Lakkoju Devi Rathna Kumari

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

Present : Smt.L.Devi Rathna Kumari,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Monday, 11th day of December, Two thousand and Seventeen

CALENDAR CASE NO. 152/2012

This case has come before me on this day of 22.11.2017 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri. G.Parvateeswara Rao counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day this court delivers the following:

JUDGEMENT

a. The Serial No. of the case: CC. No. 152/2012 b. The Date of Offence: Prior to 04.07.2011

C. The Name of the Complainant: State- represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Srikakulam .

d.The Name of the accused: 1. Korrayi Venkata Rao, s/o Krishna Murthy, age 42 years, Yadava by caste, R/o Dwarakanagar, near Manguvarithota, Srikakulam Town and District.

2. Korrayi Rajeswari, W/o Krishna Murthy, age 62 years, Yadava by caste, R/o Dwarakanagar, near Manguvarithota, Srikakulam Town and District.

3. Korrayi Krishna Murthy, S/olt. Dalayya, age 77 years, Yadava by caste, R/o Dwarakanagar, near Manguvarithota, Srikakulam Town and District.

4. Narthu Parvathi, W/o Madhava Rao, age 48 years, Yadava by caste, R/o Dwarakanagar, near Manguvarithota, Srikakulam Town and District.

2 e. The offence complained of: Offence Punishable under section 498-A, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

f. The plea of accused and his :Accused Pleaded not guilty examination, if any

The brief averments of the case is that, the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Women Police Station, Srikakulam has filed the charge-sheet against the accused in crime no.61/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-

A, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, with the following allegations:

1. That on 22.06.2006, the informant/Korrayi Lakshmi was married to the accused/A1 as per the caste customs and rites. At the time of marriage

Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, 5 tulas of gold and house hold articles worth of

Rs.1,00,000/- were given towards dowry. After the marriage, she led her marital life happily with the accused/A1 for one or two months. Later, the accused/A1 used to threaten the informant, that he will desert her in case a child girl is born to them. Later, in the year, 2008 she gave birth to a girl child and from then onwards the accused/A1 started harassing her and also all the accused/A1 to A4 demanded her for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and also used to beat and scold her by demanding additional dowry. Moreover, the accused/A1 developed illegal intimacy with another woman by name Yasoda of Visakhapatnam and he used to force the informant to give adoption of their children to the said woman. Hence, the informant gave a report to the police and the same was registered as case in crime no. 61/2011 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and S.3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences referred above.

2.The court took cognizance of the offences Punishable u/S. 498-A and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the accused. On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to them, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both sides, 3 charges were framed against the accused/A1 to A4 for the offences under

Sections u/S. 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The accused/A1 is charged with the offence punishable under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also the accused/A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has examined, P.W.'s 1 to 7 and Exs. P.1 and P2 were marked through them and also Exs. D1 to D3 also marked through them. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 to A4 were examined u/S. 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied it totally and reported defence evidence on their behalf. The accused/A1 was examined as

D.W.2 and B.Lakshmi Narayana was examined as D.W.1 on his behalf and

Exs. D4 to D15 were marked through D.W.2.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused/A1 to A4 have committed the offences punishable under Sections u/S. 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Whether the accused/A1 have committed the offence punishable under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also the accused/A1 to A4 have committed the offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961& Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor have argued that, the prosecution witnesses have consistently supported the case of the prosecution.

He further argued that the guilt of the accused has established beyond all reasonable doubt and hence they should be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

7.On the other hand, the learned Defense Counsel argued that the accused never subjected the de-facto complainant for harassment. He further argued that the informant was previously married and that, this is the second marriage for her and that her first husband also filed a case against her and due to that, the accused was mentally disturbed. He argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused and hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

4

8.I have perused the total evidence consisting of oral and documentary. In that P.W.1/Korrayi Lakshmi, stated that her marriage was performed with the accused/A1 on 22.06.2007 at Dattatreya Temple, New Bridge, Srikakulam in the presence of elders. She stated that at the time of marriage Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, five sovereigns of gold and Rs.1,00,000/- for household articles were given towards dowry. She stated that after her marriage, she joined his husband to lead conjugal life at Srikakulam and that the accused/A2 to A4 used to reside with them. She stated, she lived happily for one or two months after the marriage and later, the accused/A1 used to threaten her that he will desert her in case a girl child is born to them. She stated that in the year, 2008 she gave birth to a girl child and from then onwards the accused/A1 started to harassing her but, expecting a change in his behaviour she stayed at the matrimonial home and later, in the year 2010, she gave birth to a male child at

Berhampur. She stated that the accused/A1 developed illegal intimacy with another woman by name Yasodha and also used to harass her to give away their children to that women for adoption.

She further stated that the accused/A1 used to harass her either to bring

additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- or to give away her daughter for adoption to

Yasodha. She stated that the accused/A1 to A4 used to harass her both physically and mentally and finally being vexed with the behaviour of the accused she gave a report to the police and Ex.P1 is marked through her.

9.P.W.2/Alliboyina Hymavathi, stated that the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with the accused/A1 on 22.06.2007 at Dattatreya Temple,

Srikakulam. She stated that at the time of marriage Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, five sovereigns of gold and house hold articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- were given towards dowry to the accused. She stated, after the marriage they lived happily for a period of two years. Later, when P.W.1 begot a girl child, the accused/A1 started harassing P.W.1 for additional dowry and that the accused/A1 developed illegal intimacy with another woman by name Yasoda. She stated that after the birth of a male child, the accused harassed P.W.1 and he directly brought the said woman/Yasoda to their house.

During her cross examination, she admitted that a case was filed against them by the first husband of P.W.1 and she also admitted that a case for the 5 offence u/S. 494 of IPC was filed by P.W1’s first husband.

10.P.W.3/A.Vijaya Rama Rao stated similarly to the evidence of P.W.2.

During his cross examination, he stated that he do not know whether a case was filed against P.W.1 for the offence u/S. 494 of IPC or not.

11.P.W.4/Pulari Papa Rao, stated that the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with the accused/A1 in the year, 2006 at Dattatreya Swamy Temple near

Bridge Road, Srikakulam. He stated that at the time of marriage Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and certain quantity of gold was given to the accused towards dowry.

He stated that P.W.1 and the accused/A1 are divorced persons prior to their marriage. He stated that after the marriage of P.W.1 with the accused/A1, he started harassing her. As P.W.1 gave birth to a baby girl the accused threatened her that he will desert her as she begot a girl child. He stated that later, the accused/A1 brought another woman who is resident of Kanchilli Village to his house and she also stayed together with P.W.1 and the accused/A1. He stated that when P.W.1 questioned the accused/A1 about it, he replied that the woman will stay along with them in the same house. Meanwhile, P.W.1 gave birth to a male child. He stated that later, he was informed by P.W.1 about the harassment meted out by her in the hands of the accused.

12.P.W.5/Jalepalli Lalitha Sridevi, stated that the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with the accused/A1 on 22.06.2006 at Dattatreya Swamy Temple.

She stated that at the time of marriage Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, five sovereigns of gold and house hold articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- were given towards dowry. She stated that after the birth of a female child, P.W.1 used to visit

Berhampur frequently and when she questioned her about it, she was informed that P.W.1 was harassed by her husband and that he has an extra-marital relationship with another woman by name Yasoda and that he used to harass her to give away their girl child for adoption to the woman/Yasoda or else he will desert her. She stated that the accused/A2 and A4 also subjected P.W.1 to cruelty. She stated, that later, P.W.1 gave birth to a male child.

During her cross examination, she stated that she did not directly witness the harassment meted out by P.W.1. She admitted that P.W.1 was married previously subsisting of this marriage. She also stated that she do not know about the cases filed against P.W.1 by her first husband.

6

13.P.W.6/Mamidi Tirumala Rao, stated that the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with the accused/A1 in the month of June, 2006 at Dattatreya

Swamy Temple. He stated that at the time of marriage Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, five sovereigns of gold and house hold articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- were given towards dowry. He stated that P.W.1 was lived happily till the birth of a girl child and later, the accused started harassing her as she gave birth to a female child. He stated that the accused also harassed P.W.1 for additional dowry and the same was informed to him by the parents of P.W.1. He stated that he do not know whether the matter was placed before the elders or not.

14.P.W.7/A.Visweswara Rao, who is the investigating officer stated that on 04.07.2011 at about 21 hours he received a report from P.W.1 and on its basis, he has registered a case and issued Ex.P2 Original FIR. He stated that he has examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements. He stated that on 05.07.2011 he has arrested the accused and after completion of investigation he has filed the charge sheet against the accused.

15.D.W.1/B.Laxminaryana, stated that the accused/A1 has made an application under right to information Act on 27.12.2014 seeking the particulars of Ex.D2 and he has furnished the information there in, that one

K.Lakshmi and Gundu Ramesh has presented a document for registration of customary divorce and the same was returned with reasons that as cases were pending in the court it cannot be registered. He also admitted that it was mentioned in the letter that after finality of orders in the said cases the deed will be registered. He also stated that the thumb impressions and the photographs of the parties will be obtain at their office and later the document will be place before him for registration.

During his cross examination by learned APP, he stated that as he has not registered the document, therefore he is not the competent person to give evidence about its contents.

16.The accused/A1 was examined as D.W.2 and Exs. D4 to D15 were marked through him.

17.At this juncture, it is pertinent to consider Section 498-A of I.P.C.

Which reads that:-

Who ever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women, subjects such woman, to cruelty shall be punished with 7 imprisonment for a term which may extended to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: For the purpose of this section “Cruelty” means:-

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (Whether mental or physical) of the woman.

(b)harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

18.The expression “Cruelty” has been defined for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. it has two limbs. The first limb envisage the willful conduct on the part of the husband or his relative towards the woman, which made likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, to limb or health (either mental or physical). Therefore the explanation willful conduct requires to be understood in conjunction with the other requirements i.e. the consequences of such a conduct on the wife. The second limb contemplates the harassment of the woman, which harassment shall be with a view to coerce the woman or any person relating to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of their failure to meet such demand. Therefore, harassment must be accompanied by unlawful demand for property or valuable security.

19.Clause (b) of Sec. 498-A I.P.C.: The plain reading of Ex.P1 report does not discloses any harassment of accused against P.W.1 in connection with dowry, property or any valuable security. Further, any harassment of accused against P.W.1 by developing illicit intimacy with another woman does not come under the ambit of clause (b) of Section 498-A I.P.C, since the said provision aimed at harassment for property or valuable security.

20.In the case of State of A.P. Vs. M.Madhusudanarao reported in 2008(3) LS page no. 204(SC) the Hon'ble APEX Court held in para no.9 that

For the purpose of clause(b) of Sec. 498-A I.P.C., any harassment does not amount to “cruelty” within the meaning of Sec. 498-A I.P.C. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand. In other words, for the purpose of Sec. 498-A I.P.C.

8

Harassment simplicities is not “Cruelty” and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc., that it amounts to “cruelty” punishable u/s 498-A I.P.C.

21.In another decision in the case of Bandakuri Parvathi Vs. Bandakuri

Vijayakumar reported in 2003 Vol. (2) ALT (Crl.) Page 127 A.P., in its Para no. 5, His Lord Ships held that

Every act that may have resulted on account of difference between wife and husband cannot be granted as cruelty as demand in explanation to 498-A of I.P.C. It is only when the acts complained all are willful in nature and accentuated that the object of coercing the wife or any person related to her to meet the unlawful demand for any property or valuable security; that an offence u/s 498-A of I.P.C. can be said to have been committed.

22.The analogy in the aforementioned decisions clearly shows that the prosecution shall establish the harassment of accused with specific object to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security.

23.Clause (a) of the Section 498-A of I.P.C.: Upon careful observation of the evidence of P.W.1, it is apparent that there has been no whisper in her entire evidence about the consequences of alleged harassment of accused. The evidence of witnesses discloses that accused developed illicit intimacy with one Yasoda and thereby not attending to the house and neglecting the welfare of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 does not say anything about consequences of such conduct of accused effecting her health either physically or mentally.

Therefore, it remains to be silent as to whether it would have induced P.W.1 to entertain the idea of committing suicide or not. Moreover, P.W.1 or the witnesses did not say anything that the conduct of accused is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of P.W.1. Even though, P.W.2 stated that a case for the offence u/S. 494 of IPC was filed by P.W1’s first husband. P.W’s 3 to 6 who were said to be the witnesses stated that they have came to know about the incident but they do not have real eye witnesses to the alleged incident and also they do not know the real facts of this case. It is further manifest that the prosecution did not examine any of the neighbours of the accused and also the eye witnesses of this case.

9

24.As per the first limb of the penal provision, the conduct of accused should be in such a manner to cause consequences stipulated there in and the accused should apply their willful conduct to cause such a danger to P.W.1.

The conduct of accused is that having illicit intimacy with another woman, not attending to the house and thereby given up the welfare of P.W.1 cannot be inferred that such conduct of A1 should result in the adverse consequences as contemplated in clause (a) unless the prosecution established the same by adducing positive evidence.

25.In Besai Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs. State of A.P.; 2003(2) ALD (Crl.) 33 our Hon'ble High Court decided that, case where the accused developed illicit intimacy with a woman by name Aneepu Ramanamma therein and deserted the victim and her minor child and further allegedly harassed the victim demanding for dowry and compelled her to take divorce and beat her in that connection. After thorough scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of that case the Hon'ble Court held that- "husband having illicit intimacy with another woman and deserting the wife making her to live alone does not by itself amount to cruelty as defined in the explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C.”

26.Moreover, It is further manifest that all the witnesses stated that the accused developed illegal intimacy with another woman by name Yasoda and lived with her in the same house. But the police did not file any case against her and did not shown her as accused in this case. The police also did not file

S.494 of IPC against the accused.

27.It is further manifest that the police did not examine the said Yasoda to know whether the fact, the dispute arose between the accused and P.W.1 or not.

28.All the witnesses stated that the accused harassed P.W.1 both physically and mentally for additional dowry.

At this juncture the relevant case laws is that - Atluri Ravindra Vs.

State of A.P. reported in 2006(3) ALT (Crl.) Page 82 (A.P.) the Hon'ble High

Court held that

When there are no specific overtacts as to whether the harassment was mentally or physically if so what kind of harassment and when the harassment was caused etc., to 1 rope of the family members, the allegations do not constitute prima-facie case and the case made against the accused can be crashed.

29.On the other hand, the testimony of Investigating Officer P.W.7 appears that basing upon the oral statement of witnesses i.e., P.W.s 1 to 6, he has filed the case against the accused.

It is further manifest that as per S.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act which shows that Penalty for giving or taking dowry. All the witnesses stated that at the time of marriage, dowry was given to the accused but no one said that they have acted as mediators when the dowry was given to the accused/A1. Hence,

S.3 was not proved against the accused/A1.

30.Considering the above discussed evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, the Court observed that nothing is discrenible from the evidence on record to show that accused developed illicit intimacy and has created the necessary impact on the mind of P.W.1 so as to conclude that it is nothing but a cruelty by physical or mental.

31.It is evident that P.W.1 stated in her evidence, that the accused and

P.W.1 led their marital life happily for about two years and later the accused demanded her for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and when the matter was placed before the elders, the accused did not heed their words. But in Ex.P1, it was stated that the accused demanded her for additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/- only.

Relying upon the citation Tahmeena Kaleem and others Vs. State of

AP, 2014 (1) ALD (Crl) 542 (AP), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has issued some guide lines that are to be followed during the course of investigation in a case for the offence u/s 498-A of IPC and also relying upon the Ramaiah alias

Rama v. state of Karnataka, 2015(1) ALD (Crl) 196 (SC) ,wherein it was held in para 20 that, “when the demand of dowry and giving of dowry at the time of marriage is not been proved, further, version of prosecution witness that there was a demand for her the remaining amount becomes doubtful”.

32.With the above aforegoing reasons, the Court is of the considered view that evidence adduced by prosecution would not established the guilt of the accused in the lines of Section 498-A I.P.C and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Hence the Court held that the prosecution did not established 11 the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

33.In the result, the accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections u/S. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and S.4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act and also the accused/A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, they are acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of 6 months.

Dictated to Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in open court, this the 11th day of December, 2017.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of I class, Spl. Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE: P.W.1:Korrayi Laxmi- None- P.W.2: Alliboyina Hymavathi P.W.3:Alliboyina vijayarama Rao. P.W.4:Pulari Papa Rao. P.W.5:Jallepalli Lalitha Sridevi P.W.6:Mamidi Tirumala Rao. P.W.7:A.Visweswara Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.P2:Original FIR.

FOR DEFENCE: D.W.1: B.Laxminaryana. D.W.2:K.Venkata Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.D1: Certified copy of Charge sheet in CC.No. 312/2012 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Ex.D2: Customary Divorce Deed. Ex.D3: Certified copy of Divorce O.P. Ex.D4: is certified copy of petition u/S. 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act filed by P.W.1 before the Hon’ble Family Judge’s Court, Berhampur. Ex.D5: is certified copy of written statement and counter filed by the 1 accused/A1 before the Hon’ble Family Judge’s Court, Berhamapur in maintenance case vide C.P.No.90/2012. Ex.D6: Certified copy of private Compliant filed by the first husband of P.W.1 against P.W.1 and the accused/A1 before JMFC, Srikakulam in

CC. No. 109/2014.

Ex.D7: Certified copy of report given by the accused/A1 to the Hon’ble Family Judge’s Court, Berhampur regarding the maintenance case filed by P.W.1. Ex.D8: Certified copy of Interim Maintenance petition filed by P.W.1 the

Hon’ble Family Judge’s Court, Berhampur.

Ex.D9: Certified copy of petition filed u/S. 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act between P.W.1 and her first husband before the Hon’ble Family

Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam vide FC.OP. 698/2014.

Ex.D10 : Certified copy of Award copy issued by DLSA, Visakhapatnam regarding of CC No. 312/2012 between first husband of P.W.1 and her family members. Ex.D11: Certified copy of counter filed by P.W.1 in C.P.NO. 90/2012. Ex.D12: copy of letter from Joint Sub Registrar, Visakhapatnam with respect to the filing of customary mutual divorce between P.W.1 and her first husband. Ex.D13: Certified copy of report lodged against P.W.1 and her family members by the first husband of P.W.1. Ex.D14: Certified copy of depositions in chief and cross by the First husband of P.W.1 in CP.NO. 90/2012. Ex.D15: Certified copy of Affidavit and plaint in vide OS No. 505/2014 filed by the accused/A1 against 4th brother of P.W.1 before the Hon’ble II ASCJ, Visakhapatnam.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of I class, Spl. Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

// TRUE COPY //

Judl. Magistrate of I class, Spl. Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.152/2012

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Date of offence : Prior to 04.07.2011

Date of release on bail : 05.07.2011

Date of filing : 04.07.2011

Date of Apprehension : 05.07.2011

Date of commencement of trail : 17.04.2015

Date of closing of trial : 03.11.2017

Date of sentence : 11.12.2017

Explanation for delay: Delay due to non production of witnesses and also the case was received from I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Srikakulam as per

the proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl.

District Judge, Srikakulam

Communicated in Dis No. 5998

Dt. 01.12.2011. Hence, the delay.

C.C.No.152/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Spl,.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.Ponduru.

The Name of the Complainant : The Sub- Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Srikakulam.

The Name of the accused:1. Korrayi Venkata Rao, s/o Krishna Murthy, age 42 years, Yadava by caste, R/o Dwarakanagar, near Manguvarithota, Srikakulam Town and District.

2. Korrayi Rajeswari, W/o Krishna Murthy, age 62 years,Yadava by caste, R/o Dwarakanagar, near Manguvarithota, Srikakulam Town and District.

3. Korrayi Krishna Murthy, S/o lt. Dalayya, age 77 years, Yadava by caste, R/o Dwarakanagar, near Manguvarithota, Srikakulam Town and District.

4. Narthu Parvathi, W/o Madhava Rao, age 48 years, Yadava by caste, R/o Dwarakanagar, near 1

Manguvarithota, Srikakulam Town and District.

The offence complained of: Punishable under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Offence u/s 498-A I.P.C.: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Offence S.3 of Dowry Prohibition Penalty for giving or taking dowry. Act, 1961. Offence S.4 of Dowry Prohibition Penalty for demanding dowry. Act, 1961.

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections u/S. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and S.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also the accused/A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of 6 months.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam. Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

// TRUE COPY //

Judl. Magistrate of I class, Spl. Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

Present : Smt.L.Devi Rathna Kumari,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Monday, 11th day of December, Two thousand and

Seventeen

CALENDAR CASE NO. 391/2015

This case has come before me on 22.11.2017 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri. J.Govinda Rao, Sri.G.Santharam and Sri. P.Ramesh Kumar, counsels for accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGEMENT

a. The Serial No. of the case: CC. No. 391/2015 b. The Date of Offence: 26.07.2014

C. The Name of the Complainant: State- represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, JR Puram Police Station, Srikakulam District.

d.The Name of the accused:1.Potnuru Laxmana Rao, S/o Appanna, age 40 years, Kapu by caste, Chinnayyapeta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District. 2.Meesala Gollababu, S/o Appanna, age 32 years, Kapu by caste, Chinnayyapeta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District.

3. Meesala Ramana, S/o lt. Kannayya, age 38 years, Kapu by caste, Chinnayyapeta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4. Meesala Laxmi, W/o Gollababu, age 25 years, Kapu by caste, Chinnayyapeta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District.

e. The offence complained of: Offence Punishable under sections 341, 324 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code f. The plea of accused and his : Accused Pleaded not guilty examination, if any 2

The brief averments of the facts of the case are that, the Sub-

Inspector of Police, JR Puram Police Station, Srikakulam has filed the charge-sheet against the accused in crime no. 129/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code with the following allegations:

1.That on 26.07.2014 the accused/A4 called the informant/Majji

Ramana through phone and asked him to come to school. As such, at about 8.45pm., when the informant visited his village, the accused/A1 to A4 has taken him near the school and attacked him with sticks, kicked with their legs and beat him with their hands. As its result, he sustained bleeding injuries. Later, he was taken to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam in 108 ambulance. The outpost police recorded his statement and on its basis, a case was registered in crime no. 129/2014 for the offence punishable u/Ss.

324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

During the course of investigation, L.W.10 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators i.e., L.W’s 6 and 7 and drafted scene observation report and drew rough sketch of it and also seized the weapon, used by the accused at the time of incident.

L.W.8 who is the doctor, treated the informant and opined that the injuries sustained by the informant are simple in nature and issued wound certificate.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence referred above.

2.The court took cognizance of the offence Punishable u/Ss. 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, against the accused/A1 to A4. On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to them, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused/A1 to A4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both the sides, charges were framed against the accused/A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under sections 341, 324 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined P.W.'s 1 to 10 and Exs. P.1 to P4 and MO.1 were marked through them. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 to A4 were examined u/S. 313 3

Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them.

They denied it totally and reported no defence evidence.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused/A1 to A4 have committed the offences punishable under sections 341, 324 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code & Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

6.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that, the prosecution witnesses has consistently supported the version of the de-facto complainant and the guilt of the accused is established beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused and sentence them accordingly and to that effect she filed the citations of Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

7.The learned Defense Counsel argued that there are previous political disputes between the accused and the informant. He further argued that in view of previous grudges, the informant filed the false case against the accused, and the accused also filed a case against the informant. He further agued that, the material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses varies with regard to the offence alleged to had been committed by the accused and that the prosecution witnesses did not consistently supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

8.Point:-

I have perused the total evidence consisting of oral and documentary.

In that P.W.1/ Majji Ramana, have deposed that on 26.07.2014 at about 8.40p.m., there was a dispute between him and the accused/A1 to A4 regarding the complaint that was filed by him to the District Collector and

Project Director about the improper functioning of Anganvadi School in his village which was being run by one teacher. He stated that, on the day of incident, the accused/A1 has fisted him on his chest and on his ribs and also theaccused/A2 had beat him with a stick on his back, whereas, the accused/A3has pulled his shirt collar and fisted him on his neck and the accused/A4 has slapped him with her slipper. He also stated that, the accused/A1 to A4 dragged him from the school to Goddess tree which is situated to the adjacent of the school. He stated that L.W’s 3 and 4 rescued 4 him from the hands of the accused/A1 to A4 and later, he was shifted to

RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam in 108 ambulance and MO1 was marked through him.

9.P.W.2/Nadupuru Ramalaxmi, stated that on 27.07.2014 at about 8.45pm., she heard the cries of P.W.1 as she is going on that way. She stated that, she has seen that the accused/A1, A2 and A4 hitting P.W.1 with sticks and due to which he has sustained bleeding injuries tone of his ear.

She stated that L.W’s 3 and 4 rescued P.W.1 from the hands of the accused/A1, A2 and A4 and that she do not know the reason for the dispute, but she has heard that previously the accused and P.W.1 has disputes with respect to the supply of food to Anganvadi School in their village and that she do not know the exact reason for the altercation that has taken place on the day of incident.

10.P.W.3/Gorle Govindu, stated that at about 3 years ago, on one day at about 8.30pm.,when he was at his house he heard the cries of P.W.1. As such when he came out of the house, he found the accused/A1 to A3 hitting

P.W.1. He stated that later, the dispute was pacified with the help of the village elders and P.W.1 was shifted to the hospital through 108 ambulance.

He stated that he do not know the reason for the dispute and he was not examined by the police.

11.P.W.4/Gorle Rama Krishna, stated that at about 3 years ago, on one day at about 8.30pm., when he was at his house, he heard the cries of

P.W.1 and as such, when he came out of the house he found that the accused/A1, A2 and A4 are hitting P.W.1 with a bamboo stick. He stated that later, the dispute was pacified by him, with the help of the village elders. He stated that he do not know the reason for the dispute and he was not examined by the police.

12.P.W.5/Varada Adilaxmi, stated that at about 3 yeas ago, on one day between 8.30 to 9pm., when she was at her house she heard an altercation between P.W.1 and the accused and as such when she came out of the house she saw the accused/A3 hitting P.W.1 with a stick, and that she do not know the reason for the altercation but, she heard that the dispute arose between them was due to their previous grudges. She stated that the dispute was pacified by her with the help of some village elders. Later, PW.1 was shifted to hospital.

During her cross examination, she stated that she was not examined 5 by the police with respect to this case.

13.P.W.6/Meesala Rami Naidu, stated that about 3 years ago on one day at about 9am., he was summoned by the police of Laveru PS and as such, he visited the scene of offence. He stated that the police observed the scene and drafted scene observation report and seized MO1 in his presence and he signed on it.

During his cross examination, he admitted that frequently he visits the police station as an elder person to the disputes that arose among the village members.

14.P.W.7/Basava Laxmana Rao, stated that at about 3 years ago, on one day, he was summoned by the police of Laveru PS an as such, he visited the scene of offence. He stated that he found 2 bamboo sticks at the temple shown by P.W.1 stating that the accused beat him with those sticks. He stated that he do not know who have drafted the scene observation report, but he has singed on it.

15.P.W.8/L.Giribabu, who is the doctor stated that on 27.07.2014 at about 12.30am., he has examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries; - No external injuries are found but patient has complained of chest pain x-ray chest, AP. View in X-ray No. 1863. dt. 27.07.2014, shows - No bony injury and he expressed his opinion that the above injuries are simple in nature and issued Ex.P2 wound certificate. He stated that the patient is in alcoholic stage at the time of examination.

16.P.W.9/B.Krishna Rao, stated that on 27.07.2014 he has received medical intimation from RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam and on its basis, he registered a case and issued Ex.P3 Original FIR. He stated that, he has visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and observed the scene and drafted scene observation report and drew Ex.P4 rough sketch of it and also seized MO1. He stated that, he has examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements and later, he has handed over the case file to his successor in his office.

17.P.W.10/G.Appa Rao, stated that he has received the case file from

P.W.9 and after completion of investigation he has filed the charge sheet against the accused.

18.Point :-

As can be seen from the entire evidences and documents along with the report, it was observed that there are contradictions i.e., 6

(i)As can be seen from the report, the informant stated that all the accused/A1 to A4 attacked him with sticks and beat him with their hands indiscriminately and he also stated that due to injuries he fell down on the road and some unknown persons were shifted him to the RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam. But he stated in his evidence that the accused/A2 only beat him with a stick and L.W’s 3 and 4 rescued him and shifted him to the

Hospital.

(ii)As per the version of P.W.3, he stated that the accused/A1 to A3 beat P.W.1 but he did not specified that he have rescued P.W.1 from the hands of the accused, and later with the help of some village elders, he shifted him to the Hospital. He also stated that he do not know the reason for the dispute.

(iii)As per the version of P.W.4, he also stated similar to the evidence of P.W.3 and that he do not know the reason for which the dispute arose between the accused and P.W.1. As can be seen from the versions of P.W’s 3 and 4, they do not know the real facts of the case and they do not know who is wrongfully confined. Hence, their evidences are not supported to this case.

(iv)P.W’s 2 and 5 also stated in their evidences that they do not know the real fact for which the dispute arose between the accused and the informant.

(v)P.W.6, who acted as the mediator of this case, supported the case of the prosecution but he stated that he frequently visits the police station as an elder of their village. Hence, his evidence becomes doubtful.

(vi)P.W.7, who is another mediator, stated that P.W.1 shown MO1 to him stating that the accused used the sticks to hit him. But, as can be seen from the record, at the time of observation of scene of offence P.W.1 is in hospital and therefore there is no possibility of showing MO1 by P.W.1 at the scene of offence.

(vii)P.W.8 who is the doctor stated that injuries sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature and that he is in alcoholic stage at the time of examination.

(viii)P.W.9 who is the investigation officer, examined only the neighbours of the scene of offence but he did not examine any 7 eye witnesses to the alleged incident. He even did not examine the teacher of the Anganavadi school, as stated by P.W.1 in his evidence.

(ix)Whereas, P.W.10 only after verifying the investigation done by

PW.9 he has filed the charge sheet against the accused.

19.As can be seen from the discussion, this court opined that the dispute arose between the accused and the informant only due to political rivalry.

The entire evidence did not corroborated with each other and all the witnesses stated that they do not know the real fact for which the dispute arose between the accused and the informant. Moreover, the Doctor stated that at the time of incident the informant is in alcoholic stage and that he cannot say, that on whose mistake the dispute was arose between them.

20.In view of foregoing discussion, this court holds that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, the accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Ss. 341, 324 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. The MO.1 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 11th day of December, 2017.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE: P.W.1:Majji Ramana. - None- P.W.2: Nadupuri Ramalaxmi. P.W.3:Gorle Govinda Rao. P.W.4:Gorle Rama Krishna. P.W.5:Vardada Adilaxmi. P.W.6:Meesala Rami Naidu. P.W.7:Basva Laxmana Rao. P.W.8:Dr.L.Giri Babu. P.W.9:B.Krishna Rao. P.W.10:G.Appa Rao.

8

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/dt. 27-07-2014: Xerox copy of Scene observation Report. Ex.P2/dt. 27-07-2014: Wound Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P3/dt. 27-07-2014: Original FIR. Ex.P4/dt. 27-07-2014: Xerox copy of Rough Sketch of scene of offence.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1: 2 Bamboo Sticks.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

// TRUE COPY //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.391/2015

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Date of offence : 26.07.2014

Date of release on bail : 21.10.2014

Date of filing : 27-07-2014

Date of Apprehension : 21.10.2014

Date of commencement of trail : 07-03-2017

Date of closing of trial : 21-11-2017

Date of sentence : 11.12.2017

Explanation for delay: Delay due to non production of Witnesses. Hence, the delay.

C.C.No.391/2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

The Name of the Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, JR Puram Police Station, Srikakulam District.

The Name of the accused:1. Potnuru Laxmana Rao, S/o Appanna, age 40 years, Kapu by caste, Chinnayyapeta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District. 2.Meesala Gollababu, S/o Appanna, age 32 years, Kapu by caste, Chinnayyapeta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District.

3. Meesala Ramana, S/o lt. Kannayya, age 38 years, Kapu by caste, Chinnayyapeta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4. Meesala Laxmi, W/o Gollababu, age 25 years, Kapu by caste, Chinnayyapeta Village, Laveru Mandal, Srikakulam District.

The offence complained of: Punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Offence u/S. 324 of Indian Penal Code: Punishment for wrongful restraint. Offence u/S. 324 of Indian Penal Code: Punishment for voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons of means. Offence u/S. 323 of Indian Penal Code: Punishment for voluntary causing hurt.

1

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Ss. 341, 324 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. The MO.1 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

// TRUE COPY //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

11

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM

Present : Smt.L.Devi Rathna Kumari,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Wednesday, 22nd day of November, Two thousand and Seventeen

CALENDAR CASE NO. 37/2010

This case is coming before me on 21-11-2017 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri B.Rama Mohana Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri K.Srirama Murthy, counsel for accused, and the matter having stood over for determination till this day this court delivers the following:

JUDGEMENT

a. The Serial No. of the case: CC. No. 37/2010 b. The Date of Offence: 23.04.2009

C. The Name of the Complainant: Nambala Srirama Chandra Murthy, S/o Simhachalam, age 37 years, Plot No. 25, Friends Colony, Partrunivalasa Panchayat, Srikakaulam Mandal and District.

d.The Name of the accused: Kasu Srinivasa Reddy, S/o lt. Venkata Reddy, age 36 years, D.No. 2-57, Desapatrunipalem Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

e. The offence complained of: Punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act f. The plea of accused and his : Pleaded not guilty examination, if any

This case arose out of a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence u/s. 138 of NI Act. The gist of the complaint is as follows;

1.That the accused offered to sell the property Plot Nos. 11 and 12 in

S.No. 188/3A, Vuda L.P.No. 73/88 in the village of Desapatrunipalem,

Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The accused made the complainant to believe that the accused is the owner of the said property 2 having a right, title over it and entered into an agreement of sale and advanced an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on the agreement dt. 16.02.2008 for the said property and also paid Rs.1,80,000/- on 05.03.2008 on receipt. Later, the complainant insisted the accused to get ready for registration of the sale deed but the accused has avoided with intention to cheat the complainant on some pretest or other. On repeated demands made by the complainant either for registration of the plan or for repayment of the amount along with the interest, the accused has agreed to repay the amount and accordingly he issued a cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- dt. 07.01.2009 bearing no. 999373 drawn on ICICI

Bank, Isukathota branch, Visakhapatnam for online payment towards part payment of the advance amount. The accused has requested not to credit the cheque for a period of 2 ½ months. Later, on the instructions of the accused the complainant has presented the cheque on 18.03.2009 in ING Vysya Bank limited, Srikakulam for collection. But the banker of the accused returned the said cheque with an endorsement “Account is FROZEN”. Based upon that, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 01.04.2009 and the same was received by the accused on 02.04.2009. Even after the receipt of notice the accused did not pay any amount and failed to give any reply. As the accused failed to pay any amount to the complainant this complaint is filed.

2.Basing on the material available on record, cognizance of the offence u/S. 138 of NI Act was taken against the accused. After appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to her under section 207 CrPC.

3.The accused was examined under section 251 CrPC. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove the guilt of the accused, complainant examined as P.W.1 and

Exs. P1 to P6 were marked. Ex.P1 is cheque bearing no. 999317 dt.

07.09.2009. Ex.P2 is the counter foil Dt. 18.03.2009 of ING Vysya Bank,

Ex.P3 is cheque return memo dt. 20.03.2009. Ex.P4 is office copy of legal notice dt. 01.04.2009. Ex.P4 is Postal Receipt. Ex.P5 is returned postal cover with an endorsement.

5.After closure of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of CrPC. All the incriminating material appearing against the accused was put to him and he denied the same.

3

6.Heard arguments of both sides.

7.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether conduct of the accused comes under the preview of S.138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act and whether the complainant proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt?

To attract that S.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the complainant has to prove the following points that:

a) The accused has drawn the Ex.P1 cheque on the account maintained by him and issued the same to the complainant for discharge of legally enforceable debt.

b) The complainant has been presented the Ex.P1 cheque in his bank within a period of 6 months;

c) The Ex.P1 cheque returned from the drawee bank with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds” to dishonour the cheque;

d) The complainant makes a demand for the payment of the amount covered under Ex.P1 cheque.

8.To prove the case of the complainant, he filed evidence affidavit through which he deposed the accused offered to sell the property Plot Nos. 11 and 12 in S.No. 188/3A, Vuda L.P.No. 73/88 in the village of

Desapatrunipalem, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The accused made the complainant to believe that the accused is the owner of the said property having a right, title over it and entered into an agreement of sale and advanced an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on the agreement dt. 16.02.2008 for the said property and also paid Rs.1,80,000/- on 05.03.2008 on receipt. Later, the complainant insisted the accused to get ready for registration of the sale deed but the accused has avoided with intension to cheat the complainant on some pretest or other. On repeated demands made by the complainant either for registration of the plan or for repayment of the amount along with the interest, the accused has agreed to repay the amount and accordingly he issued a cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- dt. 07.01.2009 bearing no. 999373 drawn on ICICI

Bank, Isukathota branch, Visakhapatnam for online payment towards part payment of the advance amount. The accused has requested not to credit the cheque for a period of 2 ½ months. Later, on instructions of the accused, the complainant has presented the cheque on 18.03.2009 in ING Vysya Bank 4 limited, Srikakulam for collection. But the banker of the accused returned the said cheque with an endorsement “Account is FROZEN”. Based upon that, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 01.04.2009 and the same was received by the accused on 02.04.2009. Even after the receipt of notice, the accused did not pay any amount and failed to give any reply. As the accused failed to pay any amount to the complainant this complaint is filed.

9.In the light of the above discussions, it is settled law that, for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, once the complainant has established all the ingredients contemplated under section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, then the presumption under section 118 and 139 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act would arise in favour of the complainant and the burden will be placed on the accused to rebut the said presumptions. Unless the ingredients of S.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act are established by the complainant, the presumption cannot be drawn. The Hon'ble Apex Court has

formulated the essential ingredients of offence under section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act, In number of cases. In Jugesh Sehal

V.Shamsher Singh Gogi in 2009(2) ALD (Crl.) 419 (SC), in para 9 and 10

the Hon'ble Apex Court observed; “It is manifest that to constitute an offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:

(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;

(ii) The cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;

(iii) That cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date of which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;

(iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;

(v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to 5 the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;

(vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice;

10.With support of Ex.P6, the learned defence counsel submits that the legal notice as in Ex.P4 was not served to accused, as the address was wrongly mentioned. Therefore in view of dicta observed in 2006(2) ALD (Crl) 422AP), CS Madhusudan Vs. B.Eswaramma and another, wherein it was held that no rule of universal application shows that in all cases, court must presume service of notice under section 138 proviso(c). This ruling is not applicable to the facts of this case for the simple reason that Ex.P5/Postal receipt shows that the legal notice was issued to the accused but it was not received by the accused and there is no record to show that Ex.P3 is served to the accused and there is no record produced before this court furtively or surreptitiously. Therefore, this court concludes that Ex.P3 is not proved with any cogent evidence and hence, this court finds there is no abstract to extract the contention of the complainant as to this point.

11.Similarly, the dicta observed in 2004(1)ALT (Crl.) 90 (AP), M/s Avon

Organics Ltd.., Vs M/s Poineer Products Ltd., and others, wherein it was observed when an instrument is not a cheque and it is dishonoured, accused cannot be said to have committed an offence. In this case, it was further observed that the hand writing used for filling up the gaps and the signature of the accused in Ex.P1 is not matching, and if it is presumed that if complainant has filled up the amount portion in words and figures and put the date as per his own choice on the cheque, then it amounts to material alteration.

12.Nulling over all these facts and circumstances and after thorough consideration of the entire evidence available on the record, this court concludes that the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/S. 138 of NI Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, he is acquitted u/S.

255(1) of CrPC. The Jail authorities are hereby directed to release the accused 6 from Jail on proper acknowledgment if he is not required in any other cases other than this.

Dictated to Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in open court, this the 22nd day of November, 2017.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Spl.Mobile Court,Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of Witnesses Examined for

Complainant Accused P.W.1: Nambala Srirama Chandra Murthy -None-

Documents Marked for

Complainant Ex.P-1: Cheque bearing no. 999317 for Rs.2,50,000/- dt. 07.09.2009 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam Main Branch . Ex. P-2 : Counter foil of ING Vysya Bank, Srikakulam Branch.

Dt. 18.03.2009.

Ex. P-3 : Cheque return memo dated 20-03-2009 with the reason “Account Frozen”. Ex. P-4 : Office copy of Legal notice dt. 01-04-2009 Ex. P-5 : Postal receipt Dt. 01.04.2009. Ex.P-6 : Returned Postal Cover.

Accused: -NONE-

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 37/2010

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam. Date of offence : 23.04.2009

Date of release on bail : ---

Date of filing : 20.05.2009

Date of Apprehension : ---

Date of commencement of trail : 06.03.2013

Date of closing of trial : 20.11.2017

Date of sentence : 22.11.2017

Explanation for delay: Delay due to non appearance of accused and NBW is pending from 10.03.2014 to 09.11.2017. Hence, the delay. C.C.No.37/2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam. The Name of the Complainant :Nambala Srirama Chandra Murthy, S/o Simhachalam, age 37 years, Plot No. 25, Friends Colony, Partrunivalasa Panchayat, Srikakaulam Mandal and District. The Name of the accused:Kasu Srinivasa Reddy, S/o lt. Venkata Reddy, age 36 years, D.No. 2-57, Desapatrunipalem Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The offence complained of:Punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Finding: Found not guilty. Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, he is acquitted u/S. 255(1) of CrPC. The Jail authorities are hereby directed to release the accused from Jail on proper acknowledgment if he is not required in any other cases other than this.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam. Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal.

//TRUE COPY//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

8

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

Present : Smt.L.Devi Rathna Kumari,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Tuesday, 12th day of December, Two thousand and Seventeen

CALENDAR CASE NO. 3/2016

This case has come before me on 11.12.2017 for final hearing and disposal on this day in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri. P.V.Ramana Murthy, counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGEMENT

a. The Serial No. of the case: CC. No. 3/2016 b. The Date of Offence: 17.10.2014

C. The Name of the Complainant: State- represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station, Srikakulam .

d.The Name of the accused:1. Baki Reddy, S/olt. Asirappadu, age 35 years, Reddika by caste, Raghunadhapuram Village, Driver of Tractor/Trailer bearingno. AP 30 X/6439 - AP 30 W/7536.

2. Seedarapu Narasinga Rao, S/o lt. Appala Raju, age 23 years, Nagavamsam by caste, Chilakapalem Village, Etcherla Mandal, Driver cum Owner of Tractor/Trailer bearing no. AP 30 X/6439 – AP 30 W/7536.

3. Matta Srinu, S/oRajulu, age 38 years, Gudem Village, Srikakulam Town and District.

e. The offence complained of: Offence Punishable under sections 447, 379 of Indian Penal Code and S.3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 2 f. The plea of accused and his :Accused Pleaded not guilty examination, if any

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station,

Srikakulam District has filed the charge-sheet against the accused in crime no.

194/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 379 of Indian Penal

Codeand S.3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 with the following allegations:

1.That on 17.10.2014 at about 5.00 hours on receiving credible information about the illegal transportation of sand, when the SI of police of II

Town PS and other staff members reached Nagavali River at Dathatreya

Temple, they found the sand loaded tractor cum trailer bearing registration nos. AP 30 X 6439/AP 30 W 7536 was coming from Chilakapalem Village towards Srikakulam. When they stopped the vehicle and questioned the accused/A1 who is the driver of tractor, he disclosed that he committed theft of sand by trespassing into the Nagavali River bed at Dathatreya Temple when the SI of police asked him for valid license, he stated that he do not have a valid license. After enquiry it was found that the accused/A2 is the owner of the Tractor/Tailor bearing registration no. AP 30 X 6439/AP 30 W 7536 and that the accused/A1 has committed theft of sand at the instance of the accused/A2 and the accused/A3 have loaded the sand to the tractor. On its basis, occurrence report was drafted at the scene and L.W.1 has registered a case in crime No.194/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 379 of Indian Penal Code and S.3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act,1984. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences referred above.

2.The court took cognizance of the offences Punishable u/Ss. 447 and 379 of Indian Penal Code and S.3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act,1984, against the accused. On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to them, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused/A1 to A3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both sides, charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 447 and 379 of Indian Penal Code and S.3(2) of

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984, read over and explained 3 to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined, P.W.'s 1 to 3 and Ex.P1 was marked through P.W.1. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 to A3 were examined u/S. 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied it totally and reported no defence evidence.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused/A1 to A3 have committed the offences punishable under sections 447 and 379 of Indian Penal Code and S.3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 & Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

6.Point:-

I have perused the total evidence consisting of oral and documentary. In that P.W.1/P.V.B.Uday Kumar, stated that on 16.10.2014 as per the instructions of his senior officials while he was in his patrolling duty at Srikakulam II

Town PS limits along with HC-1176 and HC-572, at about 5am., i.e., on early hours of 17.10.2014, when they reached Nagavali River at Dathatreya temple, he has found the sand loaded tractor cum trailor bearing registration no. AP 30

X 6439/AP 30 W 7536 was coming from Chilakapalem Village towards

Srikakulam. He stated, on questioning the driver of the tractor he revealed his name as Baki Reddy, S/o Asrippadu, age 35 years and working as driver under the accused/A2. He further stated that they are illegally transporting the sand from Nagavali River and selling it for higher prices in Visakhapatnam. On further questioning, the accused/A1, stated that as per the instructions of the accused/A2, he collected the sand from Nagavali River and it was loaded into the tractor by Metta Srinu i.e, the accused/A3 at Santhinagar Colony. Later,

P.W.1 has seized the Tractor and shifted to the police station and he has drafted the occurrence report at the police station and Ex.P1 is marked through him.

During his cross examination, he stated that he did not secured any of the mediator’s at the time of drafting of occurrence report.

7.P.W.2/T.Chandra Mohan stated that on 16.10.2014 while himself and 4

P.W.1 was on patrolling duty, in the early hours at about 5am., they have found the accused/A1 was coming with the tractor with loaded sand in the opposite direction at Dhathatreya Temple. He stated, upon the insistence of P.W.1 he has stopped the said tractor and on enquiry, the accused stated that he is illegally transporting the sand without any license and he was bringing the loaded sand from Santhi Nagar Colony. He stated that, at the instance of

P.W.1 he had tried to secure the mediators but as he couldn’t find them, P.W.1 has drafted the scene observation report and he has singed on it.

8.P.W.3/T.Ramana who is another police official, stated similar to the evidence of P.W.2 .

9. Undoubtedly, the scene of offence is a busy locality and that they have seized the tractor with sand at Nagavali River near Dhatatreya Temple and despite such fact, they failed to secure an independent person as a mediator.

Further, P.W.1 also stated that the accused was illegally transporting the sand to sell it for higher prices. But, it is admitted by the witnesses, that during that period they have conducted several raids as per the orders of their higher officials. Further, No independent witness was secured by the prosecution to show that the accused was transporting the sand without permission. In view of these factors, it is unsafe to rely on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, this court holds that the prosecution has unsuccessfully established the guilt of the accused for the offences u/Ss. 447 and 379 of

Indian Penal Code and S.3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property

Act,1984, beyond all reasonable doubt .

10.In the result, the accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Ss. 447 and 379 of Indian Penal Code and S.3(2) of

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 Hence, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of December, 2017.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : PW1: P.V.B.Uday Kumar. P.W.2:T.Chandra Mohana Rao. PW.3 :T.Ramana.

FOR DEFENCE : NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1/dt.17.10.2014: Occurrence Report.

FOR DEFENCE : NONE

MATERIAL OBJECTS M ARKED: NIL

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.3/2016

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

6

Date of offence : 17.10.2014

Date of release on bail : A1-20.10.2014.

A2 & A3 anticipatory bail.

Date of filing : 17.10.2014

Date of Apprehension : 17.10.2014

Date of commencement of trail : 04.04.2017.

Date of closing of trial : 22.11.2017

Date of sentence : 12.12.2017

Explanation for delay: Delay due to non production of Witnesses and also the case was received by transfer from I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Srikakulam as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl. District and

Sessions Judge, Srikakulam

communicated in Dis No. 2157 Dt. 14.05.2015, hence, the delay.

C.C.No.3/2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

The Name of the Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station, Srikakulam.

The Name of the accused:1. Baki Reddy, S/olt. Asirappadu, age 35 years, Reddika by caste, RaghunadhapuramVillage, DriverofTractor/Trailer bearingno. AP 30 X/6439 - AP 30 W/7536.

2. Seedarapu Narasinga Rao, S/o lt. Appala Raju, age 23 years, Nagavamsambycaste, Chilakapalem Village, Etcherla Mandal, Driver cum Owner of Tractor/Trailer bearing no. AP 30 X/6439 – AP 30 W/7536.

3. Matta Srinu, S/oRajulu, age 38 years, Gudem Village, Srikakulam Town and District.

The offence complained of: Punishable under Sections 447, 379 of Indian Penal Code and S.3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984.

7

Offence u/s 447:Punishment for criminal Trespass. Indian Penal Code Offence u/s 379:whoever commits theft shall be Indian Penal Code punished u/s 379 I.P.C.

Offence u/s. 3(2) of : who ever committed theft and Prevention of Damage caused to damage the to Public property public property. Act, 1984.

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Ss. 447 and 379 of Indian Penal Code and S.3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 Hence, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

8

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

Present : Smt.L.Devi Rathna Kumari,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Monday, 20th day of November, Two thousand and Seventeen

CALENDAR CASE NO. 84/2017

This case has come before me on 16.11.2017 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri. G.J.R and Sri.J.Ravi Kumar, counsels for accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day this court delivers the following:

JUDGEMENT

a. The Serial No. of the case: CC. No. 84/2017 b. The Date of Offence: Prior to 31.05.2015

C. The Name of the Complainant: State- represented by the Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station, Srikakulam.

d.The Name of the accused: 1. Narayanasetti Sandeep Kumar, S/oAnanda Rao, age 29 years, Kalinga by caste, R/o H.No.20(old 39), Taylors Estate, 2nd Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai.

2. Narayanachetti Ananda Rao, S/o Hrushikesava Rao, age 56 years, Kalinga Vysya by caste, Chartered Accountant, Nehrunagar, Jaipur, Koraput District, Orissa State.

3. Narayanachetti Asharani, W/o Ananda Rao, age 52 years, Kalinga Vysya by caste, Housewife, Nehrunagar, Jaipur, Koraput District, Orissa State. 4.Narayanachetti Sowmya, D/o Ananda Rao, age 23 years, Kalinga vysya by caste, Student, Nehrunagar, Jaipur, Koraput District, Orissa State.

5. Potnuru Dharmaraju, S/o Hrushikesava Rao, age 62 2 years, Kalinga Vysya by caste, Business, R/o Srikakulam.

6. Narayansetti Trinadha Rao, S/o Hrushikesava Rao, age 49 years, Kalinga Vysya by caste, Chartered Accountant, R/o New Colony, Raygad, Orissa State.

e. The offence complained of :Offence Punishable under section 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

f. The plea of accused and his :Accused Pleaded not guilty examination, if any

The brief averments of the facts of the case is that, the Inspector of

Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station, has filed the charge-sheet against the accused in crime no. 82/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code with the following allegations:

1. That on 21.08.2002 the accused/A1 was married to the informant/Patnala Pavani as per their caste customs and rites in the presence of elders at Jaipur, Orissa State. At the time of marriage, 700grams gold ornaments, silver articles about 10kgs, documents of site located at Indira

Nagar Colony, Rolex Watch worth of Rs.4,00,000/-, Platinum chain worth of

Rs.3,50,000/-, Platinum Bracelet worth of Rs.2,00,000/- were given towards dowry. Later, they led marital life happily for some time and then after, the accused harassed the informant both physically and mentally with the instigation of the accused/A2 to A4. On 29.03.2015 at about 6.30pm., the accused/A5 came to the informant parent’s house and threatened and warned her to join with her husband to lead marital life and that they are ready to take action against her. Later, due to fear, she went to Hyderabad and joined in fashion designing course. But, the accused/A1 through SMS insulted the informant and her family members. Later, on 26.05.2015 at about 9.30hours the informant swallowed sleeping pills and nail polish, but later, she was admitted in KIMS Hospital, Srikakulam for treatment. Later, she gave a report to the police and on its basis, the police registered a case in crime no.

82/2015 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 324, 506(2) of

Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet 3 was filed against the accused for the offences referred above.

2.The court took cognizance of the offences Punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code agasint the accused/A1 to A4 and S.506 of IPC against the accused/A5 and A6. On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to them, as required under section 207

Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both sides, charges were framed against the accused/A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code against the accused/A5 and A6, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined, P.W's 1 and 2 and Exs. P1 to P3 were marked through them. As there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused, the examination under section 313 CrPC is dispensed with.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused/A1 to A4 has committed the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and whether the accused/A5 and A6 has committed the offence punishable u/S. 506 of Indian Penal Code & Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

6. Point :-

P.W.1/Patnala Pavani deposed that in the year, 2014, she has married the accused/A1. She stated that due to some family disputes she has lodged a complaint against the accused at the behest of her elders and that she do not know the contents of the complaint. She also admitted that she has stated in her report that she has consumed nail polish but the said act was due to her negligence and over sight and Exs. P1 and P2 were marked through her.

7.P.W.2/Patnala Vasudeva Rao, who is the father of P.W.1 stated similarly as the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex. P3 was marked through him. Apart from that, P.W.1 did not stated anything about the harassment made by the accused.

Further, nothing significant could be elicited from her testimony when the learned APP had put questions to her under S.154 of Indian Evidence Act, read with a proviso to S.162CrPC. Therefore, the prosecution has rightly given up the evidence of other witnesses as the informant has stated nothing about the 4 offence made by the accused. In view of these facts, this court holds that the accused/A1 to A4 cannot be held guilty for the offence u/S. 498-A of IPC and also the accused/A5 and A6 cannot be held guilty for the offence u/S. 506 of

IPC. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences with which they are charged for.

8.In the result, the accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 498-Aof Indian Penal Code and the accused/A5 and A6 are found not guilty for the offence u/S. 506 of IPC. Hence, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of 6 months.

Dictated to Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in open court, this the 20th day of November, 2017.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

P.W.1: Patnala Pavani P.W.2: Patnala Vasudeva Rao. FOR DEFENCE: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/dt.31-05-2015: Signature of P.W.1 on report. Ex.P2/Dt. 31-05-2015: S.161(3) CrPC statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3/Dt. 31-05-2015: S.161(3) CrPC statement of P.W.2. FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

// TRUE COPY //

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.84/2017

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Date of offence : Prior to 31.05.2015

Date of release on bail : 29.06.2015

Date of filing : 31.05.2015

Date of Apprehension : 29.06.2015

Date of commencement of trail : 16.11.2017

Date of closing of trial : 16.11.2017

Date of sentence : 20.11.2017

Explanation for delay:Due to non production of witnesses and also the case was received by transfer as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl. District and

Sessions Judge, Srikakulam from I

Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Srikakulam in Dis No. 4568

Dt. 12.09.2016. Hence, the delay.

C.C.No. 84/2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

The Name of the Complainant : The Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station, Srikakulam District.

The Name of the accused: 1. Narayanasetti Sandeep Kumar, S/oAnanda Rao, age 29 years, Kalinga by caste, R/o H.No.20(old 39), Taylors Estate, 2nd Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai.

2. Narayanachetti Ananda Rao, S/o Hrushikesava Rao, age 56 years, Kalinga Vysya by caste, Chartered Accountant, Nehrunagar, Jaipur, Koraput District, Orissa State.

3. Narayanachetti Asharani, W/o Ananda Rao, age 52 years, Kalinga Vysya by caste, Housewife, Nehrunagar, Jaipur, Koraput District, Orissa State.

4. Narayanachetti Sowmya, D/o Ananda Rao, age 23 years, Kalinga vysya by caste, Student, Nehrunagar, Jaipur, Koraput District, Orissa State.

6

5. Potnuru Dharmaraju, S/o Hrushikesava Rao, age 62 years, Kalinga Vysya by caste, Business, R/o Srikakulam.

6. Narayansetti Trinadha Rao, S/o Hrushikesava Rao, age 49 years, Kalinga Vysya by caste, Chartered Accountant, R/o New Colony, Raygad, Orissa State.

The offence complained of:Offence Punishable under sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code .

Offence u/s 498-A I.P.C.: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Offence u/S. 506 of IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation.

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and the accused/A5 and A6 are found not guilty for the offence u/S. 506 of IPC. Hence, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of 6 months.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

// TRUE COPY //

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

7