Smt Kshama Deshpande

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Friday, the 27th day of November, 2015.

Present: Smt Kshama Deshpande,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

CC No.358 of 2015

Between: State through Inspector of Police, PS.I-Town, Mahabubnagar. Cr.No.31 of 2005 of PS.I-Town, Mahabubnagar.

...Complainant

A N D

1. Gaddam Pullappa @ Pedda Pullappa @ Tractor Pullappa s/o Ganganna, age 21 yrs, occ: Agriculture, r/o Rakonda village of Danwada mandal. (Case against him split up vide CC.354/2007)

2. Jakkanagari Ashappa @ Ashok @ Shiva Raj s/o Late J.Kurmaiah, age 45 yrs, occ: Agriculture, n/o Abangapuram village of Narayanpet mandal.

3. Saraf Srikanth @ Srikanth s/o Bhaskar, age: 32 yrs, n/o Vepurigeri, Mahabunagar town.

4.D.Krishnaiah s/o Chinna Narsanna, age 40 yrs, occ: Congress Party Worker, r/o Kotakonda village of Narayanpet mandal. (Case against him split up vide

CC.354/2007)

5. Pebbeti Veera Reddy @ Kothapally Veera Reddy, s/o Keshi Reddy, age: 26 yrs, occ: Agriculture, r/o Kothapally village of Dhanwada mandal. (Case against him split up vide

CC.354/2007)

6. Pebbeti Venkateshwar Reddy s/o Narayan Reddy, age: 30 yrs, occ: Motorwinding mechanic, r/o Kothapally @ Venkatapuram village of Dhanwada mandal.(Case against him split up vide CC.354/2007)

7.Jeedi Venkat Ramulu s/o Narayana, age 23 yrs, occ: Driver-cum-Owner of Commander Jeep bearing No.AP-25-U-2179, r/o Maddur proper. (Case against him split up vide CC.354/2007)

8.Yenamala Maladri s/o Kondaiah, age 45 yrs, occ: Mason, r/o Papireddy Colony, Chandranagar, Hyderabad, n/o Kandukur of Prakasam District. (Case against him split up vide CC.354/2007)

..Accused No.2 and 3

2

Section of lawU/Sec.120(B)IPCand Sec.25(a)(1-a) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 r/w 109 IPC Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the courtFound not guilty U/Sec.120(B) IPC and Sec.25(a)(1-a) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 r/w 109 IPC Sentence or order :- A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.120(B)

IPC and Sec.25(a)(1-a) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 r/w 109 IPC and they are acquitted U/Ses.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. A2 and A3 shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. MOs1 to 3 and 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO4 which has been given to interim custody of its owner shall become absolute after expiry of appeal time.

This Calendar Case came before me for final hearing on 20-11-2015 in the presence of APP for the State and Sri Gadda Gopal, Advocate for A2 and A3. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- -:: JUDGMENT::-

1.The Inspector of Police, PS.I-Town, Mahabubnagar has filed charge sheet against A2 and A3 for the offence

U/Sec.120(B) IPC and Sec.25(a)(1-a) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 r/w 109 IPC in Cr.No.31/2005 dt.7-4-2005.

2.The contents of the charge sheet are that on 7-4- 2005 at about 1600 hours as per the instructions of the superiors LW1 M.Muthaiah, SI of Police, PS.I-Town along with

LW2 Md.Afzal, ASI of police, LW3 PC.1262, LW4 PC.1364, LW5 3

PC.359, LW6 PC.1658, LW7 PC.961, LW8 PC.1410, LW9

PC.240, LW10 PC.1386, LW11 PC.624, LW12 PC.294, LW13

PC.1621, LW14 PC.1592, LW15 PC.1638, LW16 PC.973, LW17

PC.1460, LW18 PC.241 and LW19 PC.304 were conducting vehicle checking on the BT road which leads from

Mahabubnagar to Raichur which is near Lord Hanuman Temple

Distellaray gate Mahabubnagar. During the said course, at about 1630 hours they noticed a commander jeep bearing

No.AP-25-U-2179 came at high speed which was stopped by them. Immediately A1 and A7 tried to leave the scene but were apprehended and the vehicle checked on suspicion caused by their movements and recovered a country made 12 bore tapancha along with three live rounds at the instance of

A1. That immediately, they secured the presence of K.Pentaiah and S.Saidulu, LW20 and LW21 and recorded the confessional statement of A1 and seized the tapanchas under the cover of seizure panchanama. That later at about 1830 hours a separate panchanama was conducted in the presence of same mediators and seized some documents pertaining to the land of one Yellamma who is mother-in-law of A1. Later on they all returned to the police station and after completion of formalities A1 and A7 were sent for judicial remand. After registering the case vide Cr.No.31/2005 for the offence

U/Sec.120(B) IPC and Sec.25(a) (1-a) of the Arms Act and took up investigation. On 14-12-2005 basing on the 4 confessional statement of A1, they apprehended A5 at Old

Gunj, Mahabubnagar and recorded his confession statement.

Later A5 led them to the house of A8, who is the father-in-law of A2 situated in Kadaviguda, Hyderabad from where they seized (2) live rounds of (12) bore cartridges from his possession. Subsequently, on 15-5-2007 LW24 filed charge sheet against A1, A4 to A8 by eliminating the names of A2 and

A3, who were absconding. After concluding the trial, case acquittal against A1, A4 to A8 before Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Mahabubnagar on 15-5-2007 vide CC.No.354/2007 on the file of Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and

Excise Court, Mahabubnagar and case against A8 is pending

before the same court vide CC.No.7/2008. Now the present

case is only against A2 and A3.

3.Upon perusal of the record, the above charge sheet was taken on file against A2 and A3 for the offence

U/Sec.120(B) IPC and Sec.25(a)(1-a) of Arms Act, 1959 r/w 109 IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

4.On appearance of A2 and A3, they were furnished with the documents as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C and later on 239 Cr.P.C examination has been conducted. Accusation of the charge, constituting the offences U/Sec.120(B) IPC and

Sec.25(a)(1-a) of Arms Act, 1959 r/w 109 IPC were read over 5 to the accused for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The learned Sr.APP filed a memo requesting the

Court to adopt the evidence in CC.No.354/2007 in this case also. Accordingly, the same is adopted.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, PWs1 to 8 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MOs1 to 5.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by placing the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, for which they pleaded not guilty. However, they did not adduce any defence evidence.

8.Heard learned Sr.APP and Counsel for accused.

9.Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the A2 and A3 for the offences U/Sec.120(B) IPC and Sec.25(a)(1-a) of Arms Act, 1959 r/w 109 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:- It is the case of prosecution that PW7 along with PWs1 to 3 and his other staff were conducting route watch near Hanuman Temple, Distillery gate, Mahabubnagar as per the instructions of their SI that during the said course at about 1630 hours they noticed a commander jeep bearing 6

No.AP25U2179 coming in that direction. That the said jeep was stopped and A1 and A7 were apprehended and on search of the said jeep seized the country made (12) bore tapancha along with three live rounds. During further investigation, pursuant to the confessional statement of A1 some land documents and other live rounds were recovered from the possession of A1 and others. Hence, the charge.

11.PW1 Md.Afzal, Retd. Sub Inspector of Police deposed that on 7-4-2005 while he was present in PS.I-Town,

Mahabubnagar at about 4.30 PM then he along with LWs3 and 4 together with another police constables accompanied LW1

Muttaiah Sub Inspector of Police and reached the distellary gate on Mahabubnagar-Raichur road on the outskirts of

Mahabubnagar town and while conducting vehicle checking, they observed one Commander bearing No.AP-25-U-2179 and stopped it. On seeing the police party, three persons of the said jeep including the driver fled away from the jeep and the name of the jeep driver Venkat Ramulu and A1 Gaddam

Thippanna were present in the jeep and on verification of the commander jeep they found one country made thapancha along with two rounds of live cartridges from the possession of

A1 and thereafter Sub Inspector of Police recorded the confession of A1 and basing on it he seized the commander jeep, country made thapancha and thereafter along with case property, a case is registered against you accused. He was 7 examined by the Sub Inspector of Police for identification of case property.

12.PW2Md.Seerajuddin Police Constable deposed that on 7-4-2005 himself along with PW1 and 15 constables in all accompanied the Sub Inspector of Police to go to Distellary,

Mahabubnagar town and reached Distellary gate by 4.30 PM and conducted vehicle checking duty from 4.30 PM onwards, in the meantime they found one Commander Jeep which was coming from Deverkadra side, in the said jeep they found MO1 thapancha and three live cartridges and at that time, A1 and the driver of said jeep were present and thereafter A1 and driver of crime vehicle together with crime vehicle was taken to the police station.

13.PW3 S.Balaiah another Police Constable deposed that on 7-4-2005 himself along with Muttaiah Sub Inspector of

Police and pW1, PC.240, PC.Laxmaiah, Ashok and Suleman 624 all together 16 members of the staff proceeded to Raichur

Rao, near Distellary gate, Hanuman Temple while performing checking at about 4.30 PM they noticed one Commander Jeep was coming from Mahabubnagar and then they took place for checking purpose, interrupted the jeep for checking purpose, but the driver of jeep along with one person tried to ran away.

Immediately they apprehended both the persons and checked the vehicles and found one thapancha along with three rounds.

8

They enquired both the persons and then their Sub Inspector of Police conducted panchanama and brought both you accused to police station and subsequently their Sub Inspector of Police interrogated you accused on which you stated that in connection with civil disputes in order to kill the other party, they were carrying the weapons and their Sub Inspector of

Police recorded his statement.

14.PWs4 and 5 are panch for confession and seizure of

A5 and A8 deposed that nearly 4 to 5 years back police obtained their signatures on some white papers and they do not know anything about this case. PW6 is another panch for confession and seizure of A1 and A7 deposed that nearly two years back police obtained his signature on some blank papers and he do not know anything about this case.

15.PW7 is investigating officer stated about conducting vehicle checking at Hanman Temple, Distillery Gate, apprehension of accused persons, seizure of weapons, registering the case and issued First Information Report and investigation done by him.

16.PW8 is another investigating officer deposed about receipt of CD file from PW7 and investigation done by him and filing of charge sheet.

17.PWs1 to 3 deposed on same lines as to conducting vehicle checking and found commander jeep and tapancha and cartridges in the said jeep. PWs4 and 5 are the panch for 9 confession and seizure of A5 and A8. PW6 is the panch for confession and seizure of A1 and A7. PW7 deposed about investigation done by him and conducting confession and recovery panchanama. In the cross examination of PW1, he denied that A1 and A7 were not found and MOs.1 to 3 were not recovered. PW2 denied that A1 was not arrested and further denied the suggestion that no case property was recovered from the crime vehicle. PW3 also denied the suggestion that they did not seize bullets and tapancha from A1, fact that there was vehicle checking conducted and found commander jeep and cartridges, which is stated by PWs1 to 3.

18.The panch witnesses for confession and seizure of

A1, A5, A7 and A8 did not support the prosecution case they were declared hostile and in their cross examination no material facts were elicited.

19.The evidence on record goes to show that there is no incriminating statement against A2 and A3 and also panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Thus, in the absence of any incriminating material against the accused, this

Court is of the opinion that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of accused. Hence, A2 and A3 are entitled for acquittal

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/Sec.120(B) IPC and

Sec.25(a)(1-a) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 r/w 109 IPC. The point is decided accordingly.

10

20.In the result, A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.120(B) IPC and Sec.25(a)(1-a) of Indian Arms

Act, 1959 r/w 109 IPC and they are acquitted U/Ses.248(1)

Cr.P.C. for the said offences. A2 and A3 shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. MOs1 to 3 and 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO4 which has been given to interim custody of its owner shall become absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation to Steno typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 27th day of November, 2015.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

::Appendix of Evidence::

For Prosecution:

PW.1 Md.Afzal. PW.2 Md.Shirajuddin. PW.3 S.Balaiah. PW.4 Hassan Miya. PW.5 Khaja Moinuddin. PW.6 Kathera Pentaiah. PW.7 M.Muthaiah. PW.8 G.Goverdhana Giri.

For Defence: -Nil-

:: Documents marked on behalf of ::

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is signature of PW4 on confession and seizure panchanama if A5. Ex.P2 is signature of PW4 on confession and seizure panchanama of A8. Ex.P3 is signature of PW5 on confession and seizure panchanama of A5. Ex.P4 is signature of PW5 on confession and seizure panchanama of A8. Ex.P5 is signature of PW6 on seizure panchanama of A1 and A7.

11

Ex.P6 is signature of PW6 on confession and seizure panchanama of A1. Ex.P7 is FIR. Ex.P8 is confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 and A2. Ex.P9 is seizure panchanama of A1 dt.7-4-2005 at scene of offence. Ex.P10 is seizure panchanama of A1. Ex.P11 is confession and seizure panchanama of A5. Ex.P12 is confession and seizure panchanama of A8. Ex.P13 is Xerox copy of documents pertaining to the land of Yellamma. For Defence: -NIL-

:: Material objects marked for::

MO1 is country made tapancha. MOs2 and 3 are live cartridges. MO4 is commander jeep. MO5 is bullet cartridge.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

12

Tabular form to be annexed to the Judgment U/Sec 71 Crl.R.P.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

SPL. MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

CC No.358 of 2015

1. Sl.No.

2. Cr.No Name of the PS. Cr.No.31 of 2005 of PS.I-Town, Mahabubnagar.

Sl.No. Name Father”s name Age: race, occ: Resident

1. Gaddam Pullappa @ Pedda Pullappa @ Tractor Pullappa s/o Ganganna, age 21 yrs, occ: Agriculture, r/o Rakonda village of Danwada mandal. (Case against him split up vide CC.354/2007)

2. Jakkanagari Ashappa @ Ashok @ Shiva Raj s/o Late J.Kurmaiah, age 45 yrs, occ: Agriculture, n/o Abangapuram village of Narayanpet mandal.

3. Saraf Srikanth @ Srikanth s/o Bhaskar, age: 32 yrs, n/o Vepurigeri, Mahabunagar town.

4.D.Krishnaiah s/o Chinna Narsanna, age 40 yrs, occ: Congress Party Worker, r/o Kotakonda village of Narayanpet mandal. (Case against him split up vide

CC.354/2007)

5. Pebbeti Veera Reddy @ Kothapally Veera Reddy, s/o Keshi Reddy, age: 26 yrs, occ: Agriculture, r/o Kothapally village of Dhanwada mandal. (Case against him split up vide

CC.354/2007)

6. Pebbeti Venkateshwar Reddy s/o Narayan Reddy, age: 30 yrs, occ: Motorwinding mechanic, r/o Kothapally @ Venkatapuram village of Dhanwada mandal.(Case against him split up vide CC.354/2007)

7.Jeedi Venkat Ramulu s/o Narayana, age 23 yrs, occ: Driver-cum-Owner of Commander Jeep bearing No.AP-25-U-2179, r/o Maddur proper. (Case against him split up vide CC.354/2007)

8.Yenamala Maladri s/o Kondaiah, age 45 yrs, occ: Mason, r/o Papireddy Colony, Chandranagar, Hyderabad, n/o Kandukur of Prakasam District. (Case against him split up vide CC.354/2007)

3. Date of

Occurrence Complaint Apprehensi Released Commence- Close of Sentence on On bail ment of trial trial or Order 7-4-20057-4-200515-7-2015---5-11-201512-11-1512-11-15 13

5. Explanation for delay if any:

1. Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution from time to time.

2. Due to heavy work, calendar is not submitted in time.

6. Order as to disposal of property:- -NIL-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl. Mobile Court. Mahabubnagar.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar

Dis.No.date: - -2015

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR

Saturday, this the 18th day of February, 2017

Present:- Smt.Kshama Deshpande,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

C.C.No. 432 of 2016

Between:

The State represented through the Sub- Inspector of police, Koilkonda.

… Complainant.

And

Pikkili Kankaaiah S/o Narayana, age 3 yrs Caste. Telugu Occ. Coolie R/o Peddapur village of Maddur. Mdl.

... Accused

Section of lawU/Sec.379 IPC

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the courtAccused found not guilty U/Sec.379 IPC

Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.379 IPC and acquitted U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The MO.1 is Splendor Plus bearing No. MH012-FR-6534 marked shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

* * *

This case coming before me for final hearing on 15-02-2017 in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and of Accused Legal aid counsel for S. Murlikrishna Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the evidence and material papers on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

2

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, Koilkonda, P.S. has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under section 379 IPC in Cr.No.71 of 2016.

2 The brief fact of the case are that on 28-07-2016 at 0800 hours the Lw-1 (Katkam Raghavender ) came to PS and lodged a complaint staing that in the year 2007 he purchased one Hero Honda

Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing No. AP22M-6330 in Showroom of

Mahabubnagar. On 6-7-2016 evening while he was proceeding to

Mahabubangar on the way at about 160 hours he parked his motor cycle near road at Lingalchedu village sivar and went to attend natural calls, after completion of 10 minutes he came to spot, where his motor cycle was not found. Further he and his friend Lalkota Siddaiah Swamy for his motor cycle, but it is not traced. Some unknown persons committed theft of his motor cycle, is value about Rs/30,000/ As such today he came to PS and lodged a complaint.

3.Basing on the contents of above complaint, the Lw-8 (P.Srikanth Reddy) SI of Police, Koilkonda registered a case in Cr. No.

71/2016 u/sec. 379 IPC took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, the Lw-8 examined and recorded the statement of complainant Lw-1 and his friend Lw-2 u/sec.

161 (3) Cr.PC and visited the scene of offence situated near R &B road at Lingalchedu village and secured the presence of Mediators Lws 4 and 5 and conducted scene of offence panchanma by preparing crime details form and made efforts to apprehend the accused. On 29-7- 2016 at 0800 hours, while the Lw-8 along with staff have conducting vehicle checking on R & B road at Suraram village found one person proceeding towards Kothalabad village on motor cycle under suspicious circumstances. As such the Lw-8 staff stopped him, when 3 the Lw-8 questioned him to produced documents of vehicle, he failed to produced the documents. On interrogation he revealed his name as

Pikilli Kanakaiah when the accused about to confess the Lw-8 secured the presence of mediators Lws 6 & 7 and recorded his confession and recovered one motor cycle bearing no. AP22M-6330 belongs to this crime from the instance possession under cover of panchanama belongs to this crime.

5.After completion of said process the Lw-8 affected arrest of accused and informed the grounds of arrest to the accused and his relatives and brought him to PS at 1200 hours and served notice U/sec.

50, 20(1) Cr.Pc and sent for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

6. Upon perusal of the record, the above charge sheet has been taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.

379 I.P.C and numbered as CC 432/16 on the file Hon’ble Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

7. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 Cr.P.C.

8. Subsequently, Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C, charge for the offence U/Sec.379 IPC is framed against Accused, read over and explained them in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. During trial the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 on their behalf. MO1 is Splendor Plus bearing No.

MH-12-FR-6534.

10.After completion of prosecution evidence, Accused is examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C by placing the incriminating circumstances 4 appearing against them, for which he denied the same a reported no defense evidence.

11.Heard learned APP and Counsel for Accused.

12.Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of Accused for the offence

U/sec.379 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?.

POINT :-

13. Pw-1(K.Raghavender) deposed before this court that, On 06-7-2016 at about 4.00 PM he was proceeding on his motorbike bearing No. AP-22-M-6330 from Maddur to Mahabubnagar, at about

Lingalched village. He went to attend his nature call. He stopped his vehicle at the road side, after 10 minutes he came back and noticed that his bike was missing and after that he telephoned to Lw-2 and he came there and they both searched for his bike, but they could not find it. They waited up to 28-7-2016 and after that he gave report to police Koilkonda. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

PW-2 (Siddaiah Swamy) deposed before this court that, on 6-7-2016 after 4.00 PM he received a phone call from PW-1, who is his friend stating that his bike was missing. So he immediately went to Lingalched village and there they both searched for the bike and after that on 28-7-2016 he along with PW-1 came to police station. PW-1 filed the report and his statement was examined by the police.

PW-3 (L.BalaKrisna) deposed before this court that, he know Lw-

5. On 28-7-2016 the police Koilkonda called him to the scene of 5 offence and stated that the bike was stolen and the police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and obtained his signature.

PW-4 (K.Ravi Das) deposed before this court that, he do not know Pws. 1 and 2. About six of seven months back he purchased motorbike i.e., Splendor plus bearing No. MH-12-FR-6534. Before 30-7-2016 he came to Keshavapur thanda on his bike and returned to Hyderabad and he parked his vehicle near toilets at Koti and thereafter he found his bike missing, but he did not lodge complaint.

One day he reading Eanadu new papers about tracing of his bike by

Koilkonda police and he came to Koilkonda PS and submitted his documents pertaining to his bike and thereafter he took his bike from the Court. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

PW-5 (Raj Kumar) deposed before this court that, he know Lw- 7 Krishnaiah. On 29-7-2016 the SI of Police, PS Koilkonda was conducting vehicle checking infront of the house of Sarpanch of

Suraram village. At that time accused was coming on bike, police stopped accused and asked for vehicle documents and accused failed to produced. accused stated that accused is having another three or four bikes at Peddapuram and accordingly the SI of Police took him and accused to Peddapuram to the house of accused and they found that there are four bikes and on enquiry with accused he stated that he has brought the bikes from Hyderabad, Devarkadra and chinnalingalched. The police conducted panchanama and drafted the panchanama and obtained his signature and seized the vehicles.

6

PW-6 (K.Srikanth Reddy) SI of Police Koilkonda deposed before this court that, On 28-7-2016 at about 0800 hours he received a direct complaint from Pw-1, basing on that he registered a case in

Cr. No. 71/2016 U/sec.379 IPC and issued FIR, which is Ex.P4.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded detailed statement of Pws1 and 2 and after that he visited the scene of offence situated at Lingalchedu and with the aid of panchas Pw-3 and Lw-5, he conducted CDF vide Ex.P2 and while he was conducting vehicle checking duty on 29-7-2016, he found accused in a suspicious condition and when he interrogated him, accused pleaded his guilty and with the aid of panchas Pw.5 and Lw-7 he conducted him to Judicial custody and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused and he seized crime vehicle from possession of accused vide.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section. 379 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The MO-1 MH-12-FR-6534 property shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of first class, Proh and Excise Court, Mahabubnagar.

Typed to my dictation by Typist corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of February, 2017.

FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of first class, Proh and Excise Court, Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of evidence

7

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defense

PW.1 K.Raghavender None PW.2 Siddaiah Swamy PW.3 L.Balakrishna PW.4 K.Ravi Das PW.5 Raj Kumar PW.6 K.Srikanth Reddy

Exhibits marked

For prosecution:

Ex.P1 is complaint. Ex.P2 Signature on crime details form. Ex.P3 is original confession and seizer panchanama.

For Defense:

-NIL-

Material Objects Marked

Motor Cycle MH-12-FR-6534

FAC Spl.Judicial Magistrate of first class, Proh.& Excise Court, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MAHABUBANGAR

On this Monday, the 23rd day of April, 2018.

Present: Smt Kshama Deshpande, Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

O.S.No.102 of 2014

Between: C.Yadaiah s/o Chandraiah, age 46 yrs, occ: Agriculture, r/o H.No.4-9-7/8, Brahmin Wadi, Mahabubnagar.

...Plaintiff

A N D Madasu Yadaiah s/o Laxmaiah, aged about 30 yrs, occ: Private Employee, r/o Kondapur village of Nawabpet mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

...Defendant

This Suit came before me for final hearing on 2-4-2018 in the presence of Sri A.Udaya Bhasker, Advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri Javid Ali, Advocate for the defendant. Upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff filed this Suit against the defendant seeking the recovery of amount of Rs.52,000/- with interest on @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are that the defendant approached the plaintiff for hand loan of Rs.40,000/- and the plaintiff gave amount to the defendant and the defendant executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ Rs.2/- per hundred per month and the defendant did not repay the amount in-spite of repeated demands. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, in-spite of service of notice, the defendant neither paid the amount nor gave reply to the legal notice. Hence, the plaintiff filed the Suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the contents of plaint and further stated that the defendant asked the plaintiff to give

Rs.12,000/- at the time of defendant’s mother constructing the house, but the plaintiff gave raw-material of the construction i.e., 3 quintal Iron from 2

B.Naveen from their shop, which is cost of Rs.10,275/-. After the arrangement of raw-material, the defendant paid Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff. The defendant actually due amount of Rs.5,275/-, but the plaintiff created promissory note by forging the signature of defendant and filed false suit to extract huge amount. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed?

1. Whether the defendant borrowed any money from the plaintiff?

2. Whether the defendant executed the pronote as alleged by the plaintiff?

3. Whether the plaintiff got arranged to supply any iron material to the defendant from IIIrd parties as alleged?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of money?

5.To what relief?

5. During the trial, on behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and PW2 is also examined on behalf of plaintiff. On behalf of defendant, the defendant got examined himself as DW1 and no exhibits are marked.

6.Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

7.ISSUES No.1 to 3:- PW1 has reiterated the contents of plaint in his chief examination affidavit.

8.PW2 has stated that he know the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the defendant in his presence and one Venkataiah and the defendant signed on the promissory note and himself and Venkataiah signed as a witness on Ex.A1.

9.DW1 has reiterated the contents of written statement in his chief examination affidavit.

10.As per the facts elicited in the cross examination of PW1, he do not know the education qualification of the defendant. He has no idea 3 about the age of the defendant, when he received amount from him. He is having 10 acres of land. The defendant obtained amount from him for construction of the house.

11.As per the cross examination of PW2, the plaintiff gave amount to the defendant on 8-6-2013. The plaintiff lent amount to people in the village. In Ex.A1 except his signature there are no other particulars mentioned about him. The promissory note is scribed by the plaintiff.

12. As per the cross examination of DW1, he denied his signature on vakalat and promissory note and admitted his signature in Ex.A3 acknowledgment card. He did not gave reply to the notice during loan transaction and he executed of Ex.A1 promissory note.

13.It is the contention of plaintiff that the defendant obtained

Rs.40,000/- towards his family necessities. The defendant denied to receive that much of amount and stated that he has received only

Rs.12,000/- and he repaid Rs.5,000/- and he is due of Rs.5,275/- and further he stated that the plaintiff forged his signature and created the promissory note.

14.The plaintiff filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. Ex.A1 is promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant. The plaintiff examined PW2 on his behalf, who stated about the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant and he is one of the witness to the promissory note. The defendant though denied his signature and stated that the signature is forged, but he did not take any steps to prove his contention to disprove the transaction between himself and plaintiff. As such from the oral evidence of plaintiff and PW2 and the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff, it can be stated that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff. This Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

4

15.ISSUES No.2:- The plaintiff filed Ex.A1 promissory note and

PW1 is an attesting witness stated about the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant. The defendant alleged that the signature is forged, but the same is not proved by the defendant either by oral or documentary evidence, as such it can be presumed that Ex.A1 promissory note is executed by the defendant. This Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

16.ISSUE No.3:- The defendant contended that he approached the plaintiff at the time of his mother constructing house for Rs.12,000/-, but the plaintiff arranged raw-material for construction. In this regard, except the oral evidence of defendant, there is no corroborating evidence either by oral or documentary to prove his contention, as such the fact that the plaintiff has supplied iron material is not proved by the defendant. This Issue No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

17.ISSUE No.4:- The Issues No.1 and 2 that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff and he executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff are answered in favour of the plaintiff as the defendant failed to prove his contention with regard to the forgery and supply of iron material by the plaintiff to him, as such it can be stated that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery amount. This Issue No.4 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

18.ISSUE No.5:- In the result, the Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for Rs.52,000/- (Rupees Fifty two thousand only) against the defendant along with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

5

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

::Appendix of Evidence::

For Plaintiff:- PW1 C.Yadaiah. PW2 G.Chennaiah. For Defendant:- DW1 Madasu Yadaiah.

::Documents marked on behalf of::

For Plaintiff:- Ex.A1 is promissory note dt.8-6-2013 to 7-9-2014. Ex.A2 is legal notice, dt.7-6-2014. Ex.A3 is postal receipt, dt.7-6-2014. Ex.A4 is served RPAD postal acknowledgment card of defendant. For Defendant:- -NIL-

Sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

CC 547/2015 1 dt.13-10-2016

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated, this the 13th day of October, 2016.

Present: Kshama Deshpande, Prl.Juniour Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar FAC:Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court,Mahabubnagar,

C C No. 547 of 2015

Between:

The State, represented through Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise SHO, Mahabubnagar. … Complainant

And

Smt. Munavath Mani Bai W/o Narya Naik, age 42 yrs Caste, ST, Occ. Labour, R/o Shasabgutta, Mahabubnagar.

... Accused

Section of law :7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995

Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

Sentence or order :Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time. The MO.1 marked shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

-o0o-

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 05.10.2016 in the presence of the A.P.P. on behalf of the State and of Sri S. Murli Krishna, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

CC 547/2015 2 dt.13-10-2016

J U D G M E N T

1.TheProhibitionandExciseSub-Inspector,

Mahabubnagar, has filed charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence Punishable U/s. Sec. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995 in PCOR No. 944/2014-2015 of Prohibition and Excise

Station, Mahabubnagar.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief are that on 04-12- 2014 LW3 along with staff proceeded to at open place infron house of accused, Shashabgutta, Mahabubnagar (T&M) area and there secured the presence of two mediators i.e., Lws 1(Y.Rambabu) and

Lw-2 (E.Ramulu) stating that they got reliable information about the illegal sale and possession of illicitly distilled liquor and requested to act as mediators and to watch their proceedings, to which they agreed and followed with the officials. All of they reached at the suspected place at open place infront house of accused,

Shashabgutta, Mahabubnagar area at about 7.30 AM and found a person. On suspicious, the officials stopped the said person and stated the purpose of their search. Then the officer came to know name and address of the said person as Mudavath Mani Bai, during the chcking, found (5) ltrs of illicitly distilled liquor in a plastic Can which was possessed by accused illegally. The property was seized by the officer and drawn two sample bottles each about 350 ml and sealed them as per procedure under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and pasted the signed chits on the samples and taken the accused into custody. Returned to the station along with accused, samples and remaining contraband of taking further action, during further course of investigation, a case was registered

CC 547/2015 3 dt.13-10-2016

by the officer vide PCOR No. 944/2014-15 and issued crime and occurrence report against the accused and remanded to judicial custody after investigation filed charge sheet.

2. The case was taken on file for the offence u/Sec. 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act 1995 against the sole accused.

3. After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as required u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to him.

4. The accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge for the offence under Section.7 (A) r/w 8(e) A.P. Prohibition

Act 1995 against the accused is framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In pursuance of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3, got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

6. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material was put to him. He has denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Arguments Heard.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/sec. 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act 1995.

9.PW1 ( B.R.Ram Reddy ) deposed that 04-12-2014 at about 7.30 AM, on reliable information, himself along with his staff and Lw-1 and

Lw-2 panch witnesses proceeded to near Shasabgutta area,

CC 547/2015 4 dt.13-10-2016

Mahabubnagar. They were route watch, and found on suspicious manner and on search and found (05) liters of ID liquor in plastic can. Then he has drawn two samples under cover of panchanama, Ex.P-1 panchanama in the presence of Lws.1 and 2 as panchas. Thereafter he returned to station along with you, samples and basing on Ex.P-1 panchanama he himself registered a case in PCOR No. 944/2014-15 U/Sec. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act Ex.P-2 is PCOR and dispatched the same to the

Hon'ble Court and copies to the concerned. He has submitted the

samples before the Hon'ble Court for judicial custody and he has submitted the samples before the Hon'ble Court for forwarding them for chemical analysis. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

10.PW2 (Rambabu) deposed that he do not know Lw-1 and the

Accused . At about one years back, Excise Police called him and obtained his signature on some white papers without stating the reason. No panchanama was conducted by excise police in his presence.

11.PW3 ( Ramulu ) deposed that he do not now Pw-2 and the accused. At about one year back, Excise Police called him and obtained his signature on some white papers without stating the reason. No panchanama was conducted by excise police in his presence.

12. In this case PW2 and 3 who is the panch witness did not support the prosecution case. In this case there is only evidence of Pw-1 who conducted panchanama, who is the complainant but the panch witness Pw-2 and 3 did not support his version and her were declared hostile and in their cross examination, no material facts were elicited to support the prosecution. In these circumstances, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal Us/sec 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP

Prohibition Act.

CC 547/2015 5 dt.13-10-2016

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section. 7 (A) r/w 8(e) Prohibition Act 1995 and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The MO-1- property shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 13-10-2016.

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of first class, Proh. & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar.

MEMO OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for prosecution: for Defence:Nil

PW.1: Sri. B.R.Ram Reddy,

PW.1: Sri. Y.Rambabu,

PW.3: Sri. E.Ramulu

Exhibits marked for prosecution: for Defence: Nil

Ex.P1: panchanama

Ex.P2: PCOR

Ex.P3: CE Report

Ex.P4: Completion of investigation

Ex.P5: Signature of Pw.2 on Panchanama

Ex.P6: Signature of Pw.3 on Panchanama

Material Objects Marked:

sample of the bottle

CC 547/2015 6 dt.13-10-2016

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court,Mahabubnagar

TSMA040002102020

Presented on : 03-08-2020 Registered on : 03-08-2020 Decided on : 25-06-2022 Duration : 1 years, 10 months, 22 days

IN THE COURT OF

Spl JMFC(Mobile) Crt for trial of cases under PCR Act cum I Adl JCJ, Mahbubnagar

AT MAHABUBNAGAR ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

(Presided Over by Sri Vaddi Hari Kumar)

CC/197/2020

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Through SI of Police Moosapet Through Police Station Officer Moospet PS 16 , Sub-Inspector of Police, Moosapet Police station, Near NH-44 Moosapet Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

MAHABUBNAGAR MAHABOOBNAGAR

Through SI of Police Moosapet VERSUS : Kamtam goutham Kumar,Age: 25,Occupation : kachiguda,hyderabad,kachiguda,lingampally,Telangana ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for Kamtam goutham Kumar Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 337 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

ORDER

(Delivered on 25-06-2022)

Accused is present. He is examined under section 251

Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation leveled

against him for the offence under section 337 and 338 of IPC

and the same is read over and explained to him in Telugu

language for which, he pleaded guilty. The admission of

accused appears to be voluntary. Hence, the accused is found

guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 337 and 338 of IPC,

and he is convicted under section 252 Cr.P.C. for the said

offence. Accordingly, Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable U/sec. 338 of IPC, in

default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of Three months. he is also

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence U/sec.

337 of IPC. In default, in payment of fine, he shall undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of one month. total fine

amount of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand Five Hundred

only).

Date : 25-06-2022 (Sri Vaddi Hari Kumar)

Spl JMFC(Mobile) Crt for trial of cases under PCR Act cum I Adl JCJ, Mahbubnagar

MAHABUBNAGAR