Ms M. Hemalatha

Fair1 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT : Ms. M. Hemalatha, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

Thursday, the 24th day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No. 507 of 2014

(Crime No. 241/2013 of PS, Karimnagar I Town )

Nameofthe:The State of Telangana through Inspector of complainantPolice, Karimnagar I Town police station.

Name of the accused:Katapalli Srikanth, S/o. Hanmanthu, 35 years Caste : Goud, N/o. Valigonda (V) of Nalgonda District now at H.No. 8-3-48/3, Bhagathnagar, Karimnagar.

Crime number, police:241 of 2013 stationKarimnagar I Town police station Offencepunishable:409 of the Indian Penal Code. under sections Prosecution:Sri A.Ranjith Kumar, Assistant Public conducted byProsecutor. Defence conducted by:Sri E.Raja Reddy, Advocate. Plea of the accused:Not Guilty. Finding of the Court:Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offences under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused is set at liberty and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after appeal time. As there is no property deposited before this Court in this case, as such, there is no order as to the property.

Sentence or Order:Nil * * *

Fair2 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014

This case came before me on 23.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A.Ranjith Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri E.Raja Reddy, Advocate for the accused; after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The charge-sheet is laid by the Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I

Town police station in crime no.241 of 2013 for the offences punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 08.07.2013 at 16:00 hours Patibandla Raghuram (complainant/LW1) has sent a complaint through registered post in which he stated that K.Srikanth i.e. accused who was incharge of Savings bank control organization,

Karimnagar Head post office has withdrawn the amounts fraudulently in his savings bank account bearing number 1277289, from SB account of his sister K.Sunitha bearing A/c. No.128001 and from Savings bank account of N.Venkanna and N.Lalitha (joint) bearing account No.128259; that accused took withdrawal amounts in his own account, on behalf of his sister and on behalf of his friend

Venkanna by presenting SB-7 forms i.e. withdrawal forms without actually having balances in their accounts by inflating the balance in the above said Savings bank accounts by making fake deposit entries and deleting withdrawals already taken in the ledger card in the system by using DESUPER user login and misappropriated

Fair3 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 government money. Accused did not produce the passbook at the counter of the post office while taking withdrawal amounts.

Accused being a postal employee, the counter clerk did not insist for production of passbook on good faith; that on account of fraudulent withdrawals taken by the accused, there is a loss of

Rs.14,20,271.50 and penal interest on the said amount to the government; that officials voluntarily credited an amount of

Rs.11,58,000/- to the government so far. Still the accused has to credit Rs.2,62,271.50 and penal interest on the above said amount.

3.Basing on the said report, V.Surender (LW7), Inspector of Police,

Karimnagar I Town police station registered a case in Crime No.241 of 2013 for the offences punishable under sections 409 of the Indian

Penal Code and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, Inspector of police examined and recorded the statements of Raghuram, Pallerla Sravan Kumar, Beesu Sunitha and

Nalumachu Venkanna (LWs 1 to 4) and proceeded to the scene of offence, observed the scene and incorporated the same in Crime

Details Form in the presence of mediators.

4.Subsequently, G.Narender (LW8)/Inspector of Police took up further investigation. On 16.11.2013 accused surrendered before Inspector of Police (LW8) and on interrogation accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and further furnished sufficient sureties for his release on bail as he obtained anticipatory bail from

Fair4 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar vide Crl.M.P.

No. 1059/2013. Inspector of Police collected documents from LW1.

Subsequently, T.Karnakar Rao/LW9/Inspector of Police took up further investigation. After completion of investigation, Inspector of

Police (LW9) filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.

5.This case was taken on file by I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Karimnagar for the offences punishable U/Sec.409 of IPC against the accused. Later, this case was transferred to this Court at the stage of cross examination of PW1, as per the orders of Hon’ble

Principal District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar vide proceedings

in dis. no.3333/Tr. Of cases/2019/ STATS/DCK, dated 03.05.2019.

6.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to him, as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

7.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Heard and charges framed for the offence punishable under section 409 of the

Indian Penal Code against accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

8.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P56 were marked. Police filed report along with death certificate of Nalumachu Venkanna (LW4). Therefore, this Court closed the evidence of Venkanna (LW4). Learned APP has

Fair5 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 given up the evidence of Thota Sathyanarayana (LW6).

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him from prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel for the accused.

11.Now the points for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 409 of the Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT

12.The prosecution alleges that the accused, a counter clerk at

Karimnagar Head Post Office, fraudulently withdrew money from his own savings bank account (No. 128001), his sister Smt. K. Sunitha's account (also No. 128001, though this seems to be an error as both accounts have the same number), and his friend Sri N. Venkanna's joint account with Smt. N. Lalitha (No. 128259). He allegedly used fake deposit entries, deleted withdrawal records in the system using

DESUPER user login, and presented SB-7 forms without actual balances in the accounts. By not producing passbooks and exploiting his position, he misappropriated Rs.14,20,271.50, causing loss to the government. Although he repaid Rs.11,58,000/-, a

Fair6 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 balance of Rs.2,62,271.50 remains outstanding.

13.To prove the accused's guilt, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of seven witnesses (PW1 to PW7). PW1, the complainant, lodged the police report. PW2, a counter clerk, provided relevant testimony. PW3 served as a panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama. PW4, a postal employee and the accused's sister, also testified. PW5 and PW6 were the investigation officers responsible for registering the case and filing the charge sheet.

14.Since, PW-4 did not support the case of the prosecution, though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined them, but, during their cross examination, nothing was elicited in support of the case of the prosecution.

15.On careful scrutiny of evidence of prosecution witnesses and on perusal of the report lodged by PW1 under Ex. P1, basing on which, criminal law was set into motion, wherein, PW1 stated that the accused worked as In-charge Saving Bank Control Organization,

Karimnagar Head Post office, Karimnagar and also joint account holder of saving bank account bearing Number 127289 along with his wife. Postal department utilized the Sanchaya post software and same was used in counter for facilitate savings bank transactions and the accused was custodian and auditor of the transactions, accused used to login to the Sanchaya post software with the help

Fair7 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 of DESUPER user login ID and alter the transactions with the help of the same and by taking advantage of the same accused on 27.01.2012 altered in his saving bank account by adding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- against existing balance of Rs.58,525/-, on 08.02.2012 added one more lakh in his saving bank account.

16.Later, on 12.03.2012 accused withdrawn an amount of Rs.1 lakh and on 14.03.2012 accused withdrawn an amount of Rs.1 lakh and he deleted the withdrawal entry dated 12.03.2012 and taking advantage of the same he has once again withdrawn an amount of

Rs.1 lakh from his account bearing number 127289 on 21.04.2012, prior to this he altered his closing balance so as to appear the same balance in his account and managed withdrawals of Rs.10,000/- on 13.07.2009, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 23.07.2009 and an amount Rs.60,000/- on 25.11.2009 and an amount of Rs.10,000/ on 09.12.2009 result of these withdrawals his actual balance in the account on 03.03.2010 is minus (-) Rs.91,271.50-00.

17.Account No.128001 in the name of his sister/LW B. Sunitha is being managed by the accused himself. The account was opened on 08.06.2006 with a balance of Rs.50/ but the accused altered the balance as Rs.8,050/- also the accused has deleted a withdrawal transaction of Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.07.2007, the accused also deleted withdrawal transactions on 20.04.2009 for an amount of

Rs.2,000/- on 22.08.2009 for an amount of Rs.9,000/- on 25.08.2009

Fair8 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 for an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 25.09.2009 for an amount of

Rs.15,000/-, an amount of Rs.47,000/- on 03.10.2008 and on 05.01.2010 an amount of Rs.21,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on 18.01.2010 and Rs.24,000/- on 03.02.2009. These amounts has been withdrawn in installments by the accused.

18.The withdrawal forms of account no. 128001 were signed by Lw-3 but they were presented in person by the accused and the same were honored as accused is postal employee. Later, he inserted fake deposits of Rs.45,000/- on 27.12.2011, Rs.70,000/- on 9.1.2012 and

Rs.45,000/-on 27.1.2012 and Rs.45,000/- on 9.2.2012 in the account

No. 128001 taking advantage of the DESUPER login credentials. Out of such inflated amounts he has withdrawn an amount of Rs.1 lakh on 25.02.2012 an amount of Rs.45,000/-on 24.04.2012 an amount of Rs.63,000/- on 27.04.2012. He has deleted these withdrawal entries and again taken a withdrawal of Rs.1,90,000/- on 02.08.2012.

19.Account No. 128259 is in the name of Lw-4/Sri N. Venkanna and Lw- 4 is friend of accused, Lw-4 was introduced by the accused at the time of opening the account. The accused has inserted a fake deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs with date of deposit as 18.11.2011. Later an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was withdrawn on 28.03.2012 and an amount of Rs.1 lakh was withdrawn on 19.5.2012 out of such fake deposits.

Later he has deleted both the withdrawal entries and taken a

Fair9 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 withdrawal of Rs.2,05,000/ on 16.08.2012. The withdrawal forms were signed by Sri. N. Venkanna/LW-4, but presented and withdrawn by accused and same were honored as accused is our employee.

20.The accused in total misappropriated and withdrawn in excess an amount of Rs.3,91,271.50-00 from account No. 127289 (Accused account) and an amount of Rs. 6,24,000/- from account no. 128001 (Lw-3 account) and Rs.4,05,000/- from account No. 128259 (Lw-4 account). Thus, the total misappropriated and withdrawn amount by the accused from the savings bank accounts of our department is

Rs.14,20,271.50-00. In the year, 2012, on credible information a

Squad from Regional office, Hyderabad has investigated into the above said irregularities and initially found some misappropriation and later directed Superintendent of Post Offices, Karimnagar

Division to make further investigations and PW1 was appointed as investigation officer and as per his investigation he found irregularities and he gave complaint to police.

21.During cross-examination, PW1 testified that he worked as Inspector of Posts in Karimnagar North Sub-Division from August 30, 2012, to

August 18, 2013. He explained the postal department's savings bank account procedures, stating that Counter Assistants receive and pay out amounts, and Deputy Postmasters (DPMs) verify signatures and balances on withdrawal forms. According to standard procedure, account holders present passbooks and withdrawal

Fair10 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 forms, and Counter Assistants stamp passbooks, note balances, and obtain account holder signatures on withdrawal forms after payment.

22.PW1 testified that transactions involving withdrawals are handled by

Counter Assistants and Deputy Postmasters (DPMs). During the alleged offence, P. Shravan Kumar and N. Venu were Counter

Assistants, while K. Shyam Sunder Reddy and K. Ravinder Reddy were DPMs. PW1 confirmed that the postal department has internal auditing and inspection processes, including annual audits by the

Director of Accounts and internal checks. Notably, these audits did not reveal discrepancies during 2007-2012.

23.PW1 emphasized that the accused was neither a Counter Assistant nor a DPM during this period and that the primary responsibility for discrepancies lies with these roles. However, the Counter Assistants and DPMs involved were not charged in the present case. Instead,

K. Ravinder Reddy and K. Shyam Sunder Reddy, who worked as

DPMs, paid back the misappropriated amount, and departmental proceedings were initiated against them and the Counter Assistants.

PW1 also stated that the accused was transferred to Siddipet Post

Office from June 2008 to March 2011 and was not connected to subsequent transactions. The entire misappropriated amount was recovered, and no prior government permission was obtained for prosecution. Receipts for deposits made to the accounts of N.

Fair11 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014

Venkanna and K. Sunitha were credited to unclassified receipts of the department.

24.PW2, Pallera Sravan Kumar, a former Postal Assistant at Head Post

Office, Karimnagar, testified that he worked there from April 2010 to

September 2012. During this period, the accused, who was in charge of the Savings Bank Control Organization (SBCO), presented withdrawal forms without passbooks for his own account, his sister

Sunitha's account, and Venkanna's account. PW2 verified the account particulars and signatures through the office system and made payments to the accused on multiple occasions. He later learned that the accused had withdrawn a total of Rs.14,00,000/- in six transactions from Sunitha's and Venkanna's accounts without their presence. Following a departmental enquiry that found the accused guilty of misappropriation, PW2 faced suspension for 13 months but was reinstated after the enquiry concluded.

25.During cross-examination, PW2 testified that his duties include making payments to customers, depositing payments, and verifying signatures. He stated that he typically verifies signatures and sends withdrawal forms to the Deputy Postmaster (DPM) for approval

before making payments. PW2 admitted that he would refuse

payment if there were signature discrepancies. Notably, he also stated that he made payments to Sunitha and Venkanna after verifying their signatures, despite Venkanna not being present at

Fair12 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 the post office and not producing his passbook.

26.PW3 is the panch witness for alleged CDF panchanama deposed that he has been working as an employee in postal department since 1997 and he knew LW6. On 09.07.2013 police came to post office and conducted CDF panchanama at the Head post office,

Tower circle, Karimnagar On confronting, PW3 identified his signature on Ex.P54/CDF. The evidence of PW3 is unshaken in cross examination by the defence counsel.

27.PW5 is the investigating officer deposed about registration of crime by him after receiving complaint from PW1 through registered post, examination of witnesses and preparation of crime detail form and handing over of CD file to LW8/G.Narender/Inspector of Police.

28.PW6 is another investigating officer deposed that on 16.11.2013 he took up the CD file for further investigation from PW5 and on the same the accused surrendered before him as per the orders of

Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar vide Crl.M.P. No.

1059/2013 and released him on bail after furnishing sufficient sureties. PW6 further deposed that he has collected the documents from PW1 and handed over of CD file to LW9/T.Karunakar/Inspector of Police.

29.PW7 is another investigating officer deposed that on he received CD file from PW6 for further investigation and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence

Fair13 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 punishable under section 409 of IPC.

30.Before deciding the present case, it is imperative to refer to section 409 IPC which reads that "Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”. Section 409 IPC lays down the offence pertaining to criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent.

31.It is further important to define the term Criminal Breach of Trust which is defined as under Section 405 IPC and reads as under that "Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, PS. J.P. Kalan U/Sec.409 of IPC State Vs.

Surender Singh which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".

32.Thus, for an offence under section 409 IPC, it must be proved that

Fair14 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 the person entrusted with the property, or any dominion over property in his capacity as a public servant committed criminal breach of trust in respect of such property as defined in section 405 of IPC. Therefore, the prosecution, in the first instance, must show that the entrustment of property or dominion over property "in any manner whatsoever" was secured by the accused "in his capacity as a public servant, agent etc.

33.Upon reviewing PW1's testimony, it appears that the alleged misappropriated amount was recovered from K. Ravinder Reddy and

K. Shyam Sunder Reddy, who worked as Deputy Postmasters (DPMs). Departmental proceedings were initiated against N. Venu and P. Sravan Kumar, who served as Counter Assistants, as well as against the aforementioned DPMs. Notably, the accused did not hold either of these roles. Further examination of the charge sheet reveals that P. Sravan Kumar, one of the Counter Assistants involved, was listed as a witness (LW2) and later testified as PW2.

Additionally, K. Sunitha @ Beesu Sunitha (LW3, examined as PW4)

turned hostile, and N. Venkanna was listed as LW4.

34.Upon further review of the record, it appears that the prosecution did not file prior sanction to prosecute the accused. The only mention of prior sanction is a statement by PW1 during cross- examination, claiming that they obtained sanction from the concerned authorities, but no documentary evidence supporting this

Fair15 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 claim was presented.

35.According to PW1's testimony, the alleged misappropriated amount was recovered from others, and a departmental enquiry was conducted against P. Shravan Kumar, resulting in his suspension for 13 months. Notably, despite this, P. Shravan Kumar (examined as

PW2) was made a witness in the present case, rather than being treated as an accused.

36.Under Section 197 of the CrPC, prior sanction is required to prosecute a public servant for acts done in discharge of official duties, protecting them from malicious or frivolous prosecutions. In the present case, it appears that no prior sanction was obtained to prosecute the accused, a crucial procedural requirement that may impact the validity of the prosecution.

37.Based on the discussion above, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence on record is insufficient to establish criminal liability against the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserves to be acquitted.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

38.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The accused is set at liberty and the bail bonds of accused

Fair16 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014 shall stand canceled after appeal time. As there is no property deposited before this Court in this case, as such, there is no order as to the property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, partly typed by me on my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2025.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW.1: Patibandla Raghuram.-None- PW.2: Pallerla Sravan Kumar. PW.3: Miryala Raji Reddy. PW.4: Beesu Sunitha @ K.Sunitha. PW.5: V.Surender, Inspector of Police. PW.6: G.Narender, Inspector of Police. PW.7: T.Karnakar Rao, Inspector of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 : Complaint.-Nil- Ex.P2 : Two Passbooks with Account No.127289. Ex.P3 : Passbook with Account No.128001. Ex.P4 : Passbook with Account No.128259. Ex.P5 : Ledger sheet of account No.127289 containing 4 papers. Ex.P6 : Ledger sheet of account no.128001 containing 1 paper. Ex.P7 : Ledger sheet of account No.128259 containing 1 paper. Ex.P8 to P10 are withdrawal forms pertaining to account No.127289. Ex.P11 to P14 are the withdrawal forms pertaining to account No.128001. Ex.P15 to P17 are the withdrawal forms pertaining to account No.128259. Ex.P18 : Backup of Sanchaya post software in CD form. Ex.P19 : Covering letter addressed to Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I Town PS, under which original head post ofifce summary sheets of Karimnagar HO were submitted. Ex.P20 : HO summary dated 25.02.2012 containing 3 papers. Ex.P21 : SB List of transactions, dated 25.02.2012, containing 3 papers.

Fair17 of 17CC no. 507 of 2014

Ex.P22 : HO summary dated 12.03.2012 containing 3 papers. Ex.P23 : SB List of transactions, dated 12.03.2012, containing 2 papers. Ex.P24 : HO summary dated 14.03.2012 containing 3 papers. Ex.P25 : SB List of transactions, dated 14.03.2012, containing 2 papers. Ex.P26 : HO summary dated 28.03.2012 containing 3 papers. Ex.P27 : SB List of transactions, dated 28.03.2012, containing 2 papers. Ex.P28 : HO summary dated 21.04.2012 containing 3 papers. Ex.P29 : SB List of transactions, dated 21.04.2012, containing 2 papers. Ex.P30 : HO summary dated 24.04.2012 containing 3 papers. Ex.P31 : SB List of transactions, dated 24.04.2012, containing 2 papers. Ex.P32 : HO summary dated 24.04.2012 containing 3 papers. Ex.P33 : SB List of transactions, dated 25.04.2012, containing 2 papers. Ex.P34 : HO summary dated 19.05.2012 containing 2 papers. Ex.P35 : SB List of transactions, dated 19.05.2012, containing 2 papers. Ex.P36 : HO summary dated 02.08.2012 containing 3 papers. Ex.P37 : SB List of transactions, dated 02.08.2012, containing 2 papers. Ex.P38 : HO summary dated 16.08.2012 containing 4 papers. Ex.P39 : SB List of transactions, dated 16.08.2012, containing 3 papers. Ex.P40 : HO summary dated 27.12.2010 containing 4 papers. Ex.P41 : SB List of transactions, dated 27.12.2010, containing 2 papers. Ex.P42 : HO summary dated 18.07.2011 containing 4 papers. Ex.P43 : SB List of transactions, dated 18.07.2011, containing 3 papers. Ex.P44 : HO summary dated 18.11.2011 containing 3 papers. Ex.P45 : SB List of transactions, dated 18.11.2011, containing 2 papers. Ex.P46 : HO summary dated 25.12.2011 containing 3 papers. Ex.P47 : SB List of transactions, dated 27.12.2011, containing 2 papers. Ex.P48 : HO summary dated 09.01.2012 containing 3 papers. Ex.P49 : SB List of transactions, dated 09.01.2012, containing 3 papers. Ex.P50 : HO summary dated 25.01.2012 containing 3 papers. Ex.P51 : SB List of transactions, dated 27.01.2012, containing 3 papers. Ex.P52 : HO summary dated 09.02.2012 containing 3 papers. Ex.P53 : SB List of transactions, dated 09.02.2012, containing 2 papers. Ex.P54 : CDF panchanama by PW3. Ex.P55 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4. Ex.P56 : First Information Report (FIR) by PW5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

Fair1 of 9CC no. 1118 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT : Ms. M. Hemalatha, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

Thursday, the 17th day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No. 1118 of 2017

(Crime No. 281 /201 7 of PS, Karimnagar I Town)

Name of the complainant:The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I Town police station.

Name of the accused:A1 – Raikanti Srinivas, S/o. Komuraiah, 47 years, Rajaka, Occ : Telangana State Agriculture Labour Union District president, R/o. Annaram Village of Manakondur Mandal. A2 – Adla Ramesh, S/o. Mondiaah, 31 years, SC-Madiga, Occ : CITU District Secretary, R/o. H.No. 8-7-299/A, Kothirampur, Karimnagar. A3 - Mutyala Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, 55 years, Reddy, Occ : Telangana Farmers Union District Vice president, R/o. Chenjerla V/o. Manakondur Mandal. A4 - Bandari Shekar, S/o. Kankaiah, 29 years, SC-Nethakani, Occ : CITU District General Secretary,R/o.H.No.8-7-299/A, Kothirampur, Karimnagar. A5 - Uppunuti Srinivas, S/o. Rajamallu, 47 years, Kummari, CITU District Vice president, R/o. Theegalaguttapalli V/o. Karimnagar Mandal.

Crime number, police:281 of 2017 stationKarimnagar I Town police station Offence punishable under:186 and 188 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. sections

Prosecution conducted by:Sri A.Ranjith Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor. Defence conducted by:Sri G.Bheema Saheb, Advocate. Plea of the accused:Not Guilty.

Fair2 of 9CC no. 1118 of 2017

Finding of the Court:Accused no.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 186 and 188 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused no.1 to 5 are set at liberty and the bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 5 shall stand canceled after appeal time. As there is no property deposited in this case, therefore, there is no order as to the property.

Sentence or Order:Nil * * *

This case came before me on 10.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A.Ranjith Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri G.Bheema Saheb, Advocate for the accused no.1 to 5; after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The charge-sheet is laid by the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I

Town police station against the accused no.1 to 5 in crime no.281 of 2017 for the offences punishable under sections 186 and 188 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.06.2017 at 12:00 hours at Kaman Chowrastha, Karimnagar the accused No.1 to 5 who are the activists of CPM party were tried to protest Dharna and

Rastharoko on the road and tried to burn the effigy of Primie

Minister of India Narendra Modi and made inconvenience to the public. When, SI of Police (de facto complaianant/LW1) along with his police men went there the accused obstructed them. Therefore,

Fair3 of 9CC no. 1118 of 2017

B.Vamshikrishna (LW1)/SI of Police has requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of the complaint from the complainant/LW1, the

LW.8/M.Surender, Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I Town police station has registered the case in crime No.281 of 2017 for the offences punishable under sections 186 and 188 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW8/SI of Police examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and later proceeded to the scene of offence, observed the scene and incorporated the same in Crime

Details Form in the presence of mediators. After completion of investigation, the SI of Police/LW8 has filed charge sheet against the accused nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under sections 186 and 188 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.This case was taken on file by I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Karimnagar for the offences punishable U/Sec.186 and 188 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused no.1 to 5. Later, this case was transferred to this Court at the stage of service of summons as per the orders of Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court,

Karimnagar vide proceedings in dis. no.3333/Tr. Of cases/2019/

STATS/DCK, dated 03.05.2019.

5.On appearance of the accused nos.1 to 5, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to them, as required under

Fair4 of 9CC no. 1118 of 2017 section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused nos.1 to 5 were examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C.

by explaining the substance of the accusations for the offences punishable under sections 186 and 188 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, for which the accused nos.1 to 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. Learned APP has given up the evidence of G.Sudhakar

Reddy and N.Sudhakar (LWs 2 and 3). Therefore, the evidence of

LWs 2 and 3 is closed.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 5 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against them from prosecution witnesses. Accused No.1 to 5 denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel for the accused no.1 to 5.

10.Now the points for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused no.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under sections 186 and 188 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

Fair5 of 9CC no. 1118 of 2017

POINT

11.The case of the prosecution is that on 16.06.2017 at 12:00 hours at

Kaman Chowrastha, Karimnagar the accused no.1 to 5 in furtherance of common intention have tried to protest Dharna and

Rastharoko on the road and tried to burn the effigy of Prime Minister of India Narendera Modi.

12.Police after investigation has filed charge sheet citing eight (8) witnesses. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses as PWs. 1 to 6 and got marked marked Exs.P1 to P5.

PW1 is the de facto complainant, PWs 2 and 4 are the panch witness for alleged CDF panchanama, PW3 and 6 are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident and PW5 is the investigating officer.

13.PW1 is the complainant deposed that on 16.06.2017 at about 12:00 afternoon, he received a credible information that some unknown persons belongs to CPM party were tried to protest Dharna and

Rastharoko at Kaman area, Karimnagar and they also trying to burn effigy of Prime Minister Narendera Modi and causing inconvenience to general public. Then, PW1 along with LWs 2 to 5 rushed to the scene of offence and requested them to vacate the said place, but they did not listen and continued the protest and obstructed their duties. PW1 came to know the names of protesters as one Srinivas,

Shekar, Ramesh, Srinivas Reddy and M.Srinivas, then PW1 along with his staff brought accused No.1 to 5 to I Town police station and

Fair6 of 9CC no. 1118 of 2017 lodged Ex.P1 complaint against them.

14.In cross examination, PW1 testified that he did seize effigy of Prime

Minister Narendera Modi and he did not file any photographs regarding the alleged incident. PW1 further stated that he did not seize any pamplants, banners of CPM party.

15.PWs 2 and 4 are the panch witnesses for alleged CDF panchanama deposed that they did not know anything about this case and they did not act as panch witness at any time. On confronting signatures on CDF, PWs 2 and 4 identified their signatures i.e. Ex.P2 and 3 but pleads ignorance that how such signatures are put on CDF without their knowledge.

16.As PWs 2 and 4 did not support the case of prosecution, the learned

APP cross examined them. But in cross examination, nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution case. PWs 2 and 4 denied that on 16.06.2017 at about 13:45 hours at Kaman Circle, Karimnagar police conducted CDF panchanama and after knowing the contents of CDF, they affixed their signatures and now they are deposing false, for which PWs 2 and 4 denied the same.

17.PWs 3 and 6 who are Home Guards and cited as an eye witnesses to the alleged incident deposed that 16.06.2017 on receiving information about Dharna and Rastharoko, they assisted PW1 and rushed to the scene of offence situated at Kaman Area, and PW1 requested them to vacate the said place and not to cause any

Fair7 of 9CC no. 1118 of 2017 inconvenience to the public, but they did not listen and continued the protest and obstructed the duties of them. PW1 along with his men brought the accused No.1 to 5 to I Town police station and lodged complaint against them.

18.PW5 is the investigating officer who deposed that on 16.06.2017 at about 12:00 hours, he received a complaint from PW1 accordingly, he registered a case in crime no.281/2017 for the offences punishable U/Sec.188 and 186 r/w 34 of IPC and conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P5 in presence of PWs 2 and 3 and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 5. But, PWs 2 and 3 who were cited as panch witnesses for alleged CDF panchamama did not support the case of prosecution. In cross examination, PW5 stated that he did not seize any party flag and any other articles from the scene of offence.

19.On perusal of evidence of prosecution, the case of prosecution is that the accused persons caused inconvenience to the general public by conducting Dharna, but the prosecution has not cited any independent witness in this case, even though the alleged scene of offence is on the main road in Karimnagar city. The evidence of investigating officer and police official witnesses will be useful and relevant for consideration, where there is other prosecution evidence of eye witnesses or panch witnesses. As stated above, panch witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution.

Fair8 of 9CC no. 1118 of 2017

20.Further, the prosecution did not choose to file any photographs of scene of offence to establish the offence against the accused persons that they were holding Dharna at Kaman area, Karimnagar by showing placards and effigy against the Prime Minister and others. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused persons that they created public nuisance by holding Dharna and Rastharoko on 16.06.2017 at Kaman area,

Karimnagar. As such, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused no.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubts for the alleged offence and as such they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

21.In the result, the accused no.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 186 and 188 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The accused no.1 to 5 are set at liberty and their bail bonds shall stand canceled after appeal time. As there is no property deposited in this case, therefore, there is no order as to the property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2025.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

Fair9 of 9CC no. 1118 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW.1 : B.Vamshikrishna.-None- PW.2 : Bandari Ravi. PW.3 : Sothuku Ravinder. PW.4 : Bolloju Devendra Chary. PW.5 : M.Surender, SI of Police. PW.6 : E.Thirupathi.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 : Complaint by PW.1. – N I L – Ex.P2 : Signature of PW2 on CDF. Ex.P3 : Signature of PW4 on CDF. Ex.P4 : First Information Report (FIR) by PW5. Ex.P5 : Crime Details Form (CDF) by PW5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

– N I L –

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

Fair1 of 9CC no. 690 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT : Ms. M. Hemalatha, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

Thursday, the 17th day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.690 of 2017

(Crime No. 123 /2017 of PS, Karimnagar I Town )

Name of the complainant:The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I Town police station. Name of the accused:Ahmed Mirza, S/o. Asad Baig, 22 years, Muslim, R/o. Gandhinagar, Chinthakunta V/o. Karimnagar Mandal and District. Crime number, police:123 of 2017 stationKarimnagar I Town Police station Offence punishable under:354-A of the Indian Penal Code. sections Prosecution conducted by:Sri A.Ranjith Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor. Defence conducted by:Sri MD. Akeel Sahed, Advocate. Plea of the accused:Not guilty Finding of the Court:Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall stand canceled after appeal time. As there is no property deposited in this case, therefore, there is no order as to the property. Sentence or Order:Nil.

* * *

Fair2 of 9CC no. 690 of 2017

This case came before me on 10.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A.Ranjith Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri Akeel Sahed, Advocate for the accused; after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The charge-sheet is laid by the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I

Town police station in crime no.123 of 2017 for the offence punishable under section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 15.03.2017 at 13:00 hours de facto complainant by name Fathima Sulthana (LW1) along with Theerthala Srinivas (LW2) and Thatikonda Vijayamani (LW3) who are police personal and she team members, on the instructions of their Superior officers went to Ujwala Park on the information that some persons were teasing and sexually harassing the girls and women in Ujwala Park. The accused by name Ahmed

Mirza went to Fathima Sulthana (LW1) misbehaved indecently with her and asked her to participate in sexual acts with him and dragged LW1 to nearby bushes. Immediately, with the help of LW2 who is Police Constable, LW1 apprehended the accused. Therefore,

Fathima Sulthana/LW1 has requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the report from Fathima Sulthana/LW1, B.Vamshikrishna (LW7), Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I Town police station registered a case in crime No.123 of 2017 for the offences punishable under sections 354-A of the Indian Penal Code. During

Fair3 of 9CC no. 690 of 2017 the course of investigation, LW7/SI of Police examined and recorded the statements of LWs 1 to 4 and proceeded to the scene of offence, noted the details and incorporated the same in Crime Details Form (C.D.F.) in the presence of two panch witnesses namely Bandavaram

Prasad and Maduri Srinivas (LWs 5 and 6). SI of Police/LW7 affected the arrest of accused and sent him for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, SI of Police (LW7) filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4.This case was taken on file by I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Karimnagar for the offences punishable U/Sec.354-A of IPC against the accused. Later, this case was transferred to this Court at the stage of execution of examination of accused as per the orders of Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar vide proceedings in dis. no.3333/Tr. Of cases/2019/ STATS/DCK,

dated 03.05.2019.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to him, as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Heard and charges framed for the offence punishable under section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code against accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

Fair4 of 9CC no. 690 of 2017

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 on behalf of prosecution. Police filed report stating that whereabouts of Bandavaram Prasad (LW5) and

Maduri Srinivas (LW6) is not known. Therefore, this Court closed the evidence of LW5 and LW6.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him from prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defense counsel for the accused.

10.Now the points for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 354-A of the Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT

11.It is the case of prosecution that accused misbehaved with PW1 and harassed her at Ujwala park on 15.03.2017 at 13:00 hours by dragging her to nearby bushes and insulted her for outraging modesty.

12.The police after investigation filed charge sheet citing seven (7) witnesses. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined five (5) witnesses as PWs 1 to 5 and got marked marked Exs.P1 to P6.

13.PW1 is the de facto complainant, PWs 2 and 4 are police personal

Fair5 of 9CC no. 690 of 2017 who apprehended the accused, PW3 is the circumstantial witness and PW5 is the investigating officer.

14.PW1/Fathima Sulthana deposed that she is working as an Home

Guard and on 15.03.2017 at 1:00 PM on the instructions of their

Superior officers, she along with police team went to Ujwala park in mufti and noticed that accused came to PW1 by saying that come with him and sexually abused her, tried to drag her to bushes by holding hands, meanwhile, PW1 called to PW2 and he rescued PW1 and apprehended the accused. PW1 further deposed she lodged

Ex.P1 complaint before the police and she identified the accused in

Open Court hall.

15.In cross examination, PW1 stated that she did not receive any written instructions to visit Ujwala park by her superiors. PW1 further admitted that she has mentioned in Ex.P1 that she along with LW2 were proceeding as together in Ujwala park, but where as

PW1 stated in her chief that she called to PW2 and then he came and rescued PW1. PW1 further stated that at the time of alleged incident there were 20 students and they witnessed the alleged incident but the prosecution has not cited any one of them as witness.

16.PW2 is Assistant Sub Inspector of Police deposed that on 15.03.2017 at about 1:00 PM on the instructions of their Superior officers, PW2 along with PW1, LW2 went to Ujwala park, Karimnagar in mufti and

Fair6 of 9CC no. 690 of 2017

PW1 noticed that accused sexually abused PW1 by saying that to come with him and hold her hand and tried to drag PW1 to bushes and on knowing the same on call through PW1, the LW2 came there and apprehended the accused. PW2 also identified the accused in open Court hall.

17.In cross examination, PW2 stated that on the oral instructions of higher officials, she went to Ujwala park.

18.PW3 who is a circumstantial witness to the alleged incident, deposed that he has been working as Booking clerk at Ujwala park,

Karimnagar since 15 years and he does not know PW1 to PW3 and he also does not know the accused. He does not know anuthing about the facts of this case and police never examined him and recorded his statement. In cross examination by the learned APP,

PW3 denied that on 15.03.2017 he stated to the police as in

Ex.P2/161 Cr.P.C. and now he is deposing false. Nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution case from the evidence of PW3.

19.PW4 is the Police Constable who rescued PW1 in the alleged incident deposed that on 15.03.2017 at about 1:00 PM he along with PW1 went to Ujwala park in mufti and PW4 noticed that accused came to PW1 by saying that come with her and sexually abused her and hold her hand tried to drag her to bushes.

Meanwhile, PW1 called PW2 to rescue her, on that PW2 went there and apprehended the accused. PW4 identified the accused in open

Fair7 of 9CC no. 690 of 2017

Court hall. In cross examination, PW4 stated that there were 40 to 50 persons gathered in Ujwala park at the time of alleged incident.

20.PW5 is the investigating officer deposed about registration of case on receiving Ex.P1/complaint from PW1, conducting of investigation and filing of charge sheet against the accused.

21.On perusal of evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4, PW1 stated that on the instructions of Superior officers, she along PW2 and PW4 went to

Ujwala Park but whereas PW4 did not state anything about PW2 accompanied them. Further, PW1 also did not state in her

Ex.P1/complaint that PW2 also accompanied them to Ujwala park and PW1 stated that she has not mentioned the name of LW3 in

Ex.P1. Therefore, presence of PW2 at the time of alleged incident is doubtful.

22.Further, on perusal of evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4, PW1 alone is roaming in Ujwala park and after calling PW1, the PW2 came to rescue PW1. Therefore, it is elicited that PW2 is not an eye witness to the alleged teasing of PW1.

23.Prosecution has failed to produce the panch witnesses for alleged

CDF panchanama. The CDF panchanama along with rough sketch was marked to through investigating officer as Ex.P5. According to

PWs 1, 2 and 4 the scene of offence is at Ujwala Park and further the prosecution has filed the entrance ticket and counter foil shows that the said entrance ticket pertains to Ujwala park. But whereas

Fair8 of 9CC no. 690 of 2017 on perusal of Ex.P5, the scene of offence is at Deer park and the rough sketch also showing the scene of offence is at Deer park. In her evidence, PW1, 2 and 5 admitted that the alleged incident occurred at Ujwala park. Therefore, the scene of offence is not proved.

24.From the evidence available on record, the prosecution neither satisfies the elements of offence with the testimonies of PWs 1 to 5 nor could establish the guilt of accused. In the circumstances of the case, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused for offence punishable under section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

25.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

for the said offence. The accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall stand canceled after appeal time. As there is no property deposited in this case, therefore, there is no order as to the property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2025.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

Fair9 of 9CC no. 690 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW.1 : Fathima Sulthana.-None- PW.2 : Thatikonda Vijayamani. PW.3 : Busarapu Balakrishna. PW.4 : Theerthala Srinivas. PW.5 : B.Vamshikrishna, SI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.P1: Complaint by PW1.- N I L - Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P3: First Information Report by PW5. Ex.P4 : Counterfoil slip by PW5. Ex.P5 : Crime Detail Form (CDF) by PW5. Ex.P6 : Entrance ticket by PW5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

– N I L –

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

Fair1 of 9CC no. 1739 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT : Ms. M. Hemalatha, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

Wednesday, the 23rd day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No. 1739 of 2023

(Crime No.350/2023 of PS, Karimnagar I town)

Nameofthe:The State of Telangana through Inspector of complainantPolice, Karimnagar Rural police station.

Name of the accused:A1 – Thipparthi Raji Reddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, aged 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Parlapalli village of Mahamutharam Mandal in Jayashankar Bhupalpalli District now at Krishnanagar, Near Balaji Sweet house, NTPC. A2 – Nagelli Venkat Reddy @ Venkat Ramana Reddy, S/o. Kankaiah @ Kanaka Reddy, aged 31 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o.H.No.1- 1901,Lambadipallevillageof Chigurumamidi Mandal. A3 – Enakonda Ashok Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, aged 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8-4-638, Ganeshnagar, Karimnagar. A4 – Bobbili @ Bobbala Kamalakar Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy, aged 42 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. H.No. 3-81, Ramchandrapur village of Koheda Mandal in Siddipet District now at H.No.9-1-63, Kaman to Housing board main road, Karimnagar. A5 – Udaram Ravinder, S/o. Kistaiah, aged 38 years, Occ: Marketing, R/o. H.No.4-98/4, Saraswathinagar,Theegalaguttapalli, Karimnagar. A6 – Marri Srinivas @ Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Mallareddy, aged 39 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. H.No.2-62/1, Rangapet village of Manakondur Mandal now at Kothirampur, Karimnagar.

Fair2 of 9CC no. 1739 of 2023

A7–NarsingojuRamakrishna,S/o. Jaganatham, aged 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.9-4-544, Sapthagiri colony, Karimnagar.

Crime number, police:350 of 2023 stationKarimnagar I town Police station Offencepunishable:3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act. under sections Prosecution conducted:Sri A.Ranjith Kumar, Assistant Public byProsecutor. Defence conducted by:Sri A.Dheeraj Reddy, Advocate Plea of the accused:Not Guilty. Finding of the Court: Accused nos.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused nos.1 to 5 shall stands canceled after appeal time.

i)The property deposited vide CP Sl. No.227/2023, i.e. net cash of Rs.1,02,460/- shall be confiscated to State.

ii)The property deposited vide CP Sl. No.227/2023 as item no.2 i.e. 52 playing cards shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time or appeal is over.

Sentence or Order:Nil * * *

This case came before me on 17.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A.Ranjith Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri A.Dheeraj Reddy, Advocate for the accused nos.1 to 7; after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

Fair3 of 9CC no. 1739 of 2023

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The charge-sheet is laid by the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I town police station in crime no.350 of 2023 against the accused nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of TS

Gaming Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 06-10-2023

LW5/M.Swamy, Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I town police station received a credible information that gaming is going in a room No.401, MSR Lodge behind Konda Satya Laxmi Gardens,

Kothirampur, Karimnagar by playing three cards by betting money.

Immediately SI of Police/LW5 obtained permission from Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar town and along with his staff, i.e., LW1/R.Sammaiah, HC.No.1874 and LW2/K.Vinod, PC.No.2734 raided the MSR lodge, Karimnagar and found seven (7) persons are playing three cards by betting money. SI of Police apprehended them and on interrogation, they disclosed their names as accused nos.1 to 7 and further confessed to have committed this offence. SI of Police (LW5) seized net cash of Rs.1,02,460/- and 52 playing cards under cover of confession and seizure panchanama before the panch witnesses LW3/Bosha Prashanth and LW4/Beeram Ravinder

Reddy.

3.Later, SI of Police (LW5) brought the accused nos.1 to 7 along with seized property to Karimnagar I town police station and lodged a

Fair4 of 9CC no. 1739 of 2023 report before LW5/Inspector of police. Basing on the report from

LW1, Inspector of Police (LW5) registered a case in Crime No.350 of 2023 for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of TS

Gaming Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, Sub Inspector of police examined and recorded the statements of LW1/R.Sammaiah, HC.No.1874 and LW2/K.Vinod,

PC.No.2734. Later, Sub Inspector of police/LW5 served notices under section 35 (3) (4) of BNSS to Accused No.1 to 7 with a direction to appear before the Hon’ble Court whenever they received summons for facing trial. After completion of investigation,

Inspector of police (LW5) filed charge sheet against accused nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of TS

Gaming Act.

4.This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act against accused nos.1 to 7.

5.On appearance of the accused nos.1 to 7, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to them, as required under section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

6.The accused nos.1 to 7 were examined under section 274 of BNSS, by explaining the substance of the accusations for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Fair5 of 9CC no. 1739 of 2023

7.During course of trial, in support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The learned APP had given up the evidence of LW2 and based on police report LW3 evidence closed.

8.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused nos.1 to 7 were examined under section 351 of BNSS, with reference to the incriminating evidence found against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same, reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel for the accused nos.1 to 7.

10.Now the points for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of

TS Gaming Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT

11.The accused nos.1 to 7 are charged for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act. The accusation against them is that, accused nos.1 to 7 are playing three (3) cards by betting money at MSR Lodge, Kothirampur, Karimnagar and when the Sub Inspector of police raided the said lodge, found that the accused nos.1 to 7 were playing three cards by betting money.

Then, SI of police along with LWs 1 and 2 apprehended the accused

Fair6 of 9CC no. 1739 of 2023 nos.1 to 7, seized 52 playing cards and net cash of Rs.1,02,460/- from the possession of accused nos.1 to 7.

12.As stated above, to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined eight (3) witnesses and exhibited five documents.

13.PW1 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who assisted SI of

Police/LW5, PWs 2 and LW3 are the panch witnesses for alleged

CDF, PWs 2 and LW3 are the panch witnesses for alleged confession and seizure panchanama. PW3 is the investigating officer who filed charge sheet against the accused nos.1 to 7.

14.Ex.P1 is the signature of PW2 on confession and recovery panchanama, Ex.P2 is the FIR. Ex.P3 is the Property form, Ex.P4 is the confession and recovery panchanama, Ex.P5 is the permission letter from ACP, Karimnagar in C.No.248/K-T/2023, dated 06.10.2023.

15.PWs.2 who is the panch witnesses for alleged confession and recovery panchanama did not support the case of prosecution stating that he did not know accused no.1 to 7 and on one day in the year 2023 he went to Karimnagar I town police station on his personal work, he signed on some written papers but police did not seize anything in his presence. As Pws 2 did not support the case of prosecution, learned APP cross examined them. In cross examination, nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

PWs 2 denied the suggestion that on 06-10-2023 at about 1805

Fair7 of 9CC no. 1739 of 2023 hours police conducted confession and recovery panchanama of A1 to A7 at Room No.401, MSR lodge, Kothirampur, Karimnagar and seized case property in their presence.

16.PW1 is the Assistant Sub inspector of Police who assisted SI of

Police/PW3 at the time of alleged riding deposed that on 06.10.2023 at 1730 hours, LW5/M.Swamy, SI of Police Karimnagar I town police station received a credible information that some persons were playing three (3) card by betting money in the room at MSR lodge,

Kothirampur, Karimnagar. After obtaining from permission from

ACP, he along with LW2/K.Vinod, PC.No.2734 assisted to LW5/SI of

Police and raided the said MSR lodge, Kothirampur, Karimnagar.

PW1 further deposed that they found some persons were playing three (3) card by betting money and immediately, LW5 seized the net cash of Rs.1,02,460/- from the possession of accused No.1 to 7 and also seized 52 playings under cover of panchanama in presence of mediators.

17.PW3 who is SI of Police deposed that on receiving credible information, he obtained permission from the ACP, Karimnagar Town vide Ex.P5, he along with his staff i.e. LW1/R.Sammaiah, HC.No.1874 and LW2/K.Vinod, PC.No.2734 raided the said MSR Lodge,

Kothirampur, Karimnagar and found accused nos.1 to 7 were playing three cards by betting money and they seized 52 playing cards and net cash of Rs.1,02,460/- under cover of confession and

Fair8 of 9CC no. 1739 of 2023 recovery panchanama in the presence of PW2 and LW3. Later, basing on the report lodged by PW3 the SI of Police/LW5 registered a case. PW3 lastly deposed that after completion of investigation,

PW3 filed charge-sheet against the accused No.1 to 7.

18.The evidence of investigating officer and police official witness will be useful and relevant for consideration, where there is other prosecution evidence of eye witnesses or panch witnesses. As stated above, none of the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. As per settled provisions of law, the sole testimony of the police official witness cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of independent corroborative evidence. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the accused nos.1 to 7 to the alleged offence. As such, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused nos.1 to 7 beyond all reasonable doubts for the alleged offence and as such they are entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, accused nos.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences under section 278 (1) BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused nos.1 to 7 shall be stands canceled after lapse of appeal time or appeal is over.

i)The property deposited vide CP Sl. No.227/2023, i.e. net cash of

Rs.1,02,460/- shall be confiscated to State.

Fair9 of 9CC no. 1739 of 2023 ii)The property deposited vide CP Sl. No.227/2023 as item no.2 i.e.

52 playing cards shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time or appeal is over.

Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW.1 : R.Sammaiah, ASI of Police-NIL- PW.2 : B.Ravinder Reddy. PW.3 : M.Swamy, SI of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 :Signature of PW2 on confession cum recovery panchanama. Ex.P2 :First Information Report. Ex.P3 :Property Form. Ex.P4 :Confession and recovery panchanama. Ex.P5 :Permission letter from ACP, Karimnagar town vide C.No.248/K-T/2023, dated 06-10-2023.

FOR THE DEFENCE :

- N I L -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- N I L -

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar.

C.C. 415 of 20151 of 7Date : 30.12.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C, AT

KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: - Ms. M. HEMALATHA II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C, Karimnagar.

Friday, the 30th day of December, 2022.

C.C.No. 415 OF 2015

Between:- The State of Telangana, through The Sub-Inspector of police, Karimnagar -I Town P.S., Cr.No.72 of 2015. …Complainant.

And

Varukolu Swamy S/o Yellaiah, age: 22 years, caste : Kummari, occ: Welding work, R/o. Chenjerla village of Manakondur mandal. Now at Kothirampur, Karimnagar. …Accused.

***

This case is coming before me on 22.12.2022 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the state and Sri Varukolu Parshaiah, Counsel for the accused having been heard, having been perused the record, having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following: -

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Karimnagar – I Town has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 72 of 2015 for the offence

U/sec. 380 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution story is as follows:

On 17.02.2015 at 1900 hours the complainant/Beeram Abhinay came to police station and lodged a complaint before the police stating that he is resident of Kattarampur, Karimnagar, he is working in the

Hero Honda show room at Kothirampur, Karimnagar, the accused is his friend and he usually visit the house of complainant. On 15.02.2015 his grand mother underwent surgery in Bhoomreddy hospital, due to which his mother went to hospital and on the same day at 2.00 PM the accused came to his house and both of them saw the cricket match in the TV, while seeing the TV the accused moved his house and at 5.00 PM the

II AJMFC.,

KNR.

C.C. 415 of 20152 of 7Date : 30.12.2022 accused went away from his house, after his mother came to house and found that 1. gold chain, 2. gold ear Kammalu and 3. gold Kammalu total W/Rs.30,000/- which were kept in the Almirah were missed, for which his mother asked the complainant any person came to the house, for which the complainant replied that the accused came to the house, after watching TV he went away, then they searched the house, later complainant stated that the said gold ornaments have been stolen away by Swamy/accused.

3. Basing on the above complaint, LW10/U.Mallaiah, Head

Constable of P.S. Karimnagar- I Town registered a case in Cr.No.72 of 2015 U/sec.380 of IPC, and took up investigation. During the course of investigation the LW10 examined and recorded the statements of LWs1 and 2 and visited the scene of offence, observed the scene minutely and incorporated the same in crime details form and also draw a sketch map of scene of offence in the presence of LWs4 and 5. Later on 18.02.2015 the LW10 along with LWs8 and 9 went to Kothirampur near

Manuppuram Finance Limited, Karimnagar and apprehended the accused at 1200 hours, then he secured the presence of panchas i.e.,

LWs6 and 7 and interrogated the accused in their presence, on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed the offence and recovered the stolen property from the possession of accused under cover of confessional and recovery panchanama, thereafter LW10 brought the accused to police station at 1330 hours and produced before the Hon’ble

Court and remanded in this case. On 18.02.2015 LW10 served the notice U/sec.91 Cr.P.C. to LW3 and he examined and recorded the statement of LW3 and brought stolen gold chain to police station for deposit the same in the Hon’ble Court. Later LW11 took up the investigation, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

II AJMFC.,

KNR.

C.C. 415 of 20153 of 7Date : 30.12.2022

4.This court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec 380 of IPC against the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused copies of all documents that are relied upon by the prosecution side were furnished to him, as required

U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C., for the offence charged U/sec.380 IPC and alternatively 411 of IPC against the accused, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to establish the guilt of accused, the prosecution has got examined witnesses PWs1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and

MO.1 to 3 on its behalf. The other witnesses evidence was given up by the learned APP.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9. Heard the learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel

for the accused.

10. NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS:

‘‘Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 380 and alternatively 411 of Indian Penal Code.?

II AJMFC.,

KNR.

C.C. 415 of 20154 of 7Date : 30.12.2022

POINT :

11.As seen from the evidence of PW1/B. Abhinay, who is complainant and PW2/B. Sharadha, who is mother of complainant deposed that they do not know accused, during the year 2015 the mother-in-law of PW2 was admitted in hospital, due to accident, then they went to hospital by locking their house, on their return they found that their house lock was break open and on their search they found that the gold ornaments weighing 13 grams worth of Rs.30,000/- were missed. They suspected that, some unknown offenders committed theft of the same. Later PW1 lodged a complaint to the police under Ex.P1. They turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and nothing could be elicited in their cross examination.

12.As seen from the evidence of PW3/Nuguri Manohar, who is panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of accused deposed that during the year 2015 in the month of February the police requested him to enquire the person who is in their custody to know the ID particulars of the said person, on his enquiry he know from that person that he has committed theft of gold ornaments and he also stated that the same were pledge at Muthut/Manappuram finance private limited,

Kothirampur, Karimnagar and furnished the relevant receipts, later police conducted confession cum recovery panchanama in his presence and obtained his signature, accused standing in the court hall is the same person who confessed the offence in his presence.

13.In his cross examination he admitted that he does not know anything about the case, he put his signature on confession at the request of police in police station, and also admitted that no gold ornaments or gold chain was recovered from the accused in his presence, police did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. As could be

II AJMFC.,

KNR.

C.C. 415 of 20155 of 7Date : 30.12.2022 seen from the evidence of PW3 in chief and cross examinations there were contradictions about the conducting of confession cum recovery panchanama in his presence and also the accused confessed the offence in his presence. His evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution as there were contradictions in his chief and cross examinations.

14.As seen from the evidence of PWs4 and 5, who are panch witness for crime detail form categorically deposed in one voice that they do not know anything about the case and they did not act as panch witness at any time. They turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and nothing could be elicited in their cross examination.

15.As could be seen from the evidence of PW6, who is Asst. Manager in the Manappuram gold Finance at Kothirampur deposed that he does not know the facts of the case, police did not examine him and recorded his statement. He turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and nothing could be elicited in his cross examination.

16.As could be seen from the evidence of PW7, who is another panch witness for confession cum recovery panchanama deposed that he does not know accused, one day he went to police station on his personal work and he signed on some written papers, accused did not confessed the offence before him. He turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and nothing could be elicited in his cross examination.

17.As could be seen from the evidence of PW8, who is investigating officer deposed in chronological order i.e., inception of FIR till filing of charge sheet.

II AJMFC.,

KNR.

C.C. 415 of 20156 of 7Date : 30.12.2022

18.As seen from the testimony of PWs1 and 2, during the year 2015 they went to hospital by locking their house and after came from hospital they found that their house was broke open and also found gold ornaments W/Rs.30,000/- were missing. They suspected that, some unknown offenders committed theft of the same. Later PW1 gave Ex.P1 complaint. PWs-3 and 7, who are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama of accused not deposed that the accused confessed anything in their presence, they were silent with regard to the confessional panchanama they clearly stated that only police obtained their signatures on some written papers.

19.The case of prosecution rests only on the evidence of PW8 i.e., the

Investigating Officer. The evidence of PW8 is that on the complaint given by PW1, he registered a case and took up investigation. The evidence of

Investigating Officer will be useful and relevant for consideration, where there is other prosecution evidence supports the case of the prosecution.

As stated above, none of the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution, which creates doubt in the mind of this court.

20.Thus, upon considering the entire evidence on record, it is held that there is neither direct evidence to connect the accused to the alleged offence, nor there is any evidence to show that the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused under cover of confession and recovery panchanama as alleged by the prosecution. In the circumstances, for want of evidence, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which he is charged and as such, he is entitled for acquittal for the said offences.

II AJMFC.,

KNR.

C.C. 415 of 20157 of 7Date : 30.12.2022

21.In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offences under sections 380 IPC and alternatively 411 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offences under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time. The MO.1 to 3 which were already returned to its original owner, shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2022.

II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:-

PW-1: B. Abhinay --None— PW-2: B. Sharadha PW-3: N. Manohar PW-4: G. Kumara Swamy PW-5: M. Abhinay PW-6: G. Mahender PW-7: N. Srinivas PW-8: U. Mallaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P-1: Complaint Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P-3: Signature of PW.3 on Confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P-4: Signature of PW.4 on CDF Ex.P-5: Signature of PW.5 on CDF. Ex.P-6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6. Ex.P-7: Signature of PW.7 on Confession and recovery panchanama. Ex.P-8: Signature of LW11 on charge sheet. Ex.P-9: First Information Report. Ex.P10: Crime Detail Form. Ex.P11: Confession and recovery panchanama.

FOR THE DEFENCE:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1: Gold chain. MO-2: Ear Rings studded with green stones. MO-3: Ear Rings studded with white stones.

II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C,

KARIMNAGAR .

II AJMFC.,

KNR.