.

M.O. MARKED : M.O.1 – CCTV Footage. M.O.2 – 8 Gold Chains.

FAC VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD:

1 Of 10 CC.No. 121/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

THURSDAY THIS THE 18 th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

Present: Smt. KSHAMA DESHPANDE VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

CALENDER CASE No. 121/2018

Between:

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad. … Complainant

And

A1:- Mir Shabbar Ali, S/o Mir Shakeel Ali, Age- 27 years, R/o H.no- 22-3-383, Mir Alam Mandi, Charminar, Hyderabad

A2:- Syed Faizan Ullah @ Faizan S/o Late Syed Shafi Ullah, Age- 25 years, R/o H.no- 20-7-541, Dhoodh Bowli, Fathe Darwaja, Hyderabad … Accused nos 1 & 2

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the A.P.P for the state andSri Abdul Mannan and Sri Md Zakiruddin, advocates & Associates, counsel for the accused ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Bhavani Nagar, in Crime No.141/2017 against the accused nos.1&2 for the offence under

Section 379 IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet filed by the police against the accused are that on 18.11.2017 at 1400 hrs received a complainant from LW1/ Syed Arif Mohiuddin, he stated that on 22.10.2017 he purchased one black colour Activa 4G at Autophin Honda,.

Himayathnagar, b.no- T/R TS 09 BDTR 1988 engine no.

2 Of 10 CC.No. 121/2018

JF50ET5463271 and the vehicle was used by LW1 brother Syed Yousuf

Mohiuddin, and on 17.11.2017 at about 0300 hrs his brother parked his two wheelr infront of his house and on the same at about7am when he woke up he found the said vehicle was missing from the parking place.

Hence requested police to take necessary action.

3.As per the contents of complaint LW10/ registered a case in crime no. 141/2017 u/sec 379 IPC and took up investigation.

4.During the course of investigation LW10 examined LW1 and recorded his detailed statement and visited the scene of offence, secured two mediators Lws 2 and 3 drafted details of place of offence in CDF, drawn rough sketch of place of offence .

5.On 09.02.2018 LW10 came to know that the Mahabubnagar Rural

PS have arrested the A1 in Cr.No. 515/2017 U/sec. 379 & Sec. 102

Cr.P.C of PS Seized two wheeler Activa 4G bearing No. T/R TS 09

BDTR 1988 and A1 confessed that he committed offence along with A2.

On 03.01.2018 the Balapur PS arrested the A2 in Cr.No. 138/2018 U/.sec.

379 IPC and LW10 collected the attested copies in the above said crime details . Later he obtained PT warrant from Hon’ble VIII ACMM Court,

Hyderabad and on 15.02.2018 regularized the arrest of A1 and A2 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

6.This case was taken on file for the offence u/sec. 379 IPC against the accused no. 1& 2. On appearance of the accused they were supplied with copies of relevant documents as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

3 Of 10 CC.No. 121/2018

7.This court having considered the record, examined the accused nos.1 & 2 u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. charge for the offence u/sec. 379 IPC was framed and read over to the accused , for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.To prove the guilt of the accused no. 2, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to PW7 and marked Exs.P1 to P5 and marked MO1.

9.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused nos.1 & 2 were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material available against the accused persons in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

11.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove and establish

the guilt of accused nos.1 & 2 for the offence under

section 379 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T :

12. PW1 deposed that on 17-11-2017 he parked his Activa vehicle bearing No. BDTR. 1988 infront of his house. On the next day at about 8 AM he woke up and he noticed that his vehicle was found missing. He have searched for his vehicle but not traced out and came to know that some unknown offenders committed theft of his vehicle. He went to the police station and lodged a complaint before the police .

13.PW2 deposed that about 2 years back PS Bhavani Nagar called him to Murad Mahal, Talabkatta, Hyderabad stated that there was theft

4 Of 10 CC.No. 121/2018

took place and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch and obtained his signature.

14.PW3 deposed that on 3.1.2018 police Balapur called him and LW5 to the PS and rquested to act as panch witness and obtained the same.

The have enquired on person who is in custody of police calling him aside, the said person revealed his named as Syed Faizan and confessed that as his earning were not sufficient he started committing thefts along with Shabir Ali/A1 he confessed that he along with Shabir Ali committed theft of Honda Activa two wheelers in Balapur, Bhavani Nagar,

Chandrayangutta, Chaderghat, Pahadi Shareef police station limits and those theft vehicles were kept by them at their friends house at

Mahboobnagar stating that those vehicles are seized from the customers who defaulted in finance and further stated to their friend this vehicles shall be sold to customers and he will be given commission for that and he was arrested by Balapur police and brought him to PS. After drafting confession panchanama police attested their signatures on the same. The person who is standing in the court dock box is the A2.

15.PW4 deposed that he have arrested the accused No.2 and recorded his confession statement herein in the crime No.138/2017 and Cr.No 162/2017 of PS Balapur and basing on which he intimated the same to the concerned police stations.

16.PW5 deposed that On 25/12/2017 at about 6.30 PM

Mahaboobnagar Rural Police called him and LW5 near Maheshwari

Takies, Enugonda Village and requested them to act as panchas and them

5 Of 10 CC.No. 121/2018

obliged at the request of police. Upon their enquiry with the person who is in the custody of police he revealed his name as Shabir Ali to confessed that he has committed theft of Honda Activa Two wheeler in various police station in Hyderabad and surrounding areas i.e.,

Chaderghat, Bhavaninagar, and Mahaboobnagar police station limits and committed theft of 16 Honda Activa two wheelers and police seized one silver colour Honda activa in their presence and police drafted confession cum seizure panchanama and obtained signatures, He have signed both the panchanama and as led by the accused police recovered 16 two wheeler Honda Activa vehicles at Sadulagundu, Mahaboobnagar area from the house of his friend at 8 PM i.e., Ashrath unnisa under the cover of seizure panchanama. Witness identified A1 present in the court dock box.

17.PW6 deposed he received a complaint, registered a case in Cr.No.

512/2017, issued FIR. On 26-/12/2017 he apprehended A1 Shabir Ali during conducting vehicle checking. A1 failed to produce the vehicle documents he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama. At the instance of A1 he seized the vehicles of PS Bhavani Nagar and issued arrest memo and brought to the accused to the police station and remanded him for judicial custody. He identified the accused.

18.PW7 deposed about he received complaint, registered case, issued

FIR and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

19.The accused are charged with the offence u/sec.379 IPC .

6 Of 10 CC.No. 121/2018

20.It is alleged that the accused committed theft of bikes in different areas.

21.Sec. 379 IPC deals with punishment for theft.

22.The word theft is defined in sec. 378 IPC as follows:-

Theft – Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft.

23.The essential ingredients to prove an offence under sec. 378 IPC are as follows:-

1. Accused had taken the movable property dishonestly.

2. Property was taken out of the possession of complainant

3. Property was taken out without consent of complainant.

4. The property was moved to such taking.

24.It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence.

25.In this case PW1 deposed about bike was subjected to theft. PW2 deposed that police conducted scene of offence panchanama. PW3 deposed that A2 confessed the offence. PW4 deposed that he arrested the

A2 and recorded his confession statement in Cr.No. 138/2017 and Cr.No.

162/2017 of PS Balapur, is panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama of A1. PW5 deposed that A1 confessed the offence and property is recovered at his instance. PW6 is the Investigating officer in and arrested the accused in Cr.No. 515/2017. PW7 is the Investigating

7 Of 10 CC.No. 121/2018

Officer in this case.

26.In the instant case PW1 did not state anything about the accused committing theft and he is not the eye witness.

27.As per facts elicited in cross examination the accused did not cross examine PW1. In cross examination of PW2 no material facts were elicited. In cross examination of PW3 he stated that he has no acquaintance with A2, A2 revealed the name of A1 in his confession but he do not know A1. In cross examinations of PWs4 & 5 no material facts were elicited. PW6 stated that he did not file any document to show the relation of A1 with the person from whose house the vehicle was seized.

The panch witness do not belong to the locality where the offence took place. PW7 stated that he have not collected any evidence or any property from A2 during the investigation .

28. It is elicited that no documents is filed to show the relationship of

A1 with the person from whom the vehicle is seized is not relevant since the accused are involved in the offence of theft and after commission of offence accused placed the property at someplace to which the accused led the confession panch witnesses along with the police and from there the property is said to have been seized as such the non filing of document does not effect the case of the prosecution.

29.There is the evidence of panch witness Pws2 and 4 they deposed about accused confessed the offence and they identified the accused to be the said persons.

30.As per PW5, A1 confessed that he along with A2 committed the

8 Of 10 CC.No. 121/2018

offence of theft and in pursuance of the confession property is recovered.

The document Ex.P4 reveals that the property is recovered from the possession of A1.

31.It is a fact that no property is said to have been seized from A2, but confession of A1 and seizure of property at his instance can be taken into consideration as per sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act as the confession led to the discovery of the property and A1 and A2 jointly committed the offence.

32.In cross examination no material facts were elicited so as to disprove the version of Pws 3 and 5 and as such there is no reason found as to why the evidence of Pws 3 and 5 should not be relied upon.

33.From the material on record the fact that the theft took place is established and from the evidence of Pws 1 to 6 it is also established that the A1 and A2 are involved in the offence. Hence this court is of the opinion that the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of accused.

34. In the result accused nos 1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence under sec. 379 IPC, as such they are convicted under sec. 248(2) of

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 18th day of March, 2021.

VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

On hearing the accused nos 1 and 2 on quantum of sentence A1 and A2,

A1 stated that he is teaching in madarsa and A2 stated that he is working in petrol pump and stated that they are the only bread earning

9 Of 10 CC.No. 121/2018

members of their family and prayed to take lenient view.

Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case and having opinion that the provisions of section 3 and 4 of probation of Offenders

Act cannot be applied in the present case, since the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2, the accused nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for One year each and shall pay a fine of Rs.100/-each for the offence under section. 379 IPC and in default of payment of fine they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of One Month each. The remand period undergone by the A1 and A2 if any shall be set off under sec. 428 of Cr.P.C . Copy of the judgment is furnished to the accused nos 1 and 2 free of cost as required under section 363 Cr.P.C. The sentence passed in this CC shall run concurrently with sentence passed in CC.No.120/2018

Mo1 i.e., vehicle which are already returned to the complainant shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1 :Syed Arif Moinuddin -Nil- PW2 :Mohd Jahangir Baig PW3 :Syed Tajuddin PW4 : M. Sudhakar PW5 : K. Srinivas PW6 : Md Khaja Khan PW7 : T. Sreedhar

10 Of 10 CC.No. 121/2018

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 – Complaint -Nil- Ex.P2 - CDF along with sketch Ex.P3 – Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P4 – Attested copy of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P5 - FIR

M.Os MARKED

Mo.1 - Vehicle

VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

1 Of 10 CC.No.120/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

THURSDAY THIS THE 18 th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

Present: Smt. KSHAMA DESHPANDE VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

CALENDER CASE No. 120/2018

Between:

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad. … Complainant

And

A1:- Mir Shabbar Ali, S/o Mir Shakeel Ali, Age- 27 years, R/o H.no- 22-3-383, Mir Alam Mandi, Charminar, Hyderabad

A2:- Syed Faizan Ullah @ Faizan S/o Late Syed Shafi Ullah, Age- 25 years, R/o H.no- 20-7-541, Dhoodh Bowli, Fathe Darwaja, Hyderabad … Accused nos 1 & 2

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the A.P.P for the state andSri Abdul Mannan and Sri Md Zakiruddin, advocates & Associates, counsel for the accused ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Bhavani Nagar, in Crime No.94/2017 against the accused nos.1&2 for the offence under

Section 379 IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet filed by the police against the accused are that on 26.07.2017 at 1800 hrs received a complainant from LW1/ Shaik Khaja Pasha, he stated that on 12.07.2217 at 0230 hrs after completion of his work he came tohis hosue and parked his vehicle

2 Of 10 CC.No.120/2018

Activa 3G, blue colour,vehicle b.no- TS12 EF 5855 in front ofhis house by locking property and went inside his house and after dinner he slept and woke up at 0800 in the morning and notice his vehicle was missing.

He searched for his vehicle in all parking placed but it could not be traced in the parking place as he ws out of station on his job he could not lodge complaint at police station hence requested police to take necessary action.

3.As per the contents of complaint LW10/ registered a case in crime no. 94/2017 u/sec 379 IPC and took up investigation.

4.During the course of investigation LW10 examined LW1 and recorded his detailed statement and visited the scene of offence, secured two mediators Lws 2 and 3 drafted details of place of offence in CDF, drawn rough sketch of place of offence .

5.On 26.12.2017 LW10 came to know that the Mahabubnagar Rural

PS have arrested the A1 in Cr.No. 515/2017 U/sec. 379 & Sec. 102 and

A1 confessed that he committed this offence along with A2 and collected attested copies and regularized the arrest of A1.

6.On 03.01.2018 LW10 received information from the Balapur PS that they have arrested the A2 in Cr.No. 138/2018 U/.sec. 379 IPC and

A2 confessed the offence later collected attested copies of the crime and regularized the arrest of A2. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

7.This case was taken on file for the offence u/sec. 379 IPC against the accused no. 1& 2. On appearance of the accused they were supplied

3 Of 10 CC.No.120/2018

with copies of relevant documents as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

8.This court having considered the record, examined the accused nos.1 & 2 u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. charge for the offence u/sec. 379 IPC was framed and read over to the accused , for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.To prove the guilt of the accused no. 2, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to PW6 and marked Exs.P1 to P5 and marked MO1.

10.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused nos.1 & 2 were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material available against the accused persons in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence.

11.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

12.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove and establish

the guilt of accused nos.1 & 2 for the offence under

section 379 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T :

13. PW1 deposed that on 12.07.2017 he parked his Activa vehicle bearing No. TS 12 EF 5855 infront of his house. On the next day at about 8 AM he woke up and he noticed that his vehicle was found missing. He have searched for his vehicle but not traced out and came to know that some unknown offenders committed theft of his vehicle. He

4 Of 10 CC.No.120/2018

went to the police station and lodged a complaint before the police .

14.PW2 deposed that on 3.1.2018 police Balapur called him and LW5 to the PS and requested to act as panch witness and obtained the same.

The have enquired on person who is in custody of police calling him aside, the said person revealed his named as Syed Faizan and confessed that as his earning were not sufficient he started committing thefts along with Shabir Ali/A1 he confessed that he along with Shabir Ali committed theft of Honda Activa two wheelers in Balapur, Bhavani Nagar,

Chandrayangutta, Chaderghat, Pahadi Shareef police station limits and those theft vehicles were kept by them at their friends house at

Mahboobnagar stating that those vehicles are seized from the customers who defaulted in finance and further stated to their friend this vehicles shall be sold to customers and he will be given commission for that and he was arrested by Balapur police and brought him to PS. After drafting confession panchanama police attested their signatures on the same. The person who is standing in the court dock box is the A2.

15.PW3 deposed that he have arrested the accused No.2 and recorded his confession statement herein in the crime No.138/2017 and Cr.No 162/2017 of PS Balapur and basing on which he intimated the same to the concerned police stations.

16.PW4 deposed that On 25/12/2017 at about 6.30 PM

Mahaboobnagar Rural Police called him and LW5 near Maheshwari

Takies, Enugonda Village and requested them to act as panchas and them obliged at the request of police. Upon their enquiry with the person who

5 Of 10 CC.No.120/2018

is in the custody of police he revealed his name as Shabir Ali to confessed that he has committed theft of Honda Activa Two wheeler in various police station in Hyderabad and surrounding areas i.e.,

Chaderghat, Bhavaninagar, and Mahaboobnagar police station limits and committed theft of 16 Honda Activa two wheelers and police seized one silver colour Honda activa in their presence and police drafted confession cum seizure panchanama and obtained signatures, He have signed both the panchanama and as led by the accused police recovered 16 two wheeler Honda Activa vehicles at Sadulagundu, Mahaboobnagar area from the house of his friend at 8 PM i.e., Ashrath unnisa under the cover of seizure panchanama. Witness identified A1 present in the court dock box.

17.PW5 deposed he received a complaint, registered a case, issued

FIR. On 26/12/2017 he apprehended A1 Shabir Ali during conducting vehicle checking. A1 failed to produce the vehicle documents he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama. At the instance of A1 he seized the vehicles of PS Bhavani Nagar and issued arrest memo and brought to the accused to the police station and remanded him for judicial custody. He identified the accused.

18.PW6 deposed that he received complaint, registered case, issued

FIR and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

19.The accused are charged with the offence u/sec.379 IPC .

20.It is alleged that the accused committed theft of bikes in different areas.

6 Of 10 CC.No.120/2018

21.Sec. 379 IPC deals with punishment for theft.

22.The word theft is defined in sec. 378 IPC as follows:-

Theft – Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft.

23.The essential ingredients to prove an offence under sec. 378 IPC are as follows:-

1. Accused had taken the movable property dishonestly.

2. Property was taken out of the possession of complainant

3. Property was taken out without consent of complainant.

4. The property was moved to such taking.

24.It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence.

25.In this case PW1 deposed about bike was subjected to theft. PW2 is the panch witness for confession panchanama of A2. PW3 arrested the

A2 and recorded his confession statement in Cr.No. 138/2017 and Cr.No.

162/2017 of PS Balapur. PW4 is panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama of A1. PW5 is the Investigating officer is Cr.No.

515/2017 and PW6 is the Investigating officer in this case.

26.In the instant case PW1 did not state anything about the accused committing theft and he is not the eye witness.

27.As per facts elicited in cross examination the accused did not cross examine PW1. In cross examination of PW2 he stated that he has no

7 Of 10 CC.No.120/2018

acquaintance with A2 prior to confession panchanama of A2. In cross examinations of PWs3 & 4 no material facts were elicited. PW5 stated that he did not file any document to show the relation of A1 with the person from whose house the vehicle was seized. PW6 stated that he cannot say the day when he visited the scene of offence. And he have not collected any evidence or any property from A2 during the investigation and that the alleged confession is prepared by himself and his staff.

28. It is elicited that no documents is filed to show the relationship of

A1 with the person from whom the vehicle is seized, is not relevant since the accused is involved in the offence of theft and after commission of offence he placed the property at someplace to which the accused led the confession panch witnesses along with the police and from there the property is said to have been seized as such the non filing of document does not effect the case of the prosecution.

29.There is the evidence of panch witness Pws2 and 4 they deposed about accused confessed the offence and they identified the accused to be the said persons.

30.As per PW4, A1 confessed that he along with A2 committed the offence of theft and in pursuance of the confession property is recovered.

The document Ex.P4 reveals that the property is recovered from the possession of A1.

31.It is a fact that no property is said to have been seized from A2, but confession of A1 and seizure of property at his instance can be taken into consideration as per sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act as the confession led

8 Of 10 CC.No.120/2018

to the discovery of the property that A1 and A2 jointly committed the offence.

32.In cross examination no material facts were elicited so as to disprove the version of Pws 2 and 4 and as such there is no reason found as to why the evidence of Pws 2 and 4 should not be relied upon.

33.From the material on record the fact that the theft took place is established and from the evidence of Pws 1 to 6 it is also established that the A1 and A2 are not involved in the offence. Hence this court is of the opinion that the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of accused.

34. In the result accused nos 1 & 2 are found guilty for the offence under sec. 379 IPC, as such they are convicted under sec. 248(2) of

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of March, 2021.

VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

On hearing the accused nos 1 and 2 on quantum of sentence A1 and A2, A1 stated that he is teaching in Madarsa and A2 stated that he is working in petrol pump and stated that they are the only bread earning members of their family and prayed to take lenient view.

Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case and having opinion that the provisions of section 3 and 4 of probation of Offenders

Act cannot be applied in the present case, since the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2, the accused nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for One year each and

9 Of 10 CC.No.120/2018

shall pay a fine of Rs.100/-each for the offence under section. 379 IPC and in default of payment of fine they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of One Month each. The remand period undergone by the A1 and A2 if any shall be set off under sec. 428 of Cr.P.C . Copy of the judgment is furnished to the accused nos 1 and 2 free of cost as required under section 363 Cr.P.C. The sentence passed in this CC shall run concurrently with sentence passed in CC.No.121/2018.

Mo1 i.e., vehicle shall be returned to owner after expiry of appeal time.

VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

10 Of 10 CC.No.120/2018

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1 :Shaik Khaja Pasha -Nil- PW2 :Syed Tajuddin PW3 : M. Sudhakar PW4 : K. Srinivas PW5 : Md Khaja Khan PW6 : T. Sreedhar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 – Complaint -Nil- Ex.P2 - Confession panchanama of A2 CDF along with sketch Ex.P3 – confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P4 – Attested coy of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P5 – FIR

M.Os MARKED

Mo.1 - Vehicle

VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD