Sri M.Anil Kumar Naik

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PRODDATUR

Present:- Sri M.Anil Kumar Naik,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur

Friday, this the 17th day of January, 2025.

C.C.No.754 of 2019

BETWEEN: State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur Rural Police Station in Cr.No.270/2018. ….Complainant

Vs.

1.Makam Papaiah, S/o late Pedda Subbaiah, age 66 years, Occ:Chairman of Chodeswari Foundation, resident of D.No.8/567, Giddangi Street, Proddatur Town.

2.Muddam Sarojamma @ Sarojamma, W/o late Venkata Ramanaiajh, age 53 years, Occ:Treasurer of Chowdeswari Foundation, resident of D.No.15/846, Amrutha Nagar, Proddatur Mandal.

3.Kota Nageswara Reddy, S/o Hanumantha Reddy, age 51 years, Occ:Assistant Secretary and Caretaker of Chowdeswari Foundation, resident of Jubilee Buildings, near Kalvakatta, Gopavaram Panchayat, Proddatur Mandal.

4.Nanubala Manohar Babu, S/o Narayana, age 56 years, Occ:Warden of Chowdeswari Foundation, resident of D.No.14/41-F, Srinivasapuram Street, Proddatur Town.

(The case against A1 was abated on 27.01.2023)

.…Accused

This case was coming before me on 06.01.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri N.

Ravi Sankar Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur Rural police station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.270/2018, for the offence punishable U/Sec.363A(2) of IPC and sections 75 and 76 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 and Section 3A read with Section 14 of the Child

Labour Act against the accused A1 to A4.

2

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

LW1, a resident of D.No.20/1109-E, RK Nagar, Kadapa, and a member- convener of the District Level Inspection Committee (Department of Juvenile Welfare,

Correctional Services, and Welfare of Street Children), Kadapa, conducted an inspection on 23.08.2018 at 1:00 PM, along with LWs 2 to 7, at Chowdeswari

Orphanage Home, located at D.No.15/846, Amrutha Nagar-2, Proddatur Mandal.

During the inspection, the accused, A1 to A4, and teaching staff, including Ammanni and Swarna Latha (LW13), were found present in the home. LW1 requested A1 and A2 to produce the relevant records, upon which they provided the following:

1. Attendance register, 2. Hostel students’ attendance register, 3. School students’ attendance register, 4. Visitors and donors register, 5. Two spiral notebooks pertaining to Chowdeswari Foundation, 6. 14 children’s admission case files, 7. Xerox copies of teaching and non-teaching staff certificates and 8. Hostel students’ transfer register.

Upon verification of the students’ attendance register, it was noted that there were 14 children listed, including: 1. K. Prasad (LW8), 2. T. Prasanth (LW9), 3. T.

Tarun, 4. R. Yacob (LW10), 5. R. Yesu Kumar, 6. K. Kavya, 7. S. Asif (LW11), 8. S.

Toshif, 9. S. Naga Siva, 10. K. Naga Balaji, 11. K. Pavan Kalyan, 12. S. Mahammed (LW12), 13. S. Beebi and 14. S. Parveen. Additionally, the school students’ attendance register revealed the names of 31 children whose study particulars were entered. The teachers’ attendance register listed seven teachers, including M. Ramesh, K. Bharathi,

M. Nirmala, K. Nageswara Reddy, S. Jaheer, E. Ammani, and S. Noorjahan. LW1 also verified individual admission files and found signatures of the headmaster, president, and treasurer on the forms. When LW1 questioned A1 and A2 about government permission to run the school, they admitted they did not have such permission. During interactions with 14 children, LWs 2 to 7 learned that two boys were kept elsewhere.

The children disclosed that the accused would drop them in Proddatur town via auto and instruct them to beg while distributing pamphlets. After collecting money from begging, the accused would take the earnings and drop the children back. The children further revealed they were not sent to school despite the claim that a school was operating on the premises. Based on the children’s details, it became evident that

A1 and A2 were operating the school without government authorization, exploiting orphans for begging, and utilizing the earnings for personal gain. Additionally, two children were kept elsewhere, and their details were not entered into any official records, in blatant violation of established rules. With the help of child Kavya, two 3 children, Bablu and Aruna, were found in another street and brought back to the orphanage.

LW1 lodged a report requesting necessary action. Based on this report, LW14 registered a case on 23.08.2018 at 6:00 PM in Cr.No.270/18 under Sections 75 and 76 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, of Proddatur

Rural Police Station and initiated an investigation. During the course of the investigation, on 24.08.2018, LW14 arrested A1 to A4 and sent them to judicial custody. Upon completion of the investigation, LW14 filed a charge sheet against A1 to

A4 for offences punishable under Sections 363-A(2) of the IPC, Sections 75 and 76 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Section 3A read with Section 14 of the Child Labour Act.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 363-A(1) of the IPC of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC) and Sections 75 and 76 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the Accused No.1 to 4 by the learned Predecessor in office.

4. After the appearance of the accused A1 to A.4, the copies of the documents as required U/Sec. 207, Cr.P.C. were furnished to accused A1 to A4.

5. The accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charges for the offence under Section 363-A(1) of the IPC of Indian Penal Code and Sections 75 and 76(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the accused No.1 and 4 were framed, the same were read over and explained to them in Telugu by learned Predecessor. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.14 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30 were marked. During the pendency of trial the accused A1 died and this case against him was abated on 27.01.2023.

7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.2 to 4 were examined u/sec. 313, Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to them, they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of both parties.

9.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under section

Section 363-A(1) of the IPC of Indian Penal Code and Sections 75 and 76(1) of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4

10.The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued before this court that the acts of Accused No.2 to 4 were clearly established with the evidence of PW.1 to PW.14 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P30. Hence prayed the court to convict the accused A2 to A4 in accordance with the law.

11.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the question of kidnap or abduction will not arise because the accused runs the Ashramam for the orphans.

The investigation officer did not investigate the case in the aspect of whether the foundation is having license to run the Ashramam. The investigation officer failed to collect the pamphlet alleged to be used for the purpose of begging by the children in the Ashramam. The prosecution did not examine the children alleged to be used for begging. The prosecution witnesses are not the eye witnesses and there are no independent witnesses to the incident. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, prayed the court to convict the accused A2 to A4.

12.Perused the material available on record, prosecution was examined 14 witnesses and given up the evidence of LW.15.

POINT:-

13.The evidence of PW.1 is that, on 23.08.2018, he along with P.Ws 2 to 6 and 9, visited Vidyarthi Foundation for Boys and Girls at Rameswaram, Proddatur.

After completing the inspection there, they proceeded to inspect and interact with the orphans at Chowdeswari Anadha Sharanalayam, reaching the location at approximately 1:00 PM. During the inspection, they examined the registers and found records of 14 admitted children. Additionally, they discovered two unauthorized orphans whose details were not entered into any registers. They thoroughly verified all the available registers, including admission records, attendance registers, and other relevant documents. Subsequently, they interacted with the 14 orphans. During the interaction, the children disclosed that the accused, A.1 to A.4, instructed them to engage in begging. They further revealed that A.1 to A.4 would transport them in an auto, drop them off at various locations in Proddatur for begging, and later pick them up in the evening to return them to the Ashram. During the course of his inspection, he discovered that A.1 to A.4 were operating an unauthorized school for children, offering education from 1st Class to 5th Class, under the name and style of Chowdeswari

Anadha Sharanalayam, without obtaining permission from the government. After completing his inspection, he lodged a report with the police regarding the unauthorized activities and exploitation of the orphans.

5

14.The evidence of PW.2 is that, on 23.08.2018, he along with P.W.1, 3, 4 ,5, 6 and 9 visited Vidyarthi Foundation for Boys and Girls at Rameswaram, Proddatur.

After completing the inspection at Vidyarthi Foundation, they proceeded to visit, inspect, and interact with the orphans at Chowdeswari Anadha Sharanalayam, arriving there at approximately 1:00 PM. During the inspection, they searched the registers and found records indicating the admission of 14 orphans. Additionally, they identified two unauthorized orphans whose details were not entered into the registers. They thoroughly verified all the registers maintained by the institution. Subsequently, P.Ws 4 and 6 interacted with the orphans in the upstairs area of Chowdeswari Anadha

Sharanalayam. After completing their interaction, they informed him that the accused,

A.2 to A.4, were running an illegal and unauthorized school within the premises. They further instructed him to seize all the registers for further action. Following these instructions, he along with P.W.1 and P.W.1, 3, 4 ,5, 6 and 9, proceeded to the police station and lodged a report, which is marked as Ex.P.1. Police did not examine him.

15.The evidence of PW.3 is that, on 23.08.2018, he along with P.W.1, 2, 4 to 6 and 9 visited Vidyarthi Foundation for Boys and Girls at Rameswaram, Proddatur.

After completing the inspection there, we proceeded to visit, inspect, and interact with the orphans at Chowdeswari Anadha Sharanalayam, reaching the location at approximately 1:00 PM. During the inspection, they searched the registers and found records showing the admission of 14 orphans. Additionally, they discovered two unauthorized orphans whose details were not entered into any registers. They verified all the registers maintained by the institution. Subsequently, P.ws 4 and 6 interacted with the orphans on the upstairs premises of Chowdeswari Anadha Sharanalayam.

After their interaction, they informed them that the accused, A.2 to A.4, were running a separate and unauthorized school within the premises. Upon visiting the said school, they found the two unauthorized orphans there. P.ws 4 and 6 further revealed that the accused, A.1 to A.4, were using the orphans for begging by issuing pamphlets. It was brought to their attention that the accused would take orphans from the Anadha

Sharanalayam, drop them off at various locations in Proddatur town for begging. P.Ws 4 and 6 then instructed them to seize all the registers for further action. Following this, he along with P.W.1, 2, 4 to 6 and 9, proceeded to the police station and lodged a report, which is marked as Ex.P.1. The police did not examine him in this case.

16.The evidence of PW.4 is that, on 23.08.2018, he along with P.Ws 1 to 3, 5, 6 and 9 visited Chowdeswari Anadha Ashramam at Amrutha Nagar, Proddatur, and reached the location at approximately 1:00 PM. During the visit, P.W.1, 6 and 9 interacted with the children in the Ashramam. P.W.1 informed him that the accused, 6

A.1 to A.4, were using the children for the purpose of begging. P.W.1 then verified the records and registers maintained by Chowdeswari Anadha Ashramam. Upon verification, it was observed that the particulars of the children did not tally with the records. When questioned about the discrepancies, A.1 to A.4 stated that the remaining children were present in the school. Following this, he along with P.W.6 and 9, visited the school but found that no children were present there. During their interaction, the children showed them pamphlets that were allegedly used for begging purposes. After completing the verification, P.W.1 lodged a report, which is marked as

Ex.P.1. The children were subsequently handed over to the Child Welfare Committee with the assistance of the police. The police examined him.

17.The evidence of PW.5 is that, on 23.08.2018, she along with P.Ws 1 to 4, 6 and 9, visited the Anadha Ashramam located in Amrutha Nagar, Proddatur, for the purpose of inspection, arriving there between 12:30 and 1:00 PM. During the inspection, she interacted with the children, who informed her that they were being used for begging.

The inspection committee thoroughly examined the records maintained by the Anadha

Ashramam. Additionally, they conducted inquiries with the neighbors regarding the activities of the Ashramam. After completing the verification and inquiries, P.W.1 lodged a report, marked as Ex.P.1, with Proddatur Rural Police Station. The police later examined her.

18.The evidence of PW.6 is that, In the month of August 2018, she along with P.Ws 1 to 5, visited Chowdeswari Orphanage Home and arrived at approximately 2:30 PM. P.W.1 instructed her to verify the records and registers related to the orphanage home. Upon verification, she found everything to be in order. Later, P.W.1 approached her and informed that the accused, A.1 to A.4, was using the children from the orphanage for the purpose of begging. On the same day, she along with P.Ws 1 to 5, went to the police station, where P.W.1 lodged a report marked as Ex.P.1. The police did not examine her.

19.On 23.08.2018, she along with P.Ws 1 to 6, visited Chowdeswari

Foundation for Boys and Girls at Proddatur, arriving at approximately 1:00 PM. The foundation was purportedly organized to provide education to orphans. During their inspection, they verified the attendance register and found that it was not properly maintained. Additionally, the list of teachers employed by the foundation was also not documented. Upon interacting with the orphans in the foundation, they informed that the accused, A.1 to A.4, were using the children for begging. They further revealed that the accused had not been sending them to school, as there was no actual school 7 building. They identified 14 orphans present in the foundation and learned that the foundation was operating without the necessary permissions. After conducting a thorough inquiry, she along with P.Ws 1 to 6, lodged a report, marked as Ex.P.1. The police examined her.

20.The evidence of PW.14 is that, on 23.08.2018, at about 6:00 PM, while he was present at the Police Station, P.W.1 came and presented a written report, marked as Ex.P.1, along with several documents, including:1. Hostel Students Attendance

Register (marked as Ex.P.10), 2. School Students Attendance Register (marked as

Ex.P.11), 3. Visitors and Donors Register (marked as Ex.P.12), 4. Spiral Books of

Chowdeswari Foundation (2 in number, marked as Ex.P.13, subject to objection), 5.

Admission Certificates of 14 students of Chowdeswari Foundation, including: S. Thosif (Ex.P.14), K. Kavya (Ex.P.15), S. Parveen (Ex.P.16), S. Asif (Ex.P.17), B. Naga Siva (Ex.P.18), K. Naga Balaji (Ex.P.19), K. Pawan Kalyan (Ex.P.20), K. Hussain Bee (Ex.P.21), K. Mohammad (Ex.P.22), K. Prasad (Ex.P.23), T. Tarun (Ex.P.24), R. Yesu

Kumar (Ex.P.25), R. Yacob (Ex.P.26) and T. Prashanth (Ex.P.27), 6. Hostel Students

Transfer Register (marked as Ex.P.28), 7. Attendance Register of Teachers (marked as

Ex.P.29). Based on Ex.P.1, he registered a case in Crime No.270/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 75 and 76 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. He issued the

F.I.R., marked as Ex.P.30, to all concerned authorities. On the same day, he examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.6 and P.W.9. On 24.08.2018, he arrested the accused, A.1 to A.4, and sent them to judicial custody. On 25.08.2018, he visited the scene of the offence, examined, and recorded the statements of P.W.7, P.W.8,

P.W.10, P.W.11, and P.W.13. Further investigation was taken up by L.W.15. After completing the investigation, L.W.15 filed charge sheet against the accused, A.1 to

A.4.

The evidence of PWs.7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 did not support contain any incriminating material against the accused A2 to A4.

21.While the evidence of PW.1 to PW.6 and PW.9 indicates that the accused,

A.1 to A.4, allegedly used the children for begging, there is no direct evidence such as photographs, videos, or eyewitness accounts of the accused physically forcing the children to beg. The testimonies of the witnesses are primarily based on statements made by the children, which lack independent corroboration.

22.The children who were allegedly used for begging were not produced

before the court to testify. Their statements, as stated by PW.1 and others, constitute

hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible unless corroborated by the children 8 themselves. The failure to examine the orphans weakens the prosecution's case significantly.

23.PW.6 stated that, upon verification, the records and registers were in order, which contradicts the claims of other witnesses that the records were improperly maintained. PW.4, stated that pamphlets allegedly used for begging were discovered, while PW.6 did not mention this. These inconsistencies cast doubt on the reliability of the witnesses’ accounts. Although the inspection team seized records and registers, the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between these documents and the alleged offence. The records (Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.29) merely indicate the admission of children and attendance, but they do not prove that the children were forced into begging.

24.The report (Ex.P.1) and FIR (Ex.P.30) were lodged based solely on the inspection team’s observations and inferences, rather than concrete evidence.

Neighbors or other individuals who could have independently verified the alleged use of children for begging were not examined. Witnesses stated that the children revealed the activities of the accused, but the prosecution did not present these children as witnesses to substantiate this claim.

25.Section 363A(1) IPC requires evidence that the accused kidnapped or coerced the minors into begging. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide any evidence of coercion, force, or maiming. The mere transportation of children in an auto or the possession of pamphlets does not conclusively prove that the accused used the children for begging. While the prosecution claims that the accused were running an unauthorized school, it failed to prove that this activity was unlawful under any specific statute. The lack of government permissions, as alleged, does not automatically implicate the accused in offences under Section 75 and 76(1) of the Juvenile Justice

Act. The prosecution failed to establish the mens rea (intention) of the accused to exploit the children for begging. There is no evidence to show that the accused derived any benefit from the alleged begging activities or coerced the children into such acts.

26.The prosecution's case heavily relied on the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.6 and PW.9, while the remaining witnesses did not support the case. This raises questions about the consistency and credibility of the evidence presented. The investigation appears to be superficial, as it did not include thorough inquiries into the activities of the accused or corroboration of the children’s statements through independent sources. The arrest and subsequent charge sheet appear to be based on assumptions rather than solid evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the charges under Section 363A(1) IPC and Sections 75 and 76(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act 9 beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of direct evidence, contradictions in witness testimonies, non-examination of crucial witnesses, and procedural lapses render the case unsubstantiated.

27.In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should go in favor of the accused. Accordingly the point is answered in favor of the accused.

28.In the result, the accused A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence

punishable U/Sec.363-A(1) of IPC and Sec.75 and 76(1) of Juvenile Justice Act.

Accordingly, the accused A2 to A4 are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A2 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No property order is passed as there is no propert in this case. The case against A1 was abated on 27.01.2023.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 17th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined:- For Prosecution:- PW.1: M. Yella Reddy PW.2: B. Vinod Kumar PW.3: G. C. Maheswara PW.4: B. Siva Prasad Reddy PW.5: P. R. Suneetha Raju PW.6: Dhara Varamma PW.7: T. Prashanth PW.8: R. Yacob PW.9: T. Prasanna Lakshmi PW.10: Asif PW.11: Katta Prasad PW.12: D. Swarna Latha PW.13: K. Mahammad PW.14: J. Chandra Sekhar For Defence: - None - Exhibits marked:- For Prosecution:- Ex.P1: Report. Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 10

Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7 Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8 Ex.P7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.11 Ex.P8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.12 Ex.P9: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.13 Ex.P10: Hostel Students Attendance Register Ex.P11: School Students Attendance Register Ex.P12: Visitors and Donors Register. Ex.P13: Spiral Books of Chowdeswari Foundation (2 in number) marked as subject to objection. Ex.P14: Admission Certificate of the Student S.Thosif. Ex.P15: Admission Certificate K.Kavya. Ex.P16: Admission Certificate of the Student S.Parveen. Ex.P17: Admission certificate of the student S.Asif Ex.P18: Admission Certificate of the Student B.Naga Siva Ex.P19: Admission Certificate of the Student K.Naga Balaji. Ex.P20: Admission Certificate of the Student K.Pawan Kalyan Ex.P21: Admission Certificate of the Student K.Hussain Bee. Ex.P22: Admission Certificate of the Student K.Mohammad Ex.P23: Admission Certificate of the Student K. Prasad Ex.P24: Admission Certificate of the Student T.Tarun Ex.P25: Admission Certificate of the Student R. Yesu Kumar Ex.P26: Admission Certificate of the Student R. Yacob Ex.P27: Admission Certificate of the Student T. Prashanth Ex.P28: Hostel Students Transfer Register Ex.P29: Attendance Register of the Teachers. Ex.P30: FIR. For Defence: - NIL – Material Objects Mark: Id/- M.A.K.N.,

II A.J.F.C.M, PDTR.

11

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.NO. 754 of 2019

Date of offence: Prior to 23.08.2018 Date of complaint:23.08.2018 Date of Remand A1 to A4:24.08.2018 Date of released A.1:27.09.2018 Date of released A.2 to A.4:19.09.2018 Date of commencement of trial:28.11.2019 Date of close of trial: 06.01.2025 Date of Judgment: 17.01.2025

BETWEEN: State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur Rural Police Station in Cr.No.270/2018. ….Complainant

Vs.

1.Makam Papaiah, S/o late Pedda Subbaiah, age 66 years, Occ:Chairman of Chodeswari Foundation, resident of D.No.8/567, Giddangi Street, Proddatur Town.

2.Muddam Sarojamma @ Sarojamma, W/o late Venkata Ramanaiajh, age 53 years, Occ:Treasurer of Chowdeswari Foundation, resident of D.No.15/846, Amrutha Nagar, Proddatur Mandal.

3.Kota Nageswara Reddy, S/o Hanumantha Reddy, age 51 years, Occ:Assistant Secretary and Caretaker of Chowdeswari Foundation, resident of Jubilee Buildings, near Kalvakatta, Gopavaram Panchayat, Proddatur Mandal.

4.Nanubala Manohar Babu, S/o Narayana, age 56 years, Occ:Warden of Chowdeswari Foundation, resident of D.No.14/41-F, Srinivasapuram Street, Proddatur Town.

(The case against A1 was abated on 27.01.2023)

.…Accused

Section of law : U/sec.363-A(1) of IPC and Sec.75 and 76(1) of Juvenile Justice Act. Finding of the court: A.2 to A.4 are found not guilty.

Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.363-A(1) of IPC and Sec.75 and 76(1) of Juvenile Justice Act. Accordingly, the accused A2 to A4 are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A2 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No property order is passed as there is no propert in this case. The case against A1 was abated on 27.01.2023.

Sd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: PRODDATUR.

Present:- Sri M. Anil Kumar Naik

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur

Friday, this the 17 th day of January, 2025

C.C.No.597 of 2020

Between: G.Sreenivasulu Setty, S/o late G.Gopal Setty, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Business, residing at G1, Raja Residency, Saikuteer Road, Proddatur - 516 360, Kadapa District. ….COMPLAINANT.

Vs.

Vennapusa Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o Vennapusa Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 29 years, Hindu, Business, C/o Bombay Andhra Expenses Service (Courier Service), Door No.15/420, Opp: Standard Fire Works, Mydukur Road, Proddatur - 516 360, Kadapa District, residing at Door No.7/237, Bha- gathsingh Colony, Gopavaram Panchayat, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa Dis- trict. .…ACCUSED.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 16.01.2025 in the presence of Sri G Rajesh Reddy, learned Advocate for the Complainant and

SriC. Shyama Sundara Reddy,learned Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This complaint is filed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act r/w Section 200 of

Criminal Procedure Code (Herein after referred as Cr.P.C).

2.The brief facts of the complainant case are as follows:

There were money transactions between the complainant and the ac- cused. Due to that acquaintance, the accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,50,000/- (four lakh fifty thousand rupees) from the complainant towards hand loan and promised to pay within short period. Subsequently, the com- plainant demanded the accused to repay the said amount for that the ac- cused has issued a cheque bearing No.000652 for an amount of

Rs.4,50,000/- dated 05.07.2017 drawn on IDBI Bank, Proddatur branch in 2 favour of the complainant for the discharge of existing debt. As per request of the accused, the complainant was presented the cheque through his banker Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Proddatur Branch, on 05.07.2017.

On 07.07.2017, the said cheque was returned unpaid to the complainant with a reason "Funds Insufficient'' in the bank account of the accused. On 12.07.2017, the complainant was issued a legal notice to the accused by de- manding the repayment of debt. On 15.07.2017, the said legal notice was re- ceived by the accused but failed to pay the debt and did not give reply no- tice. Hence, the complaint.

3.This case has been taken on file by the I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class Court, Proddatur for the offence punishable u/Sec.138

of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the Accused and numbered as

CC No.653 of 2017. Later, this case was transferred to this court as per the

orders of Hon’ble Principal District Judge’s Court, Kadapa, vide in Dis

No.233 dated 09.01.2020 and re numbered as CC No.597 of 2020.

4. After appearance of the accused copies were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (Herein after re- ferred as Cr.P.C).

5.The accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, its accusation was explained to him in Telugu language, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of the complainant, himself examined as

PW.1 and got examine the Assistant Manager, APG Bank Proddatur as

PW.2. Apart from the oral evidence of PW.1 and 2, he got marked Exs.P.1 to

P.7. Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.000652 for Rs.4,50,000/-, dated 05.07.2017. Ex.P.2 is the memo of return of cheque issued by Andhra Pra- gathi Grameena Bank, Proddatur, dated 07.07.2017. Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice dated 12.07.2017. Ex.P4 is the postal receipt dated 12.07.2017. Ex.P5 is the original postal acknowledgment. Ex.P6 is the re- ceipt marked as subject to objection. Ex.P7 is the Bank account of the com- plainant.

7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating ma- terial spelt out by the complainant against him put the accused for which he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

3

8.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

9.Now the points for determination are:

1.Whether the accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque in favor of the complainant for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability ?

2.Whether the complainant has complied with all the legal formalities as per the provisions of Sec.138 r/w 142 of Nego- tiable Instrument Act for presenting the complaint in this Court ?

3.Whether the complainant proved the case against the ac- cused for the offence punishable Under Section of 138 Nego- tiable Instrument Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.In order to prove the case of the complainant and to discharge the initial burden left upon him, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and got examine the Assistant Manager, APG Bank Proddatur as PW.2.

Apart from the oral evidence of PW.1 and 2, he got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7.

Ex.P.1 is the cheque bearing No.000652 for Rs.4,50,000/-, dated 05.07.2017. Ex.P.2 is the memo of return of cheque issued by Andhra Pra- gathi Grameena Bank, Proddatur, dated 07.07.2017. Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice dated 12.07.2017. Ex.P4 is the postal receipt dated 12.07.2017. Ex.P5 is the original postal acknowledgment. Ex.P6 is the re- ceipt marked as subject to objection. Ex.P7 is the Bank account of the com- plainant. The complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint in his chief examination affidavit.

11. No oral evidence adduced on behalf of the accused but during the cross of PW.1 Ex.D1 and D2 were marked. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of promissory note dated 30.06.2014. Ex.D2 is the certified copy of Plaint in OS

No.220 of 2017.

12. While advancing the arguments on behalf of the complainant, the learned counsel for complainant submitted that there were money trans- actions between the complainant and the accused. Due to that acquain- tance, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (four lakh fifty thousand rupees) from the complainant towards hand loan and promised to pay within short period. Subsequently, the complainant demanded the ac- cused to repay the said amount for that the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.000652 for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- dated 05.07.2017 drawn 4 on IDBI Bank, Proddatur branch in favour of the complainant for the dis- charge of existing debt. As per request of the accused, the complainant was presented the cheque through his banker Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,

Proddatur Branch, on 05.07.2017. On 07.07.2017, the said cheque was re- turned unpaid to the complainant with a reason "Funds Insufficient'' in the bank account of the accused. On 12.07.2017, the complainant was issued a legal notice to the accused by demanding the repayment of debt. On 15.07.2017, the said legal notice was received by the accused but failed to pay the debt and did not give reply notice. The learned counsel for the com- plainant argued that, the accused did not deny his signature on Ex.P1 cheque and failed to led defence evidence. In the absence of evidence from the defence the presumptions cannot be rebutted. The complainant dis- charged the initial burden left on him to prove the offence u/sec.138 of N.I.

Act and complied the mandatory requirements u/sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the presumption is raised in favour of the complainant but the accused failed to rebut such presumption and prays to the court to convict the accused in accordance with the law.

13.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused never issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant and there is no legally en- forceable debt between the complainant and the accused. The complainant do not who filled Ex.P1 cheque, further he did not mention the exact date, time and place of alleged debt in the complainant. On this aspect the learned counsel relied the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court judgment in Sri Datta- traya vs Sharanappa. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the alleged debt is not believable for the reason that the complainant alleged that he lent amount to the accused after the first default. Hence, prayed the court to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

14.After hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and perusing the record carefully, the appreciation of evidence and findings of the court are as below.

15.It would be apposite to first consider the legal position serving as base to the offence underlying Section 138 NI Act. The following legal re- quirements need to be satisfied in order to constitute an offence u/s 138 NI

Act, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Kusum Ingots &

Alloys Ltd. v. M/s Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 745.

5

(i) that 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 for the discharge of any debt or other liability;

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

(iii) that the 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;

(iv) that 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 the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;

(v) that 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;

The above legal requirements are cumulative, meaning thereby that only if all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied can the person who had drawn the cheque be held liable for offence u/s 138 NI Act.

16.Burden of proof:- The claim based under the provisions of

Negotiable Instruments Act is an exception to the general rule of law that burden of proof lies on the prosecution. The two specific provisions viz.

Section 118 (a) and 139 of NI Act contemplates that a presumption is attached in regard to each and every negotiable instrument that the same was drawn and issued against due discharge of the liability and thus, whenever any claim is made on the basis of a negotiable instrument, the presumption has to be drawn in favour of the holder of the cheque (drawee) and the law has put the burden to rebut the presumption on the accused that the cheque was not issued by him against discharge of a debt or a liability. In case, the accused is not able to rebut the presumption and fails to prove his defence, the presumption becomes absolute and it has to be assumed that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of debt or liability and consequently, accused is assumed guilty of the offence. It was held by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa vs Mohan: 2010 (11) SCC

6 441 that presumption of Section 139 of N.I. Act also includes the existence of legally enforceable debt.

17.It is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that a criminal trial proceeds on the presumption of innocence of the accused i.e.

an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. Thus, normally the initial burden to prove the guilt of the accused lies on the complainant/prosecution Also, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. However, in offences under section 138 of the Act, there is a reverse onus clause contained in sections 118 and 139 of the Act.

18.Section 118(a) of the Act provides that until the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that "that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."

19.Further, Section 139 of the Act lays down that "it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."

20.On bare reading of these provisions, it becomes clear that the court shall presume the execution of a negotiable instrument for consideration unless and until the contrary is proved. Similarly, the Court shall also draw a presumption in favour of the complainant/holder of the cheque that the said cheque has been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability.

21.There is a statutory presumption under section 139 of the act which arises in the favour of the complainant. This presumption is rebuttable and the accused is required to raise a probable defence. Burden of proof is hence upon the accused in such cases.

22.It is also a settled proposition of law that the standard of proof which is required from the accused to rebut the statutory presumption under section 118 read with section 139 of the Act is preponderance of probabilities. The accused is not required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. This onus on the accused can be discharged from the materials available on record and from the circumstantial evidences. It should also be noted that the standard of proof in order to rebut the statutory presumption may be inferred from the materials on record and circumstantial 7 evidences. It is not always mandatory for the accused to examine its own witnesses in order to rebut the said statutory presumption.

23.Thus, section 139 of the Act puts the burden on the accused to prove his defense. However, the accused has to prove his defense on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. Accused can prove his defense by drawing inferences from the materials already on record (including complainant's evidences), circumstances of the case and also leading his own evidences. If the accused successfully creates doubts in the complainant's claim about the existence of legally enforceable debt then the burden of proof shifts back to the complainant who is the required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

24.Point No.1:- As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, there is statutory presumption under section 118(a) and 139 of the Act in favour of complainant regarding the following aspects:-

1. That the impugned cheque was issued by the accused for consideration,

2. That there exists a legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant and

3. That the impugned cheque have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

25.Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the accused to prove the contrary. The standard of proof required by the accused is based on preponderance of probabilities which means that the accused is only required to create doubt in the complainant's claims and is not required to prove his own defence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused can examine his witnesses or file his own evidences for this purpose. He can even draw inferences from the evidences filed on record by the complainant in order to create doubts in the complainant's claims.

26.In order to create doubt in the complainant's claim regarding existence of a legally enforceable debt, the accused has adopted the following defenses.

1. The complainant did not file documents to substantiate the debt.

2. The accuse did not issue Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant.

8

3. The alleged debt is doubtful as the accused defaulted initial debt.

27.Upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that there were prior financial transactions between the complainant and the accused concerning a promissory note dated 03.06.2014. However, the complainant failed to disclose the details of these previous transactions in the present complaint. Exhibits D1 and D2 clearly indicate that the accused was indebted to the complainant for an amount of Rs.3,30,000/-. Despite this initial default by the accused, the complainant alleges that he subsequently lent an additional sum of RS.4,50,000/- to the accused.

28.The complainant has neither explained the reasons that led him to trust the accused again after the previous default nor justified why he lent such a substantial amount without securing any documentary evidence this time. Moreover, the complaint lacks specific details such as the exact dates, time, and location of the alleged second transaction, which raises doubts about its credibility.

29.While the complainant admits to having secured a promissory note during the earlier transaction and filing a suit for recovery of money, he has not obtained any document or acknowledgment from the accused to substantiate the current claim. In cases involving multiple financial transactions between the parties, it is expected that the complainant provides a comprehensive account of all relevant transactions. However, in this instance, the complainant has deliberately concealed the fact that the accused had already defaulted on a previous amount of Rs.3,30,000/- which is not a small sum. The failure to disclose this critical detail and the lack of any explanation for trusting the accused again with such a significant amount raises serious questions about the authenticity of the complainant’s claim. The omission of these essential facts and the absence of corroborative evidence weaken the case and cast doubt on the complainant’s version of events.

30.The complainant has filed Ex.P6, an acknowledgment on the

Aadhaar card of the accused, to substantiate his claim. Upon perusal, Ex.P6 indicates that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the complainant on 14.05.2017 and agreed to repay the amount within three 9 months. However, the complainant failed to mention the details or reference to Ex.P6 in the complaint, which raises questions about its credibility and relevance to the case.

31.The counsel for the accused has relied on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Dattatraya vs. Sharanappa, wherein the Court

held:

"Admittedly, the Appellant was able to establish that the signature on the cheque in question was of the Respondent and in regard to the decision of this Court in Bir Singh (supra), a presumption is to ideally arise. However, in the above-referred context of the factual matrix, the inability of the Appellant to put forth the details of the loan advanced, and his contradictory statements, the ratio therein would not impact the present case to the effect of giving rise to the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, 1881. The Respondent has been able to shift the weight of the scales of justice in his favour through the preponderance of probabilities."

The said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. Similar to the case referenced, the complainant has failed to provide specific details regarding the alleged loan transaction, such as the source of funds for lending Rs.4,50,000/- the mode of payment (cash or bank transfer), or any

additional documentation to support the transaction. Furthermore, the

omission of Ex.P6 in the initial complaint, despite its claimed significance, undermines the complainant's credibility and raises suspicion about whether the transaction occurred as alleged.

32.Additionally, the complainant’s inability to establish the circumstances under which such a substantial amount was lent, especially in light of the accused's previous default of Rs.3,30,000/- further diminishes the evidentiary value of Ex.P6. The failure to explain why he trusted the accused again without securing adequate documentation weakens the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, 1881.

33.In light of these observations and applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the accused has effectively shifted the burden of proof by demonstrating inconsistencies and the lack of corroborative evidence in the complainant's case. The preponderance of 10 probabilities, therefore, tilts in favor of the accused, and the statutory presumption under Section 139 is rebutted.

34.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the accused have successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions u/s 1118(a) read with 139 of the Act existed in favour of the complainant by creating reasonable doubt in the complainant's claim. As discussed, if the presumption is rebutted then the burden of proof shifts back to the complainant to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The complainant, in the present case, has neither examined any witness nor filed any document on record to prove the culpability of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

35.On evaluation of the entire evidence, this court finds the version of the complainant is improbable and difficult to believe. The accused have successfully created reasonable doubt on advancement of loan by the complainant. Further, the existence of legal liability towards complainant on the date of issuance of impugned cheque is also doubtful. The complainant, thereafter, has not been able to establish that there was a legal debt or liability standing on the part of the accused towards the complainant. Thus, the most important ingredient of section 138 of the Act has not been fulfilled.

Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the accused. When it is proved that there is no legally enforceable debt between the accused and the complainant, the discussion for the remaining points will not serve the purpose.

36.In view of the above discussion, the accused stands acquitted for the offence under section 138 of the Act.

37.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and

accordingly he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused which are executed earlier shall be in force for a period of 6 months as required under section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik,

II Add. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Witnesses examined:-

For Complainant:-

PW.1: G Sreenivalusu

PW.2: K Venkata Dinesh

Witnesses examined:- For Defence:- NIL Exhibits Marked:-

For Complainant:-

Ex.P.1: Cheque bearing No.000652 for Rs.4,50,000/-, dated 05.07.2017.

Ex.P.2: Memo of return of cheque issued by Andhra Pragathi Grameena

Bank, Proddatur, dated 07.07.2017.

Ex.P.3: Office copy of legal notice dated 12.07.2017.

Ex.P.4: Postal receipt dated 12.07.2017.

Ex.P.5: Original postal acknowledgment.

Ex.P.6: Receipt marked as subject to objection.

Ex.P.7: Bank account of the complainant.

Exhibits marked for defense :- Ex.D1: Certified copy promissory note dated 30.06.2014. Ex.D2: Certified copy of plaint in OS No.220 of 2017. Material Objects Marked:- - Nil - Id/- M.A.K.N.,

II AJFCM, PDTR.

12

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.NO.597 of 2020

Date of offence: 07.07.2017 Date of complaint: 10.08.2017 Date of commencement of trial: 22.05.2018 Date of close of trial: 16.01.2025 Date of Judgment: 17.01.2025

Between: G.Sreenivasulu Setty, S/o late G.Gopal Setty, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Business, residing at G1, Raja Residency, Saikuteer Road, Proddatur - 516 360, Kadapa District. ….COMPLAINANT.

Vs.

Vennapusa Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o Vennapusa Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 29 years, Hindu, Business, C/o Bombay Andhra Expenses Service (Courier Service), Door No.15/420, Opp: Standard Fire Works, Mydukur Road, Proddatur - 516 360, Kadapa District, residing at Door No.7/237, Bha- gathsingh Colony, Gopavaram Panchayat, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa Dis- trict. .…ACCUSED.

Section of law: U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Finding of the court: The Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ac-

cordingly he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused which are executed earlier shall be in force for a period of 6 months as required under section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

Sd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: PRODDATUR

Present:- Sri M. Anil Kumar Naik,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur

Thursday, this the 08 th day of August, 2024

C.C.No.1222 of 2021

BETWEEN:- The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur, Rural Police Station. Cr.No.380 of 2021. …COMPLAINANT. .Vs.

Parlapadu Guru Prasad, S/o Gurrappa, age 49 years, D.No.22/267, Moulana Ajad Street, Proddatur Town, owner of Petrol Bunk. … Accused

This case coming before me on 31.07.2024 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri G.Rajesh Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of police, Proddatur, Rural police station, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.380/2021 for the offence punishable U/sec.324 of

Indian Penal Code (herein after I.P.C) against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On August 7, 2021, at 8:20 AM, an incident took place at the HP petrol bunk near Lingapuram village in Proddatur Mandal. The incident was reported at the police station on the same day at 9:15 PM. The accused,

Parlapadu Guru Prasad, a 49-year-old individual, son of Gurrappa from

Proddatur town and owner of the petrol bunk, assaulted the complainant with an iron rod, causing bleeding injuries on his head. The reason behind this attack was related to the complainant, who worked as a manager at the petrol bunk owned by the accused. The complainant had increased petrol sales, leading to some customers being unable to repay the money owed to the owner. This financial issue angered the accused, resulting in an 2 altercation with the complainant that led to the incident. Following the complaint by LW.1, LW.7 registered a case under Cr.No.380/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at

Proddatur Rural Police Station. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/sec.324 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter I.P.C) against the accused.

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

5. The accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. A Charge were framed for the offence punishable u/sec.324 of IPC against the accused and its contents were explained to the accused in Telugu language for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.5 were examined and

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 were marked. No material objects were marked.

7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of both parties.

9.Now the point for determination is: "Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.324 of

IPC beyond reasonable doubt"?

10. The learned APP argued before this court that the acts of the accused are clearly established with the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 and the contents of Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

11. The defense counsel for the accused contended that there existed a discrepancy between the statements provided by the injured and the eyewitness regarding the weapon used in the case. Therefore, he argued that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Additionally, the defense counsel highlighted that the investigating officer

failed to seize the blood-stained clothes of the injured individual and the weapon used in the crime, which he claimed to be detrimental to the prosecution's case. The defense further pointed out a three-day delay in submitting the First Information Report (FIR) to the jurisdictional magistrate, emphasizing various shortcomings in the investigation. The defense counsel referenced a judgment from the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of 3

Krishnegowda and others vs State of Karnataka, where it was ruled that in situations involving clear contradictions between medical and eyewitness evidence, coupled with significant inconsistencies in oral testimonies and deficiencies in the investigation, the benefit of the doubt should lean towards the accused. As a result, the defense counsel requested the court to acquit the accused based on the benefit of doubt principle.

12. Perused the material available on record, prosecution was examined 05 witnesses, out of 07 list of witnesses. The learned A.P.P. given up the evidence of LW.3/Y.Muhammad Ali and LW.4/S.Venkata Swamy.

Point:-

13.To prove the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal

Code, key elements referred to as ingredients, need to be established.

These include:

1. Voluntarily causing hurt :- The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused caused hurt to the victim/PW.1 intentionally, without any legal justification or excuse. The term 'hurt' encompasses any bodily injury that causes pain, harm, or impairs the health or comfort of the victim.

2. Knowledge or intention to cause hurt :- It must be proven that the accused had the knowledge or intention to cause hurt to the victim.

This can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the incident, the nature of the injury inflicted, and the accused's actions leading up to the offence.

3. Extent of injury :- The prosecution needs to establish the extent of the injury caused to the victim. This can be supported by medical evidence, such as a medical report detailing the nature and severity of the injury sustained by the victim.

4. Causation :- There should be a direct link established between the actions of the accused and the injury suffered by the victim. The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused's conduct was the direct cause of the hurt inflicted on the victim.

By proving these essential elements, the prosecution can establish a case against the accused under section 324 of the IPC for voluntarily causing hurt. Each of these ingredients plays a crucial role in demonstrating the culpability of the accused and securing a conviction in such cases.

4

14. The evidence of PW.1 is that in 2016, he worked as a Manager at a petrol pump in Lingapuram village, Proddatur Mandal. P.W.3 joined him at the petrol pump. He worked from 7:00 AM to 2:00 PM daily. The accused asked him to bring the customers to boost sales. He then introduced lorry and tourist bus owners to help increase sales. The introduced owners did not pay cash for the diesel filled in their vehicles. The accused would often scold him, insisting that the mentioned individuals owed him money. On

August 7, 2021, at around 8:15 AM, while he and P.W.3 were at the petrol pump along with three others, the accused scolded him, demanding payment for the debts of the introduced individuals. He responded that he was not responsible for their debts as he had only facilitated the introductions to enhance sales. During the argument, the accused, in a fit of anger, took an iron rod and beat him on the left side of his head and caused bleeding injuries. He lost consciousness and later regained awareness in the hospital. P.W.3 informed him that he had been taken to the government hospital in a 108 ambulance. The police arrived at the hospital, recorded his statement, and examined him. Ex.P.1 is the report.

15.The evidence of PW.2 is that, he do not know anything about this case. Police never examined him. PW.2 evidence did not support the case of the prosecution.

16.The evidence of PW.3 is that he knows PW.1 as he is his co- brother. He does not know PW.2, LW.3, and LW.4. He knows the accused.

On 06.08.2021, the accused called him and asked him to come to the petrol pump. On 07.08.2021, he went to the IOC petrol pump near Lingapuram. He was there with PW.1 and the accused. PW.1 was working as the Manager at the IOC petrol pump. While they were calculating the transactions, there was a verbal altercation between the accused and PW.1. During the argument, the accused grabbed a copper bottle and hit PW.1 on the head, causing him to suffer from bleeding injuries. He then transferred PW.1 to the Government

Hospital in an ambulance. The police examined him at the Government

Hospital in Proddatur.

17. The evidence of PW.4/medical officer is that on 07.08.2021 around 09:55 AM, while he was at the hospital, PW.1 arrived for treatment with a history of being assaulted with a bottle. He promptly examined PW.1 and documented the following injury: A 3 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm laceration on the left parietal region of PW.1's head. The CT scan of the brain showed no 5 abnormalities. In his professional opinion, the mentioned injury is simple and fresh in nature and likely occurred around six hours before his examination.

18. The evidence of the investigation officer/PW.5 is that on 07.08.2021, around 9:15 AM, while he was at the Police Station, P.W.1 arrived and submitted an Ex.P.1 report. Based on this report, he filed a case under Crime No.380 of 2021 for the offences punishable under section 324 of IPC against the accused. He issued the FIR to all relevant authorities documented in Ex.P.4. On the same day, he took statements from P.W.1 and 3, visited the crime scene, and prepared a Rough Sketch, documented in

Ex.P.5. He also recorded statements from P.W.2, L.W.3, and 4. The next day, on 08.08.2021, he served a 41A Cr.P.C Notice to the accused. Subsequently, on 21.08.2021, he received the Wound Certificate of P.W.1 from P.W.4. After completion of investigation he laid the charge sheet against the accused.

19.During the cross examination of PW.5, he deposed that as per

Ex.P3, PW.1 sustained injury by assault with bottle. As per Ex.P1, PW.1 sustained injury with iron rod. PW.1 stated him as in Ex.D1. PW.3 stated him as in Ex.D2. Further he deposed that he did not seize anything from the scene or from the possession of the accused. He admitted that, PW.1 and

PW.3 are co-brothers. He denied that he did not conduct proper investigation.

20. In the present case there is a discrepancy in the testimonies of

PW.1 and PW.3 regarding the weapon used in the assault. While PW.1 claims that the accused beat him with an iron rod, PW.3 states that the accused used a bottle during the altercation. In situations where there are conflicting testimonies between the injured and an eye witness, the testimony of the injured will prevail over the testimony of an eye witness. On application of the said principle, the evidence left for consideration in respect of weapon used is PW.1 only. As per the injured, the accused beat him with an iron rod and caused bleeding injury but the investigation officer did not secure the iron rod from the scene. Even he did not reveal it in rough sketch.

There is no iota of evidence to show that the accused used an iron rod to inflict injury to PW.1. The prosecution examined the medical officer to prove the injury. As per the testimonies of PW.1, 3 and 5, the medical officer and the contents of Ex.P3 wound certificate of PW.1, there is no room for doubt in respect of the injury of PW.1. During the cross-examination of PW.1 and

PW.3, Exhibits D1 and D2 were marked. Exhibit D1 does not present a 6 material contradiction, and therefore, it has no negative impact on the prosecution’s case. However, Exhibit D2 contains a contradictory statement from PW.3 regarding the weapon used by the accused to inflict injury on

PW.1. Despite these discrepancies between the testimonies of PW.1 and

PW.3 regarding the weapon, this court set aside PW.3’s evidence in this aspect. Except the above contradictions, the cross examination of witnesses did not reveal any contradictions to disbelieve their testimonies.

21.The defence did not dispute the presence of the accused at the scene of offence. The defence did not dispute the transactions done by

PW.1 in the petrol pump run by the accused. The defence did not dispute the conversation between the accused, PW.1 and PW.3 prior to the incident.

Therefore, this court is of the considered view that there was an altercation occurred in the petrol pump of the accused near Lingapuram between PW.1 and the accused and during the said altercation the accused inflicted injury to PW.1. However, the prosecution did not establish the weapon in the present case.

22.Based on the evidence presented by all the witnesses, including

PW.1, PW.3, the medical officer, and the investigation officer, it is evident that the accused, on August 7, 2021, at the IOC petrol pump near

Lingapuram, assaulted PW.1 resulting in a laceration on the left parietal region of PW.1's head. The medical officer's report confirms the nature and timing of the injury, aligning with the testimonies of the witnesses. The prosecution proved the injury of PW.1 inflicted by the accused but failed to establish the weapon. In the present case, the accused was charged with the offence u/sec.324 of IPC. If the hurt was not caused by weapon as mentioned there in the case is cover u/sec.324 of IPC then the accused can be convicted u/sec.323 of IPC in case of simple hurt and u/sec.325 of IPC in case of grievous hurt. The next question which has to be decided is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt, so as to warrant conviction u/sec.323 of IPC. The medical evidence let by the prosecution reveals that the prosecution has proved the injury of PW.1 as simple in nature with the weapon mentioned in

U/Sec.324. However, the prosecution was failed to produce the weapon

before this court. As per Sec.222 (2) of Cr.P.C, if a person has been charged

with an offence and facts are proved reducing it to minor offence then the accused may be convicted for the minor offence although he is not charged with it. Here the question which has to be decided is whether the offence 7 u/sec.323 of IPC can be considered as a minor offence to an offence u/sec.324 of IPC. In the Judgment of Shamn Saheb Vs. State reported in 2001 SCC 577 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that " Minor offence is not defined in the court, it can be discerned from the context that the test of minor offence is not merely that the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence. Only if the two offences are cognate offences, wherein the main ingredients are common, the one punishable among them with a lesser sentence can be recorded as minor offence. In my considered opinion the ingredients of both the offence as provided u/sec.323 and 324 of

IPC are similar as well as sec.325 and 326 of IPC. Therefore, the accused can be convicted u/sec.323 of IPC. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused u/sec.323 of IPC.

23.The learned defense counsel argued that since the prosecution did not seize the blood-stained clothes of the first witness (PW.1), the prosecution's account should not be considered credible. While it is true that the prosecution did not present the blood-stained clothes of PW.1 as evidence, this single factor alone should not dismiss the entire prosecution case. It is possible that the blood-stained clothes could have been disposed of or washed. The seizure of the blood-stained clothes of PW.1 is not an absolute requirement to establish the presence of an injury. The testimonies of PW.1, PW.3, and the Medical Officer provided sufficient evidence to prove the injury. The blood-stained clothes serve as corroborative evidence for the injury, but when the Medical Officer confirmed examining and identifying the injuries as stated in the medical report, the lack of seizure of the blood- stained clothes should not have a detrimental impact on the prosecution's case.

24.The learned counsel for the accused argued that since the investigating officer did not seize weapon from the crime scene, the prosecution's case should be viewed with suspicion. In this instance, the investigating officer failed to seize the weapon allegedly used in the crime.

When the accusation is that the accused assaulted PW.1 with an iron rod resulting in injuries, the weapon used in causing the injuries become crucial in determining the guilt of the accused. However, it is important to note that the presence of the actual weapons used to cause the injury is not always mandatory to establish the guilt of the accused. If there is direct evidence 8 regarding the infliction of the injury, the lack of seizure of the material object may not significantly weaken the prosecution's case. In this case, while the investigating officer did not provide any justification for not seizing the material objects from the scene, the prosecution successfully demonstrated the injury sustained by PW.1, even though they did not present the material object as evidence. The defense lawyer's argument about the 3-day delay in submitting the FIR to the court not being a valid reason to cast doubt on the prosecution's case is valid. The delay in submitting the FIR to the court does not necessarily indicate any issues with the registration of the case itself. It's important to understand that this delay only pertains to the transmission of the FIR to the court and not the actual registration of the case. Therefore, this court finds no substantial reasons to question the credibility of the prosecution's case based solely on this delay in submitting the FIR to the court.

25.Considering the testimonies and evidence provided, the accused's actions clearly constitute an offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation officer's thorough handling of the case, from filing the FIR to collecting statements and evidence, further solidifies the case against the accused.With due respect to the judgment relied by the counsel for the accused, this court is of the view that the facts in the present case is different in the above said judgment.

26.From the above discussion, this court holds that prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

27.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 of IPC but found guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.323 of IPC and accordingly, the accused is convicted U/Sec.248 (2)

Cr.P.C. No property is produced before this court, hence, no orders as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 08th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Proddatur.

28.When accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence that can be imposed against him, for which the he stated that he has parents 9 about aged 80 years, he has two children and all of them are depending upon him. Further the accused stated that he is suffering with pileshence, prayed the court to take lenient view.

29.After considering the facts and circumstances and also submissions made by accused, the court is not inclined to invoke the

Benevolent Provision of Probation of offenders Act or under Section 360

Cr.P.C., and after considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the gravity of offence. I feel that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

30. Hence the accused is sentenced to pay fine Rs.1,000/- for the offence u/sec.323 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period one month.

31. The accused is never undergone for judicial remand. Hence, no set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C.

32. The accused is appraised of his right of appeal and also availability of free legal aid for the purpose of appeal.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 08th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik,

II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Proddatur.

MEMO OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for prosecution: For Defence: Nil P.W.1: Y. Nayamul Rahaman P.W.2: R. Surya Prakash Reddy P.W.3: Shaik Masthan Valli PW.4: Dr. V. Siva Ram PW.5: B. Arun Reddy Exhibits marked for prosecution: Ex.P1: Report. Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P3: Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P4: F.I.R. Ex.P5: Rough Sketch. Exhibits marked for Defense: Ex.D1: Portion in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.1 Ex.D2: Extracted portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Material Objects Marked:- - Nil - Sd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik, II A.J.F.C.M. Pdtr. //True copy//

II A.J.F.C.M., Pdtr.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.NO. 1222 of 2021

Date of offence: 07.08.2021 Date of complaint: 07.08.2021 Date of commencement of trial: 15.12.2021 Date of close of trial: 31.07.2024 Date of Judgment: 08.08.2024

BETWEEN:- The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur, Rural Police Station. Cr.No.380 of 2021. …COMPLAINANT. .Vs.

Parlapadu Guru Prasad, S/o Gurrappa, age 49 years, D.No.22/267, Moulana Ajad Street, Proddatur Town, owner of Petrol Bunk. … Accused

Offence: U/Sec.324 of IPC Finding: The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.323 of IPC.

Sentence: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 of IPC but found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 of IPC and accordingly, the accused is convicted U/Sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. No property is produced before this court, hence, no orders as to property. When accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence that can be imposed against him, for which the he stated that he has parents about aged 80 years, he has two children and all of them are depending upon him. Further the accused stated that he is suffering with pileshence, prayed the court to take lenient view. After considering the facts and circumstances and also submissions made by accused, the court is not inclined to invoke the Benevolent Provision of Probation of offenders Act or under Section 360 Cr.P.C., and after considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the gravity of offence. I feel that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice. Hence the accused is sentenced to pay fine Rs.1,000/- for the offence u/sec.323 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period one month. The accused is never undergone for judicial remand. Hence, no set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is appraised of his right of appeal and also availability of free legal aid for the purpose of appeal.

Sd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik,

II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Proddatur./

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: PRODDATUR

Present:- Sri M.Anil Kumar Naik,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur FAC I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur

Thursday, this the 09th day of May, 2024.

C.C.No. 774 of 2021

BETWEEN: State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur I Town Police Station in Cr.No.340/2020 ….Complainant

Vs.

Palle Dharmateja S/o Raja, aged about 24 years, R/o D.No.05/57, Chiyyapadu village, Chapadu Mandal, Now residing Gokul Apartment, YMR colony, Prodatur Town, YSR Kadapa District. .…Accused

This case is coming before me on 02.05.2024 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri P.Balaji, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur I Town police station filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.380 of

IPC relating to Cr.No.340/2020 of Proddatur I Town P.S.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

on 19.10.2020 at morning, the accused went to RX fashions of

LW.1, introduced himself, took one photo shoot camera for rent by giving his aadhar card. LW.1 believed the accused, issued photo shoot camera 1500

D to the accused. The accused thought that, if aadhar card of the accused is with the shop keeper, it may cause harm to him and came in the evening to the shop of LW.1, took his aadhaar card on the plea that he wants to reserve bus ticket. Later the accused thought that if he sale one camera, he will get less amount, therefore, he decided to sale more cameras. After two 2 days i.e., on 21.10.2020 afternoon, the accused went to RX fashions of

LW.1, returned the camera to the shop keeper, informed that he wants 3 cameras on the eve of his relatives function. Then LW.1 brought 3 cameras, kept the same on the table and went into the shop to bring accessories, the accused observed, found none were available, he committed theft of 3 cameras and escaped from there. Then LW.1 preferred a complaint. Basing on the complaint, LW.8/M.Raja Reddy, S.I of Police, Proddatur I Town P.S, registered a case in Cr.No.340/2020. On 02.12.2020 at about 5.15 PM

LW.8/Sub-Inspector of Police, Proddatur I Town P.S arrested accused near flower plants shop, at the entrance of Giddangi Street, Gandhi Road,

Proddatur Town and recovered the articles require to present case. Hence the charge sheet.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/Sec.380 of Indian Penal Code (herein after IPC) against the Accused.

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

5. The accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge for the offence U/secs.380 of IPC against the accused, was framed, the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.4 were examined and

Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked.

7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313, Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of both parties.

9.Now the point for determination is:

1.Whether on 19.10.2020 at on or about 10.30. AM at RX fashions at Gandhi Road, near Venkateswara Cinema Hall in BGR

Rooms, the accused had moved away three photo shoot cameras dishonestly from the shop of the informant without his 3 knowledge and consent, thereby committed an offence punishable u/sec.380 of IPC?

2. Whether the accused possessed M.O.1 to M.O.3 stolen property soon after it was committed in theft from the possession of PW.1 without any explanation ?

POINT:

10.The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued before this court that the acts of Accused was clearly established with the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and MO.1 to M.O.3. The learned Asst. Public

Prosecutor argued that non examination of IO is not fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore, the Accused is liable for conviction.

11. The learned defense counsel argued that there is nothing on record which arrive the guilt of the accused as reasonable doubt persisted regarding the prosecution version. Further argued that there are no eye witnesses to the above said crime and the accused is innocent and falsely implicated in this crime. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to acquit the accused.

12.Perused the record. Out of 08 list of witnesses, the prosecution has examined 04 list of witnesses. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.3/Shaik. Kaif, LW.5/K.Vinod Kumar, LW.7/K.Madhu, The evidence of LW.8/M.Raja Reddy closed by this court for non compliance of conditional order.

13. As this is the case U/Sec. 380 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the Accused committed theft of three Photo shoot cameras in the shop of PW.1 and LW.8 seized M.O.1 to M.O.3 from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators.

14. Ex.P1 which is report of PW.1 speaks, On 19.10.2020, at about 10.30 AM, the accused came to his shop and took 3 cameras of Canon

Company Model 1500 D for his family function by giving his Aadhar card as security. On 21.10.2020, the accused again came to him and asked extra 2 cameras for his family function on rent basis. Then he went to Godown for bringing tow other cameras, meanwhile the accused took his aadhar card and 3 cameras and fled away. He tried to contact the accused through 4 mobile but it was switch off. He searched the accused for a period of 2 months. Thereafter he lodged report before I Town P.S, Proddatur.

15.PW.1 and 2 deposed before this court in chief examination in the similar lines of report (Ex.P1). In addition to the contents of Ex.P1, PW.1 deposed before this court that police informed him that the case property was recovered by them i.e., (1) CANON Camera Model EOS 1500D along with lenses 55 to 250 meters, (2) CANON Camera Model ESO 1500 D along with lenses 18 to 55 meters, (3) One CANON Camera Model ESO 1500D

ET 60-II along with lenses 55 to 250 meters. MO.1 to MO.3. (MO.1 returned to PW.1 for interim custody). He was examined by the police.

16.This court observed that PW.1 was cross examined by the defense counsel and in his cross examination, he deposed that he did not obtain permission from the police for giving MO.1 to MO.3 for rent. He did not mention in Ex.P1 about rent consideration. He did not obtain photostat copy of aadhar card of the accused and filled the details of the accused in a book the same was not handed over to the police. He did not hand over CC

TV footage to the police. On 21.10.2020, the accused took MO.1 to MO.3, after 41 days he preferred report/Ex.P1 to the police. Except some formal questions, Defence did not elicit anything with regard to MO.1 to MO.3. The defence did not claim MO1 to 3. Hence, this court is of the view that there is no dispute regarding the ownership of MO.1 to MO.3. Hence, this court is of the opinion that M.O.1 to MO.3 are the Cameras and are belongs to PW.1.

17.PW.3 deposed before this court in his chief examination that at about 3 years back, at about 3.00 pm, he noticed the accused in possessing of one bag getting down from the shop of PW.1 and went towards

Venkateswara Theatre. Meanwhile, PW.1 and 2 came and asked him that his cameras were missed and someone took them. He informed them that the accused went towards Venkateswara Theatre. He along with PW.1 and 2 searched for accused but in vain. In his cross examination, he stated that he was present at his shop at the time of arrival of PWs.1 and 2. He came to know by PWs.1 nad 2 that their cameras were stolen. He did not notice CC camera footage in boutique of PWs.1 and 2.

5

18.PW.4 who is one of the mediator deposed before this court in his chief examination that on 02.12.2020 while he was present in

Sachivalayam, 12th ward Proddatur, on the directions of Tahsildar, Proddatur, he went to I Town Police station, LW.8 requested to act as mediators for arrest of accused. Then he along with LW.7, LW.8 along with two police constables, proceeded to Giddangi Street Entrance, Proddatur. There, they noticed the presence of Accused, on seeing the police, he tried to skulk away. Police officials caught hold Accused and LW.7 interrogated in his presence. Accused admitted about the three cameras for rent and thereafter theft committed in the the shop of PW.1 at Proddatur and concealsed said cameras to his friend shop at Althaf cell point shop. LW.8 arrested accused and prepared confession and seizure mahazarnama at the scene of offence.

Ex.P2 is the confession, arrest and seizure Mahajarnama. dt.02.12.2020 at 04.00 PM.

19. During the cross examination of PW.4, he admitted that he along with LW.7 and 8 and two other constables went to arrest place through four motor cycles, the same not mentioned in Ex.P2. He can not say the names of police constables, he can not say the company of the laptop and who brought laptop and printer. Further admitted that Ex.P2 contains the date as 02nd November, 2020. Ex.P2 was typed by LW.8 on his dictation.

20. Let us first discuss the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of the present case. Section 380 IPC prescribes punishment for theft in a dwelling house. The offence theft is defined under Section 378 IPC and the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 380 IPC are as follows:- i. Intention to take dishonestly.

ii. The property shall be movable property.

iii. The property shall be taken out from the possession of any person without his consent.

iv. There should be some moving of the said property to such taking.

v. The theft should have been committed in a dwelling house or place used for safe custody of property.

6

21. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused.

Accused is entitled to the benefits of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.

22. In the present case, PW.1/complainant as well as the owner of the shop was failed to mention the particulars of the cameras which allegedly stolen by the accused. PW.1 and 2 deposed before this court as the accused stolen the cameras along with the lenses but the same fact was not averred in Ex.P1 report. Furthermore, in the present case, PW.1 gave the said cameras for rent basis. Therefore, it can be presumed that there was knowledge to PW.1 in respect of giving cameras to the accused. When there is knowledge the question of theft will not arise. To establish the offence theft, the prosecution has to establish that the accused obtained some movable property from another person without his consent and knowledge.

The word consent and knowledge are the crucial aspects to decide the guilt of the accused. In the present case, as per the prosecution version, On 19.10.2020, at about 10.30 AM, the accused came to his shop and took 3 cameras of Canon Company Model 1500 D for his family function by giving his Aadhar card as security. On 21.10.2020, the accused again came to him and asked extra 2 cameras for his family function on rent basis. Then he went to Godown for bringing two other cameras, meanwhile the accused took his aadhar card and 3 cameras and fled away. The material available in the record shows that there was knowledge in respect of obtaining the cameras by the accused and it was not denied by the prosecution. Even if, the version of the prosecution is considered then also the ingredients for the offence punishable under section 380 of IPC will not fulfill. It is settled law that mere suspicion cannot take place of strong proof. It has to be duly corroborated with proper evidentiary proof for driving home the allegation 7 against the accused. The evidence of the prosecution witness did not establish the above said elements of Sec. 380 IPC.

23.From the above circumstances, this court is in doubt about the committing of theft by the accused. Hence, this court holds that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 380 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

24. To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 411

IPC, the prosecution has to establish that

(i) The property should be in possession of the accused

(ii) Such property should be stolen property

(iii) The accused received the same knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.

25. To establish the above elements, the prosecution relied the contents of Ex.P2 along with the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4. On perusal of the contents of Ex.P2, it is evident that the accused confessed before

LW.7/police in the presence of PW.4/VRO. Further stated that he committed theft of Three Cameras in the shop of PW.1/Defacto Complainant. The evidence of PW.2 and 3 corroborates the contents of Ex.P2. The learned counsel for the accused cross examined the witness but no major contradictions were elicited from their mouth to disbelieve their version. Even after cross examination, the testimony of witnesses remained unimpeached and corroborated to each other. The accused did not lead any defenses in his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C and not offered any explanation regarding his presence at the time of his arrest under Ex.P2 confession. The version of prosecution is that LW.7 seized MO.1 to MO.3 from the possession of the accused in the presence of PW.4. The prosecution was failed to examine the investigation officers and another independent mediator and offered some explanation that aspect. Even, if the prosecution evidence is considered along with the contents of Ex.P2 then also the guilt of the accused cannot be brought for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC for the reason the prosecution witnesses admitted that PW.1 gave

MO1 to 3 to the accused for rent. When there is a contract between the accused and PW.1 in respect of MO1 to 3, the question of theft will not arise.

8

When the theft is not proved the question of possession of stolen property will not arise.

26. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.380 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 given to PW.1 for interim custody vide Crl.MP.No.1825/2020 dt.22.12.2020 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 09th day of May, 2024.

SdSd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik,/- M.Anil Kumar Naik, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur. FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

MEMO OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined:- For prosecution:- For Defence: - NIL – PW.1: Shaik Imran PW.2: Shaik Mushraf PW.3: U.Sreenivasulu PW.4: M.Sudhakar Reddy Exhibits marked For prosecution:- Ex.P1: Report. Ex.P2: Confession, arrest and Seizure Panchanama dt.02.12.2020 at 04.00 AM Exhibits marked For defense:- - Nil - Material Objects Marked MO.1: One Canon Camera Model, EOS 1500D along with lenses 55 to 250 Meters. MO.2: Canon Camera Model EOS 1500 D EOS 1500D along with lenses 18 to 250 meters. MO.3: Canon Camera Model EOS 1500D ET 60-II along with lenses 55 to 250 meters.

Sd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik,

II A.J.F.C.M, Proddatur. FAC I A.J.F.C.M, Proddatur. // True copy //

Sd/- M.Anil Kumar Naik

II AJFCM, Pdtr. FAC I AJFCM, Pdtr 9

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.No.774 of 2021

Date of offence: 21.10.2020 Date of complaint: 02.12.2020 Date of arrest Accused : 03.12.2020 Released on bail Accused:07.04.2021 Date of commencement of trial: 26.02.2024 Date of close of trial: 02.05.2024 Date of Judgment: 09.05.2024

BETWEEN: State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur I Town Police Station in Cr.No.340/2020 ….Complainant

Vs.

Palle Dharmateja S/o Raja, aged about 24 years, R/o D.No.05/57, Chiyyapadu village, Chapadu Mandal, Now residing Gokul Apartment, YMR colony, Prodatur Town, YSR Kadapa District. .…Accused Offence: U/Secs.380 of IPC

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.380 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 given to PW.1 for interim custody vide Crl.MP.No.1825/2020 dt.22.12.2020 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik,,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate,

// True copy // Proddatur. FAC I Additional Judicial Magistrate, Proddatur.

// True copy //

Sd/- M.Anil Kumar Naik

II AJFCM, Pdtr. FAC I AJFCM, Pdtr.

1

APKD060002162023

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PRODDATUR

Present:- Sri M. Anil Kumar Naik.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

Thursday, this the 24th day of April, 2025

C.C.No.190 of 2023

Between: State: Represented by the S.I of Police, Rajupalem P.S., in Cr.No.47/2022. ….Complainant. Vs.

1. Mude Ravindra Nayak, S/o Krishna Nayak, age 25 years, Occ:coolie, resident of OG Thanda, Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal District.

2. Ramanathula Saiman, S/o Sumithrudu, age 50 years, Occ:Coolie, Gopayapalli Village, Rajupalem Mandal, YSR District.

3. Mudiyam Sai Vamshi, S/o Venkateswarlu, Occ: Provision shop, Muthyalapadu Village, Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal District.

..Accused.

This case is coming on 22.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri

D.Obulesu, Advocate for the Accused No.1 and 2, Sri M.Munirathnam, Advocate for the accused No.3, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The S.I of Police, Rajupalem P.S has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.47/2022 for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 (b) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 (herein after A.P. Prohibition Act) against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 08.05.2022 at 09.30 AM, on credible information, L.W.9/H.Krishnam

Raju Naik, S.I. of Police, Rajupalem P.S., along with LW.1 and LW.2 left P.S. and reached near the MPP School, situated at Gopayapalle Village, Rajupalem mandal 2 and found the accused A.1 and A2 who were present standing under a Neem tree by chatting and among them A1 keeping a plastic can in his hand. On seeing the police officials, they tried to ran away. LW.9 surrounded and caught hold them with the assistance of his staff. On interrogation by LW.9, the accused A.1 revealed his identity particulars and confessed the offence and also stated that, he prepared ID Arrack in the forest area situated near by their thanda and supplying the ID arrack to the surrounding needy people at the rate of Rs.200/- per liter. About one week ago, he supplied 10 liters of ID arrack to the accused A.2 in view of his son's marriage on his request and took money from A.2. On 08.05.2022, the accused A.2 asked A.1 to bring 5 liters of ID arrack to consume the same to their relatives who are coming for a function going to be held in their house. Accordingly, A.1 brought 5 liters of ID arrack, secured the A.2 near MPP School at Gopayapalli Village and were chit chatting over the money transaction and meantime they were caught hold by the police. Then, LW.9 handed over the A.1 into the custody of LWs.1 and 2 and secured the A.2 and on interrogation of A2, he disclosed his identity particulars and further he too corrobrated the version of A.1. Then LW.9 verified the plastic can possessed with the accused A.1 found it is a 5 liters plastic can and fully filled with ID arrack. Then LW.9 arrested A1 and A2 and seized the ID arrack under cover police proceedings. LW.9 drawn one bottle for chemical analysis. During the course of investigation, on 20.05.2022 at 12.30

PM, LW.9 have examined LWs.3 to 5 and recorded their 161(3) Cr.P.C statements. As per the evidence of LWs.3 to 5, it is crystal clear that the accused A.3 is knowingly supplying black jaggary and giving financial support to the accused A.1 in brewing the

ID arrack and as such the name of the accused A.3 has been added to the list of accused. LW.9 arrested the accused A.3 on 20.05.2022.Basing on police proceedings,

L.W.9/H.Krishnam Raju Naik, S.I. of Police, Rajupalem P.S., registered a case in

Cr.No.47/2022, U/Sec.7(b) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, LW.10/M.Raja Gopal, filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(b) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, against the Accused No.1 to 3.

4. On appearance of the Accused No.1 to 3, the copies of the documents required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C were furnished to them.

5.Accused No.1 to 3 was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. A Charge is framed for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(b) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, against the

Accused No.1 to 3, its contents were explained to them in Telugu language for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.7 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P11 and M.O.1 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused No.1 to 3 was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses were put to them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of both parties.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(b) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. Point :- The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the acts of

Accused No.1 to 3 are clearly established with the evidence of PW.1, PW.5 to PW.7 along with Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and MO.1. Therefore, the Accused No.1 to 3 are liable for conviction.

11. The learned defense counsels argued that the Accused No.1 to 3 are innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that PW.2 to

PW.4 evidence did not support the prosecution case. He further argued that no independent witness was examined before this court and the evidence of police people is not believable and the Accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

12.Perused the record. Out of 10 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined 07 list of witnesses. The learned A.P.P. given up the evidence of

LW.1/S.Babasha, LW.7/D.Ismail and LW.8/C.Haritha. PW.1 is Police Constable. P.W.2 to PW.4 are mediators. PW.5 is panchayatdar. PW.6 and PW.7 are Inspectors of police. Ex.P1 is Police proceedings. Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of

PW.2 to PW.4. Ex.P5 is panchanama. Ex.P6 is Original FIR. Ex.P7 is police proceedings, dated 20.05.2022 at 11.30 AM. Ex.P8 is Letter of Advise. Ex.P9 is

Analysis Report. Ex.P.10 is confiscation proceedings. Ex.P11 is is Destruction panchanama. M.O.1 is one sample bottle of illicit liquor.

13. This is the case U/Sec.7(b) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, the prosecution has to establish that the Accused No.1 to 3 was selling without any valid license and

PW.6 seized the alleged I.D. Arrack from the possession of Accused.

14.The evidence of PW.1/V.Kranthi Kumar, police constable is that on 08.05.2022 at about 11.00 AM, while he was present at Police Station, PW.6 received 4 credible information about illegal sale of ID Arrack at M.P.P. School, Gopayapalli village. He along with L.W.1 and PW.6 proceeded to M.P.P. School, Gopayapalli village and reached at about 11.30 AM. They noticed A1 and A2 at M.P.P.School, among them the accused i.e., A.1 Ravindra Naik possessed one plastic can. On noticing them, both the accused skulk away. He along with L.W.1 and PW.6 chased them and grabbed them at a distance of 20 meters. On interrogation by PW.6, the accused A.1 revealed that he obtained 5 liters can of ID Arrack from O.G.Thanda by preparing himself for the reason that there was a function in the house of A.2. PW.6 drawn 180

ML sample for chemical analysis and obtained the signatures of Accused A.1 and A.2 in sample slips. After informing the grounds of arrest to A.1 and A.2, PW.6 arrested them under cover of Police Proceedings in which he put his signature. Ex.P.1 is the

Police Proceedings. Later, they returned to police station along with accused and ID

Arrack.

15. PW.2 to PW.4 who are said to be mediators did not support the version of the prosecution. Hence, their evidence has no significance.

16.The evidence of PW.5/D.Mabu Shareef, who is said to be panchayatdar, deposed at about one year back, in order to attend a panchayat in the police station, he along with his brother L.W.7/D.Ismail went to Rajupalem Police Station during noon hours. At that time, Enforcement Authorities of Kadapa came to Rajupalem Police

Station and brought a 5 liters of white plastic can of illicit liquor and destroyed the same in their presence. At that time, PW.7/M.Raja Gopal, S.I. of Police, Rajupalem

P.S. was also present. PW.7 prepared panchanama to that effect and he signed on it.

Ex.P.5 is the said panchanama.

17.The evidence of PW.6/H.Krishnam Raju Naik, who is said to be

Investigation Officer, is that in the same lines as that of PW.1. He further deposed that he registered a case in Crime No.47/2022 under section 7(b)r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Amendment Act 2020, and submitted all the copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned officials. Ex.P.6 is the original F.I.R. submitted to this Honourable Court. Later he produced A.1 and A.2 before this Honourable Court for sending them to judicial custody. On 09.05.2022, he again visited the scene of offence and secure the presence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, examined them and recorded their statements.

P.Ws 2 to 4 stated before him as in Ex.P.2 to P.4 respectively. On 20.05.2022, on credible information as to the movements of A.3 in this case, he started at about 11.00

AM from his police station along with his staff members P.W.1 and PC 2875 and reached to Chagalamarry Bus Stand at about 11.30 AM. There on seeing police 5 officials, A.3 tried to skulk away and with the active support of his staff members, he caught hold him. On his enquiry, he revealed his identity particulars as A.3 in this case. Witness identified A.3 in the open Court Hall. Then he arrested him and he confessed that out of acquaintance with A.1, he used to supply Black Jaggery to A.1 for the purpose of preparation of illicit liquor. Out of his confession, he prepared a police proceedings for arrest and confession of A.3. Ex.P.7 is the police proceedings prepared by him on 20.05.2022 at 11.30 AM. Later, he produced A.3 before this

Honourable Court on the same day for the purpose of sending him to judicial custody.

On 06.06.2022, he sent M.O.1 to R.F.S.L. for chemical analysis through letter of advice. Ex.P.8 is the Letter of advice. Further investigation was took up by his successor PW.7/M.Raja Gopal, the then Sub Inspector of Police.

18.The remaining evidence available on record is the evidence of

PW.7/M.Raja Gopal, who said to be Inspector of Police, Rajupalem P.S.,is thaton 14.07.2022, P.W.6 received Analysis Report vide CE No.856/2022, dated 14.07.2022.

Ex.P.9 is the Analysis Report. On 25.10.2022, he received Confiscation proceedings pertaining to remaining seized liquor bottles vide RC No.255/Confiscation/DCRB/SEB-

KDP/2022, dated 25.10.2022. Ex.P.10 is the Confiscation Proceedings. On 24.01.2023, he destroyed the seized liquor bottles under cover of destruction panchanama. Ex.P.11 is the Destruction panchanama, dated 24.01.2023. After completiton of investigation, he laid charge sheet against accused.

19.As per the version of prosecution, PW.6 seized 5 liters can of ID Arrack from the possession of accused A1 and A2. PW.6 drawn 180 ML of ID liquor for sample affixed slips sealed, labeled, arrested the accused and seized the entire property under the cover of Ex.P.1. On the basis of the same P.W.6 registered a case in Cr.No.47/2022, U/sec.7 (b) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Ex.P.6 is FIR submitted to this Hon'ble Court. Ex.P.8 is the Letter of advise forwarding MO.1 to chemical analysis. On 14.07.2022, PW.7 received chemical analysis report. Later on 25.10.2022, PW.7 received confiscation proceedings. On 24.01.2023, PW.7 destroyed the remaining property under cover of panchanama.

20.The inclusion of independent mediators during search and seizure operations is crucial to ensure fairness, transparency, and credibility in the investigation process. When PW.2 to PW.4, the independent mediators, fail to support the prosecution's case, it raises serious doubts about the integrity of the search and seizure. Independent mediators act as neutral witnesses to corroborate that the search and seizure were conducted lawfully and without bias. Their testimony is 6 pivotal in verifying that the procedure followed by the police was in accordance with the law. When mediators either deny witnessing the events as described by the police or contradict the prosecution's claims, it undermines the credibility of the entire operation. It suggests the possibility of procedural lapses or fabrication of evidence.

21.When independent mediators do not support the prosecution, the case primarily relies on the testimony of the police personnel involved in the search and seizure. While police officers are competent witnesses, their testimony, especially in criminal cases, should be corroborated by independent evidence to avoid allegations of bias. If the independent witnesses contradict the police or are absent during critical stages of the procedure, the reliance solely on the statements of police officers becomes problematic.

22.Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) outlines the procedure to be followed during search and seizure to ensure fairness and legality.

Non-compliance with these provisions directly affects the admissibility of the evidence obtained. Searches must be conducted in the presence of two independent and respectable witnesses from the locality. The investigating officer’s admission during cross-examination that the procedure under Section 100 was not followed significantly weakens the prosecution's case. This admission demonstrates a failure to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards, rendering the search and seizure unlawful. Such lapses further erode the credibility of the prosecution’s case, as they create a possibility of tampering or planting evidence.

23.The failure of independent mediators (PW.2 to PW.4) to support the prosecution, coupled with the investigating officer’s admission of non-compliance with

Section 100 of CrPC, raises serious doubts about the legality and credibility of the search and seizure process. The lack of corroboration from neutral witnesses and procedural lapses compromises the prosecution’s case. In the above circumstances, this court is inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused No.1 to 3.

24.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Accused No.1 to 3. As such, the accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

25.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 (b) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act and accordingly, the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this 7 judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 in C.P.R.No.38/2023, dt.06.03.2023 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

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

Sd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik,

II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined:- For Prosecution:- PW.1: V. Kranthi Kumar. PW.2: M. Lakshmi Naik PW.3: B. Laxma Naik PW.4: M. Gopal Naik PW.5: D. Mabu Shareef PW.6: H. Krishnam Raju Naik PW.7: M. Raja Gopal For Defence: - None - Exhibits marked:- For Prosecution:- Ex.P1: Police Proceedings. Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P5: Panchanama. Ex.P6: Original FIR. Ex.P7: Police proceedings, dated 20.05.2022 at 11.30 AM. Ex.P8: Letter of Advise. Ex.P9: Analysis Report. Ex.P.10: Confiscation proceedings. Ex.P11: Destruction panchanama. For Defence: - NIL – Material Objects Mark: M.O.1: One sample bottle of illicit liquor. Id/- M.A.K.N.,

II A.J.F.C.M, PDTR.

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS 8

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.No.190 of 2023

Date of offence: 08.05.2022 Date of complaint: 08.05.2022 Date of RemandA1 and A2: 08.05.2022 Date of Remand A3: 20.05.2022 Date of releasedA1 and A2: 12.05.2022 Date of released A3: 24.05.2022 Date of commencement of trial: 27.03.2024 Date of close of trial : 22.04.2025 Date of Judgment: 24.04.2025

Between: State: Represented by the S.I of Police, Rajupalem P.S., in Cr.No.47/2022. ….Complainant. Vs.

1. Mude Ravindra Nayak, S/o Krishna Nayak, age 25 years, Occ:coolie, resident of OG Thanda, Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal District.

2. Ramanathula Saiman, S/o Sumithrudu, age 50 years, Occ:Coolie, Gopayapalli Village, Rajupalem Mandal, YSR District.

3. Mudiyam Sai Vamshi, S/o Venkateswarlu, Occ: Provision shop, Muthyalapadu Village, Chagalamarri Mandal, Nandyal District.

..Accused.

Offence: U/Sec.7 (b) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

Finding: The Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 (b) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act and accordingly, the accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 in C.P.R.No.38/2023, dt.06.03.2023 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- M. Anil Kumar Naik,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate, of I Class, Proddatur.

9