Smt.M.kalpana

1 of 5 CC No.254 of 2018 III M.M. R.R.DT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT.M. KALPANA,

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR, RR Dist.

DATED ON THIS 22 nd DAY OF MARCH, 2019

C.C. No. 254 of 2018

Between:-

State through P.S. Uppal......Complainant

A N D

1. Manga Harikrishna, S/o. M. Ananthaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.6-1, Bharath Nagar, Uppal.

2.Thota Ramchander, S/o. Laxmi Narsaiah, Aged 47 years, Occ: Tea Vendor, R/o. H.No.8-9, Bharath Nagar, Uppal.

3. Manga Janardhan, S/o. M. Ananthaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. H.No.6-1, Bharath Nagar, Uppal.

4. Gurge Jangaiah, S/o. Srishailam, Aged 45 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. H.No.8-136, Bharathnagar, Uppal.

5. Aritikayala Dasharath, S/o. A. Shankaraiah, Aged 47 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. 6-87, Bharathnagar, Uppal.

.....Accused Nos.1 to 5.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P Smt. K. Vijaya for the State and of Sri. Akula Mahender, counsel for Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perusal of records and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Uppal has filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr. No.59 of 2018 for the offence punishable U/Sec.3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act.

2. The brief averments of the case are that:

On 14-01-2018 at about 17.00 hours, on receipt of credible information and on permission of Assistant Commissioner, LW.1 along with

Lws.2 and 3 proceeded to scene of offence place and caught the Accused 2 of 5 CC No.254 of 2018 III M.M. R.R.DT while they were playing three card game and conducted confessional panchanama of Accused Nos.1 to 5 and recorded their statements in the presence of mediators Lws.1 and 2 and seized net cash of Rs.11,260/- and two sets of paying cards from the possession of Accused Nos.1 to 5.

3.Basing on the above information, Lw.6 registered the case against

Accused Nos.1 to 5 in Cr.No.59 of 2018 U/Sec. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act and investigation was entrusted to LW.7. Durng course of investigation,

LW.7 examined and recorded the statements of Lws.1 to 3, visited scene of offence place and caused enquiry about the incident. LW.7 issued notices U/Sec.41 (A) Cr.P.C. On 23-01-2018 at 10.00 hours Accused came to PS Uppal and appeared before LW.7, then Lw.7 issued arrest card

U/Sec.50 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, LW.7 filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence U/Sec.3 and 4 of AP

Gaming Act.

4.The case was taken on file against Accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence U/Sec.3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act.

5.On appearance of Accused Nos.1 to 5, copies of all the documents were furnished to him U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

6.Accused were examined U/Sec.3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act IPC, read over and explained the contents to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Heard on behalf of the both parties and perused the cases record.

Now point for determination is whether the prosecution has

proved the offence U/Sec.3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act against Accused

Nos.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

7.In pursuance of case of prosecution the prosecution herein examined

Pws.1 to 4, the prosecution given up the evidence of Lws.3 and 6, police filed a report that LW.4 is senior citizen, who is unable to come to court.

3 of 5 CC No.254 of 2018 III M.M. R.R.DT

8.Pw.2, who received credible information, basing on that he visited

Bharathnagar, Uppal, H.No.6-1 on 14-01-2018, he conducted the ride in the said premises and some of the persons playing cards by betting the amount, as such he enquired the Accused in the presence of Lw.4 and

PW.1 along with Lws.2 and 3, proceeded to scene of offence place, on observing the police, they have tried to escape from the scene of offence, then they apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 5 and on enquiry they disclosed the names and they voluntarily confessed the commission of offence, as such PW.2 conducted confession cum recovery panchanama of the

Accused in the presence of LW.1 and PW.1 and also seized the case property. But PW.1 did not support the case of prosecution as well as confession of panchanama (Ex.P2), he deposed that in the month of

January, 2018, he went to police station due to disputes between his sister and her husband, then police obtained his signatures on some written papers, the evidence of PW1 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

9.PW.3, who assisted the Investigating Officer deposed before this court that along with PW.3, he went to scene of offence place, PW.2 conducted confession panchanama of the Accused. During course of cross-examination, the counsel for Accused elicited that when he received phone call from Pw.2, Pw.2 and LW.3 were attending patrolling duty at

Swaroop Nagar after receving information they reached the scene of offence within 15 minutes. PW.3 admitted that he cannot say the boundaries of house No.6-1 and scene of offence place consisting of neighbouring house consisting of ground floor only, four rooms is existing and PW.3 admitted that Pw.2 did not examined neighbours of scene of offence place.

10.PW.4, who is investigating officer, who filed charge sheet deposed 4 of 5 CC No.254 of 2018 III M.M. R.R.DT that after receiving CD file from Pw.2, he did not further examined any independent witnesses as well as neighbours, owner of the said premises to prove that the Accused are playing three card games in the said premises and conducted illegal activity which was banned by the

Government.

11.The prosecution herein by examining Pws.2 and 3 it is testified that they conducted ride in the said premises, but confession and recovery panchanama of the Accused is not proved by the prosecution. PW.1 denied about the contention of panchanama and also seizure of case property and moreover PW.2 while conducing ride, thereafter he did not examine the owner as well as neighbours of the said premises to establish that whether Accused are playing three card games by betting the amount. The prosecution herein fails to prove the confession made by

Accused Nos.1 to 5 and also seizure of the case property basing on the testimony of PW.1 and also seizure of the case property. Hence there is no substantiate evidence to prove the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act and accordingly they are hereby acquitted as per the provisions U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.

Bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Mo.1 is of Rs.11,260/- shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time and MO.2 two sets of playing cards shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 22nd day of March, 2019.

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR, HYD.

5 of 5 CC No.254 of 2018 III M.M. R.R.DT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : Ramana Reddy P.W.2 : N. Pochaiah P.W.3 : S. Bikshapthy P.W.4 : M. Ananthachary

FOR DEFENSE: –NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on confession panchanama Ex.P2: Confession cum recovery panchanama Ex.P3: FIR

FOR DEFENSE: NIL

Material objects : MO.1: cash of Rs.11,260/- MO.2: two sets of playing cards

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR, HYD.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CUM

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR, R.R.DIST.

PRESENT: SMT.M. KALPANA,

III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR, RR DT.

DATED ON THIS 22 nd DAY OF MARCH, 2019.

C.C. No.1220 of 2014

Between:- State through P.S.Medipally.

….. Complainant.

A N D

Pampari Yadagiri, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Q.No.08, VC Lodge Quarter, OU Campus, Hyderabad, C/o. Plot No.61, Mangapuram colony,

Moulali, Housing board colony, Hyderabad ......Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P for the State and of Mrs. Sharada Katakam, counsel for sole accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perusal of records and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Medipally has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.766 of 2014 for the offences punishable

U/sec.420, 406 IPC.

2. Brief avements of the case are that:

On 16-11-2014 at 13.30 hours LW.1/ L. Srikar Reddy lodged a complaint at PS Medipally stating that on 13-10-2014 he along with three others entered into an agreement of sale with Accused and one

Veesamshatty Srinivas Rao for the land in Sy.No.444/21 admeasuring 22,990

Sq.yds of Palvancha village of Khammam District in the presence of mediator one Santhosh and paid an advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- at his residence and the accused acknowledged the same and entered into an Agreement and when they visited the place, when they entered into agreement of sale, they came to know that there are some disputes regarding the land as the GPA executed by the original owner J. Ramchander Rao through GPA bearing

No.5466 of 2012 at SRO Kothagudem, moreover before entereing into an agreement, accused executed an undertaking against the same on 24-09- 2 2014 and entered into agreement of sale with accused, when he enquried with the accused, he never came into contact, accordingly on 06-11-2014 he along with mediators and others went to the house of accused and pretended to repay the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as the undertaking given by them

before the agreement Dt.24-09-2014 and then they came to know that

accused lodged a complaint at PS Kushaiguda against mediators and agreement holder to escape from his liability, hence the complainant requested for necessary action against the accused.

3. Basing on the above complaint, LW.9/Inspector of police registered the case in Cr.No.766 of 2014 U/Sec.406, 420 IPC and investigation was entrusted to LW.10. During course of investigation, LW.10/Sub Inspector of

Police, PS Medipally examined and recorded the statements of Lws.1 to 8 and collected copy of agreement of sale and cancellation of GPA and verified. On 23-11-2014 at 15.00 hours accused was apprehended and sent to judicial custody. LW.8 prepared checklist U/Sec. 41 (A) Cr.P.C, issued arrest memo against the accused. After completion of investigation, LW.10 filed charge sheet against Accused.

4. The case was taken on file against Accused for the offence U/Sec.420, 406 of IPC.

5. On appearance of Accused, copies of all the documents were furnished to him U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

6. Accused is examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charges U/Sec..420, 406 IPC, framed, read over and explained the contents to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence accused examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C on the lines of the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, Accused denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

3

Heard on behalf of the both parties and perused the cases

record.

Now point for determination is whether the prosecution has

proved the offence U/Sec.420, 406 IPC against the Accused beyond

all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

7. In persuance of case of prosecution, the prosecution herein examined

LW.1 as PW.1, LW.6 as PW.2, LW.10 as PW.3. Police filed a report that whereabouts of LW.3 not known and filed a report of LW.5 gave a report atht he is no way concerned with the case, LW.7 also stated the same and whereabouts of LW.8 was not known. Prosecution given up the evidence of

LW.9.

8. PW.1, who is defacto complainant deposed that he himself, LW.2, 3 and 4 enetered into ageement of Sale with one V. Srinivas Rao and accused in

Sy.No.444/21 by way of registered GPA No.5466/2012 and they paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and accused acknowledged the same and accordingly entered into agreement of Sale on 15-10-2014, thereafter disputes arosed with regard to land and GPA executed by the original owner in existence, thereafter they are unable to contact the accused as well as mediator Santhosh, when they approached the accused, he promised to return the amount, but he failed to repay the same, hence they filed a complaint. During course of cross examination, PW.1 clearly admitted that he didnot signed any document in his presence and he never seen accused and first time he saw the accused in open court and he never handed over any amount to accused and the same amount was handed over to one

Madhu.

9. PW.3, who is Investigating Officer deposed the contents of charge sheet, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

10. PW.2, who is one of the witness, he deposed the he do not know Pw.1,

LWs.2 to 5, Lw.7 and he do not know the accused, police never examined him 4 and not recorded his statement. PW.2 failed to support the case of prosecution and his evidence is quite contrary to the statement of concerned police.

11. On perusal of record, the other witnesses did not turn up to adduce their evidence before this court, as LWs.2 to 5 and 7, 8 stated that they are no way concerned with this case. During course of cross examination of PW1, he clearly admitted that he is no way concerned with the accused as he never handed over any amount to the accused with regard to the transaction. To prove the ingredients of Sec.420, 406 IPC, none of the victims stated that Accused with a dishonest intention cheated the victims and he committed criminal breach of trust, but there is no substantive evidence about the allegations to prove Sec.420, 406 IPC and complainant himself is stated that he never saw the accused prior to registering the case and first time he saw the accused in open court and the evidence of PW.1 is giving contrary to his complaint, none of the witnesses come forward to adduce their evidence to substantiate their contentions. The persons who examined as PW1 and PW2 as their evidence is quite contrary and they failed to support the case of prosecution to prove the ingredients of Sec.406, 420 of

IPC. Hence the prosecution herein failed to prove the guilt of the accuse beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.420, 406 IPC and accordingly he is hereby acquitted as per the provisions

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of March, 2019.

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : Srikar Reddy P.W.2 : V. Srinivas Rao P.W.3 : Md. Maqbool Jain

FOR DEFENSE: -NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P3: FIR FOR DEFENSE: -Nil- Material objects marked : Nil

III ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CUM III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR