M. Kasi Viswanadha Achary

13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur.

Date Date Apprehens Released Commencemosu

Date of Filing

ion of Result

offence Complai on bail ent of trial of trial

Accused nt

|27.10.20 5.2.2021 16.03.22 31.03.22 06.04.22

Explanation for the Delay Accused appeared before the Court on 15.03.2021, accused examined under section 246(2) of Cr.PC on 08.11.2021, P.W.1 gave evidence on 16.03.2022. On 31.03.2022 accused examined under Section 313 of Cr.PC. On the same day, heard Arguments. Hence the delay. Complainant: The Sub-Inspector, R.PE, Guntur.

Judgment in C.C. No.17/2021 in Crime No.416/2020 of RPF/Guntur. On the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Guntur.

Husband's Callin Religio

Name of

Age Address

Accused Name n

R/o. R/o. House No.14-132,

Katabathuni

49 K.M Dasaiah Krishna Nagar,

Lourduraju @ Hindu

Nulakapet, Tadepalle, Guntur,

years

Raju

Andhra Pradesh State 522501

Offence :Section 143 of Railways Act. Penality for unauthorized carrying on of businesS of procuring and supplying of Railway Tickets.

Finding :Found guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused found guilty for the offence

punishable under Section 143 (1) (a) of Railways Act. Accordingly, accused

convicted under section 248(2) CrPC., sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/

[Rupees Five thousand onlyl, in default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Fine amount of Rs.5,000/- paid by accused. Receipt No:-68292. Date:- 06.04.2022.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOOR

RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Present: Sri M. Kasi Viswanadha Achary.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, For Railways, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 6th day of April, 2022

Calendar Case. No.17 of 2021

Between:

The Sub-Inspector,

Railway Protection Force,

Guntur Post.

...Complainant

AND

Katabathuni Lourduraju @ Raju,

S/o. K.M. Dasaiah, Age 49 years,

R/o. House No.14-132, Krishna Nagar,

Nulakapet, Tadepalle, Guntur,

Andhra Pradesh State -522501. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 04.04.2022 in presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri B. Sai Babu Advocate appearing for accused and the matter having been stood for consideration this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

This complaint filed by Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force,

Guntur under Section 180A of Railways Act, 1989 against accused in Crime

No.416/2020 of Railway Protection Force, Guntur alleging that accused committed offence under Section 143 (1) (a) of Railways Act, 1989.

The brief facts of the case are that,

2. On 27.10.2020 at about 2.30 pm., on reliable information about booking and procuring and reselling of E-Railway Reservation Tickets on commission basis unauthorizedly Sri B. Ravi Teja Yadav, Sub-Inspector of

Railway Protection Force, Guntur along with staff attended shop of accused situated at House Door No.14-132, Krishna Nagar, Nulakapet, Tadepalle,

Guntur, Andhra Pradesh and noticed accused booking E-tickets in Laptop and mobile. Then, he secured mediators by name Masthan Vali and K. Babavali in their presence enquired the accused. Then, accused stated that he booked railway reservation AC General Tickets at his house to the needy passengers

6el2

2 on commission basis and accused voluntarily revealed that he book railway reservation tickets in his personal laptop and mobile by using 12 personal user ID's. The following are the railway reservation Tatkal/E-Tickets live and

used tickets as follows:

1) User ID: jraju0062; password:"Jr123456"

Live Tickets: 01

1 2759102380 02806 27.10.20 BZAVSKP 04 SL/GN 1237

Used Tickets: 03

431834916807760110 20

HYB MS 01 S SL/GN583

8732307618 01019 01

03.10.20 RJY

RIY 01 SL/GN 202

4825733612

07202 24.09.20 BZA

2) Personal user ID: "condactor" Password: "Raju1431" Live Tickets:Nil BZA 02 2S/GN 208

Used Tickets: 05

|4306095742 07201

24.10.20 KI KMT

01 2S/GN 78

|4406095966

07202 24.10.20 KMT

BZA 01 2S/GN 83

4205977665

02615 12.10.20 MAS

BZA 01 3A/GN 735

2758872912

02616 03.10.20 CD

MAS 02 SL/GN 977

2211367924 02616

|23.09.20 KMT MAS 01

SL/GN 362

3) Personal user ID: "edev0147" Password: "Ed123456" Live Tickets: 01 1 4105991563

02615 03.11.20 MAS

BZA 01 SL/GN 313

Used Tickets: 04

4406138518 07256

23.10.20 SC BZA 01 SL/GN 393

4618667482

07201 10.10.20

BZA KMT

8132228751 01 2S/GN 83

02844 24.09.20 ST

8805740802 01019 13.09.20 CHE 02 SL/TQ 1728

CSMT CHE

03 SL/GN 1984

4) Personal user ID: "mounikag26" Password: "Mo123456"

Live Tickets: 01

4305670056 02704

10.01.21 BZA

VZM 03 SL/GN 874

Used Tickets: 05

4106164873

02615 25.10.20 MAS

RDM 01 SL/GN 442

4726138722

02606 25.10.20

VRI MS 01 S2/GN 133

4405999637

02728 14.10.20 BZA

VSKP 01 SL/GN

272

4518162972

02794 06.10.20 5C GTL 03 2S/GN

484

4305784946 02728 26.09.20

KMT BZA 02 SL/GN 367

5) Personal user ID: "rsekhar494" Password: "Rs123456" Live Tickets: 02

2211950574 02462 16.11.20

PTKC NDLS 01

SL/GN 845

2640608721 02626 16.11.20 NDLS BZA

01 SL/GN 743

|Used Tickets: 04

4305736280 02295 23.09.20 MAS

BZA 01 SL/GN

312

8432264257 01019 28.09.20 CSMT

BZA 01 SL/GN 493

4305948192 02625 12.10.20 BZA

NDLS 01 3A/TQ

2350

2411950338 02011 19.10.20 NDLS

CDG 01 CC/GN

560

6) Personal user ID: "tramesh228" Password: "Tr123456" Live Tickets: 01

01 2540459865

02626 18.12.320 WL

KTYM 01 SL/GN 622

Used Tickets : 03

4518340571

07202 24.10.20 SC BZA 01 2S/GN 158

6805284753 01020 09.10.20

2 BBS BZA 01

3A/GN 1160

3 2858678856 02616 23.09.20 BZA

MAS 01 3A/GN 800

7) Personal user ID: "k296888" Password: "Kr123456" Live Tickets: Nil

Used Tickets: 05

6243446356

1 02665 27.10.20

VSKP BZA 03 2S/GN

512

|4306019170

2 02794 06.10.20 KMC

TPTY 01 SL/GN 478

4725888079 02635 09.10.20 MS

3 VR VRI 01 2S/GN 133

(6LAl 2

3

8132251467 01019 30.09.20 BMT BZA 05 SL/GN 1167

07201 18.09.20MAG WL 02 2S/GN 198

4405710553

8) Personal user ID: "railm123" Password: "Railm123" Live Tickets:01

4619003074 08464 28.10.20 GNT PSA 01 SL/GN 357

Used Tickets 04

2759219407 02616 17.10.20CD MAS 02 SL/GN 977

14.10.20CSMT HYYB SL/GN 1354

8432358061 02701 02

WL BZA 02 208

4105803347 07202 |28.09.20 2S/GN 3

6342742672 KUR CSMT 01 SL/GN 752

| 01020 21.09.20 4

9) Personal user ID: "rajak36999" Password: "Ra1 23456" Live tickets: 01

62434463065 02835 28.10.20 VSKP BZA 01 2S/GN 182

1 Used Tickets: 05

4618742496 072020 |11.10.20 SC 01 2S/GN 158

BZA

2858994655 02616 08.10.20 CD MAS 01 SL/GN 497

BZA 2A/GN 1690

6442845259 02703 27.09.20 BBS 1

20.09.20 MAS 01 SL/GN 362

2858560866 02616 KMT

6543178856 08463 16.10.20 CAP VSKP 3A/TQ1140

10) Personal user ID: "damub1854" Password: "Da123456"

Live Tickets: 01

4618771750 02625 20.12.20 KTYMBZA 01 SL/GN 568

Used Tickets 03 4726054591 02715 21.10.20 NDLS ASR 02 SL/GN 557 1

6442923293 022996 02.10.20 STA SBC 01 2175

2 BA/GN

3 4518026813 07201 24.09.20 BZA WL 01 2S/GN 108

11) Personal user ID: "dambu1980" Password: "Da123456" Live Tickets: 02

4826170204 02606 27.10.20 VRI 2S/GN 132

MS 01

2 4406196706 02615 27.10.20 MAS BZA 01 SL/GN 312

Used Tickets 04

2411704019 02616 17.10.20 KMT MAS 01 SL/GN 362

4306019424 16.10.20 GNT 01 25/GN 163

07201

2540088680 27.09.20 ASR DLI 03 SL/GN 947

04652

4305696986 07202 17.09.20 SC BZA 01 2S/GN 158

12) Personal user ID: "baby3492" Password: "Ba123456" Live Tickets: NIL Used Tickets: 05

20.10.20 OGL 01 SL/GN 747

4826048410 02295 MZP

02625 14.10.20 ERN BZA 01 SL/GN 553

4105967905

2

4618659829 06 SL/GN 1667

02625 |10.10.20 TPTY BZA

02844 24.09.20 ST CHE 01 SL/TQ 873

8132231319

8532131893 01019 17.09.20 BMT RIY 01 SL/GN 327

3

Sri. B. Ravi Teja Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force,

Guntur obtained printouts of the 11 live and 50 numbers of used railway reservation tickets from the printer connected to the laptop and further accused revealed that on the request of the customers, he booked railway

out

4 tickets by using his savings bank account and collecting Rs.30/- per head for general/2S class, Rs.50/- per head for General E-Ticket/Sleeper Class and

Rs.100/ per head sleeper and AC class. Then, Sub-Inspector of Railway

Protection Force, Guntur seized prinouts of railway reservation tickets, arrested the accused, registered the case in Cr.No.416/2020 under Section 143(1)(a) of Railway Act and further release the accused on bail with an instructions to appear before the Court. On the same day, Sub-Inspector of

Railway Protection Force, Guntur addressed a letter to Chief Reservation

Supervisor, South Central Railways, Guntur to block the seized live railway reservation tickets.

4. On 28.10.2020 filed occurrence report before the Court and on 06.11.2020 Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Guntur caused enquires with the Manager, State Bank of India, Praja Sakthi Branch,

Vijayawada and obtained bank statement of accused vide Account No.

34288868012. On 16.11.2020 Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force,

Guntur examined and recorded the statements of passengers by name K.

Chinna Paaparao and P. Pedda Ganaiah. On the same day, Sub-Inspector of

Railway Protection Force, Guntur recorded the statements of B. Jogappa who stated that accused created IRCTC Id in the name of his daughter G. Mounica and book E-tickets for business purpose. On 27.11.2020 complainant examined and recorded the statements of mediators by name Masthanvali and K. Babavali.

5. On 19.12.2020, Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Guntur

obtained letter from Manager, JIo Net services, Vijayawada regarding

internet broadband connection of accused. During the course of enquiry,

Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Guntur obtained letter from

Inspector/Cybercel/Head Quarters/Secunderabad regarding personal user

D's of accused and addressed a

letter Group

to General

Manager/IRCTC/Secunderabad on 29.10.2020 to know whether accused is

authorized agent on IRCTC. On 08.12.2020 Sub-Inspector of Pailway

Protection Force, Guntur received letter from Deputy General manager,

IRCTC, Secunderabad who stated that accused details are not available as authorized agent and further stated that as per the rules of IRCTC, authornzed agents book the railway tickets through agent ID only Booking of E-tickets on

personal user ID's on commercial purpose is illegal. On 09.11.2020 Su

Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Guntur obtained ownership partculars to the house of accused from the Municipal Commissioner, Tadepalli and on completion of enquiry filed complaint.

6. The case is taken cognizance against accused Section 142 (1) (a) of

Railways Act, 1989.

1. On appearance of accused copies of document furnished to accu5ed as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

8. During the course of preliminary enquiry, the Public Prosecutor ior

Railways, Guntur filed memo to dispense with pre charge inquiry, as there is prima facie case made out against the accused. The counsel appeaning for the accused reported no objection. Hence, the said memo is recorded and further on consideration of the material available on record, the accused was examined under Section 246(2) Cr.P.C., and a charge framed under Section 143 (1) (a) of Railway Act, acquisition is read over and explained to him in

Telugu language, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. In order to establish the case against the accused, durning the course of trial, prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex P16. The

Learned Public Prosecutor for Railways given up the evidence of LWs.2 to 14 (G. Srinivasa Rao, G.V.V Reddy, Mastan Vali, K. Baba Vali, K. Subbareddy

D.S.G.P Kishore, K. Venkateswarlu, K Venkat Reddy, P. Narshimha Rao. K

Chinna Paparao, Polanki Pedda Gnanaiah, B. Jojappa,

C. Ravi Chandra

Reddy).

10. Accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the

incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution

witnesses, accused denied the same, reported no defence, no documents

marked on defence side.

11. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for Railways, Guntur and the

iearned counsel appearing to the accused.

12. Points for determination:

a) Whether accused booking railway reservation tickets without any authorization for want of commission ?

b) Whether the prosecution establish the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under

Section 143 (1) (a) of Railway Act, 1989?

POINT NO.1

13. In order to establish the case against accused, the Learned Public

Prosecutor for Railway adduced the evidence of PW.1, he gave evidence that on 27.10.2020, he attended the house of accused at about 14.00 hours at

Nulakapeta, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District, he secured two mediators by name Masthan Vali and K. Babavali and in their presence he enquired the accused, then, accused revealed his identity and confessed that using personal user ID's, booked railway reservation tickets and supply the same to the needy passengers on commission basis and on voluntarily opening the personal user ID's he found 11 live and 50 used railway reservation tickets in the booking history of the personal user ID's. PW.1 also said that, accused stated to him that by using savings bank account of State Bank of India,

Prajasakthi Branch, Vijayawada and by using JIO net service he obtained

railway reservation tickets. Then, he obtained printouts and seized live and used railway reservation tickets under the cover of panchanama by preparing seizure list and handed over copy of the seizure list to the accused and after registering the case against accused, he caused further enquiriesand 7 addressed a letter to Chief Reservation Supervisor for blocking of live railway reservation tickets of railways obtained bank statement of accused from the

Manager, State Bank of India, Prajasakthi Branch, Vijayawada recorded the statements of K. Chinna Paaparao, P Pedda Gnayaiah and B. Jojappa and further also recorded the statements of Masthanvali and K. Babavali who are the mediators, obtained net connection particulars from Manager, JIO net

service, Vijayawada and ownership particulars from Municipal Corporation,

Tadepalli. He also further said that he received information regarding user

ID's and passwords from Inspector/Cybercell/ Secunderabad and also received reply letter from Deputy General Manager, IRCTC, Secunderabad.

14

PW.1 subjected to cross examination then PW.1 admitted that there is no complaint against accused from any individual and he did not seized laptop from the possession of accused. It is also elicited that mediators belongs to Guntur city. The contention of the accused is that the signatures of accused obtained by PW.1 by using force and entire record prepared at

Railway Protection Force Post, Guntur and further the contention of the accused is that no documents seized from the accused and accused no way

Connected to the case.

15. After completion of evidence of PW.1., the Learned Public Prosecutor for Railways filed petition under Section 294 of Cr.PC vide Crl.M.P

No.521/2022 calling upon the accused to admit or deny documents i.e., Ex.P1

Ex.P2, Ex.P7, Ex.P8, Ex. P9, Ex.P13, Ex.P15 and Ex.P16. Exs.P1 and P2 are the

documents establish that PW.1 attended the house of accused and on enquiry seized live and used railway reservation tickets and further on admitting the bank statement of accused, it revealed that accused make transactions in

IRCTC website for booking of railway reservation tickets to the needy passengers who approached him. Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are the statements of passengers who approached accused. K. Chinna Paaparao, P. Pedda Ganayiah are the passengers who obtained tickets from accused on payment of

( ctut

8 commission for the tickets obtained by them. Ex.P16 is document relating to the ownership particulars where the accused is booking railway reservation tickets, it shows that accused booking railway reservation tickets at his house and Ex.P13 is the document relating to the internet connection particulars to the house of accused and Ex.P15 is the document issued by the Deputy

General Manager, IRCTC who gave information that booking of railway reservation tickets on personal user ID's for purpose of business is prohibited and accused is not an authorized agent in IRCTC and it also revealed that booking of E-tickets on personal user ID's on commercial purpose is illegal

16. Accused admitted the seizure of live and used railway reservation tickets it shows that the seized tickets are being supplied to the needy nassengers. Accused gave confessional statement under Ex.P3 stating that he is supplying the railway reservation tickets on commission basis to the needy passengers. The said statement is admissible evidence, as PW.1 is not Police

Officer and his evidence does not falls under the ambit of Section 25 of Indian

Evidence Act.

In a case, reported in AIR 1981 SC 379 between Bala Kishan A. Devi

Dayal Vs State of Maharashtra it is explained by the Hon 'ble Apex

Court in para No.58 that the Officer of Railway Protection Force cannot be equated with Police Officer.

"Officer of Railway Protection Force could not be deemed to be a Police Officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an inquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from evidence under the said section."

17. The learned Public Prosecutor for Railways, Guntur argued the case and submitted that evidence of PW1 is sufficient and further on admitting the

documents i.e., Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P7, Ex.P8, Ex.P9, Ex. P13, Ex.P15 and Ex. P16

J0 Gtulv

9 shows that accused voluntariness that he is booking railway reservation tickets for want of commission which is Illegal. The counsel for the accused argued before the Court stating that this case is falsely registered against the accused and accused no way connected to the offence.

18. As seen from the evidence of Pw1, prosecution is successful in

establishing the case against the accused, that PW1 attended the house of

accused, seized the live and used railway reservation tickets in the presence of two mediators and further the confession recorded by Pw1 is admissible in evidence, the prosecution is successful in establishing that accused booking, procuring and reselling of railway reservation tickets on commission basis for want of commission.

POINT NO.2

19. As discussed above, the prosecution through the evidence PW.1 establish the case of prosecution that accused by using personal user ID's procured railway reservation tickets and supplied the same to the needy passengers for want of commission, without any authorization. The prosecution is successfully establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

20. In result, accused found guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 143 (1)(a) of Railway Act. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.PC.

Judgment dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 6th day of April, 2022.

ACtulCass

Judl. Magistrate of I Class

for Railways, Guntur.

21. Heard the quantum of sentence of accused in the presence of learned

Public Prosecutor for Railways and counseling appearing to the accused.

Accused informed about the sentence imposed under Section 143(1)a) of

Railway Act.

A0 Gtutw

10

Section 143 of Railway Act reads as follows:

Penalty for unauthorized carrying on of business of procuring and supplying of railway tickets.- (1) lf any person, not being a railway servant or an agent

authorized in this behalf

(a) Carries on the business of procuring and supplying tickets for travel on a railway or from reserved accommodation for journey in a train; or

(b) purchases or sells or attempts to purchase or sell tickets with a view to carrying on any such business either by himself or by any other person, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both, and shall also forfeit the tickets which he so procures, supplies, purchases, sells or attempts to purchase or sell:

Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in judgment of the court, such punishment shall not be less than imprisonment for a term of one month or a fine of five thousand rupees. (2) Whoever abets any offence punishable under this section shal, whether or not such offence is committed, be punishable with the same punishment as is provided for the offence.

22. Then accused pleaded mercy of Court, accused stating that, he is married, his wife and two daughters and his old aged parents are depending on him and he further stated that he is doing daily labour work by selling bedsheets and pillows and further stated that he committed the offence for the first time.

23. Consider the submissions of the accused and voluntarily admission of accused in committing the offence, the economic conditions explained to the

Court, it seems that accused is poor, earns meager amounts to lead his family.

This Court is of opinion that this is not a fit case to release the accused under

The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as he committed the offence under the

Railways Act.

11 In the result, accused found guilty for the offence punishable under 24. Section 143 (1) (a) of Railways Act. Accordingly, accused convicted under section 248(2) Cr. PC., sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five thousand only], in default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Accused informed about the sentence imposed against him and also 25 informed his right to appeal against the present Judgment and getting free legal aid even at appeal stage. Free copy of this Judgment also furnished to accused immediately on pronouncing the Judgment and obtained his endorsement thereof.

Judgment dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 6h day of April, 2022.

Gtul

Judl. Magistrate I Class for Railways, Guntur.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Defence: NIL

For prosecution:

PW.1/16.03.2022 B. Ravi Teja Yadav.

Exhibits marked

For Defence: NIL

For prosecution:

Ex.P1 is Panchanama. Ex.P2 is Seizure list. Ex.P3 is Statement of accused Ex.P4 is 07 numbers of live railway reservation E-tickets. Ex.P5 is 50 numbers of used Railway reservation E-tickets. Ex.P6 is Letter addressed to Chief Reservation Supervisor, Guntur

Ex.P7 is Bank Statement of Accused. Ex.P8 is Statement of K. Chinna Paaparao.

Ex.P9 is Statement of Pedda Gananiah.

Ex.P10 is Statement of B. Jojappa.

Ex.P11 is Statement of Masthanvali.

12

Ex.P12 is Statement of K. Babaval. Ex.P13 is Internet connection particulars glvon by Munngor, JIO nol contre,

Vijayawada.

Ex.P14 is Letter given by Inspector/cybercoll/Secundorand.

Ex.P15 is Letter given by Deputy General Manager, IRCTC/Socundorubad,

Ex.P16 is Letter given by Municipal Corportation, 'Tadopalli Municipality

Materlal Objects Marked

NIL

(6tul

Judl Maglstrate I Class

for Rallways, Guntur.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of Judi. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur.

Release Commen

Date

Closure

Dateot Filing Result

Apprehension d on cement of trial

offendeComplaint of Accused

bail of trial

On 27.8.2020 18.3.21 31.3.22 08.4.2022 served 24.8.2020 24.8.2020 Section 41-A Notice

Explanation for the Delay: Accused appeared before the Court on 3.2.2021, accused examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C on 3.2.2021, P.W.1 gave evidence on 18.3.2021, PW.2 gave evidence on 15.12.2021, Pw3 gave evidence on 22.12.21, Pw4 gave evidence on 16.3.22. On 31.03.2022 accused examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Argument heard on 6.4.2022. Hence the delay.

The Sub-Inspector,Government Railway Police Station, Guntuur Complainant Judgment in C.C. No.199/2020 in Crime No.62/2020 of Government Railway Police Station, Guntur, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class for Railways, Guntur.

Father's Callin Religio

Name of Address

Age

Accused n Name

Hindu R/o.Nandivelugu Village,

Kammela 37 Sambasiva Tenali Mandal, Guntur District Ramesh Babu | years Rao

Section 353 of Indian Penal Code : Assault or criminal force to Offence deter public servant from discharge of his duty

Finding :Found guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, Acused convicted under section 248(2) Cr.PC., sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-

[Rupees One thousand onlyl, in default of payment of fne, accused shal

undergo simple imprisonmentfor a period of one month.

JUDL. MAGISTRAE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Accused paid fine amount on 8-4-2022 vide receipt no: 68340

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Present: Sri M. Kasi Viswanadha Achary. Judl. Magistrate of 1 Class for Railways, Guntur.

Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022

C.C. No. 199 of 2020

Betwee

The Sub-Inspector of Railway Police Guntur Railway Police Station

..Complainant

AND

Kammela Ramesh Babu S/o Sambasiva Rao

age 37 years, R/o Nandivelugu Village,

Tenali Mandal, Guntur District. Accused

This case is coming on 06.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learmed Asst. Public Prosecutor and Sri D.V H. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate appearing for the accused and on hearing both sides and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the

following:

IUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Railway Police, Guntur Railway Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in crime no. 62/2020 of Guntur Railway

Police Station alleging that accused committed offence under Section 353 of

Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts of the case are that,

On 24-8-2020 at about 11.00 hours, at Senior Section Engineer office 2.

Bridges) at west side of Plat form No.7, in Guntur Railway Station,

accused angered against Sirasani Tirumala Rao, came to Section engineer office, criminally trespassed into the Senior Section Engineer office, picked up a quarrel with the on duty Senior Section Engineer, during the discussion of painting progress and works, on that time accused abused in filthy language, beat him with hands, deterred him from discharging his legitimate duty, criminallyintimidated him and created a nuisance in Senior section

engineer office, Guntur Railway Station, as it was informed to PV.S.S. Rama

Rao, Asst Divisional Engineer, Guntur Railway Station. On receipt of report from Sirasani Tirumala Rao, Sub-Inspector, Guntur Railway Police Station Sn

PSrinivasa Rao registered the case in crime no. 62/2020 under section 353 of

Indian Penal Code and investigated the case

The Sub-Inspector inspected the scene of offence prepared rough sketch. recorded the 161 Cr PC., statement of Sirasani Tirumala Rao. Guthala

Satish. Sorareddy Gayathri. PVS.S. Rama Rao Issued notice under section.

41(A) of Cr.PC.. to accused on his surrender in the police station on 27.8.2020 After completion of investigation Sub- inspec tor of Police filed the

Charge sheet.

This case was taken on cognizance against the accused tor the offence under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code

On appearance of accused, copies of documents furnished to accused as required under Section 207 of Cr Pc

Accused examined under Section 239 of Cr. PC.. for the otfence 6. under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code, the acquisition and Charges read over and explained to accused in Telugu language for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to establish the case against the accused. the Learned Asst adduced the evidence of PWs. 1 to PW4 and got marked Public Prosecutor Exs.P1 to P3. The Learned Asst Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of

PV.S.S.Rama Rao.

313 Cr. PC.. explained the examined under Section B Accused incriminating material found against accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in telugu language, he denied the same, reported no defence, no documents marked on defence side.

Heard the learned Asst Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel 9.

eal 2

appearing to the accused.

3

Points for determination:

10.

a)Whether the prosecution establish that accused assaulted or used criminal force to deter Sirasani Tirumala Rao from discharging his duty ?

Whether the prosecution establish the guilt of the accused

b) beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code?

POINT NO.1

Pw1 is informant, he gave complaint to Station House Officer, Guntur 11. Railway Police Station, Guntur against accused for taking necessary action, alleging that accused being the railway contractor has manhandled him and obstructed his legitimate duties while he was on duty at his office at 11.00 hours on 24.8.2020 during discussion of painting progress with his father Sri

Kammela Sambasiva Rao. Ex.P1 is the report. The prosecution alleges the accused committed the offence under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code which reads as follows:

Section 353 of Indian Penal Code: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant form discharge of his duty:- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant,or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Pw1 is Senior Section Engineer Bridges, Guntur since 2015, he gave 12. evidence that Pw2 and Pw3 are his staff. Pw1 is railway employee. Pw1 gave report to Pw4 against the accused in the capacity of Senior Section

Engineer(Bridges), Guntur of South Central Railway. Pw2 and Pw3 are the staff in the office of Senior Section Engineer( Bridges). Pw2 is discharging duties as Assistant Bridge Store Mate and Pw3 as Assistant Bridge. Both Pw2 and Pw3 gave evidence that they are working under Pw1 since 7 years. It is 4 clear from the evidence of Pw1 to Pw3 that, Pw1 is Employee of Indian

Railways, he is Government Servant.

Pw4 is investigation officer, he gave evidence that on receipt of 13. Ex.P1, he registered the case in crime no. 62/2020 under section 353 of

Indian Penal Code, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, the office of Pw1 is located in the 3rd floor of building near to the platform No. 7.

Accused did not denied the location of office of Pw1, it is clear that Pwl working in the office of Senior Section Engineer( Bridges), Guntur

Pwl gave evidence before the court that, accused is painting 14. Contractor for railways. On 24-8-2020 at about 11 am., he was present at

Senior Section Engineer bridges office, then accused along with his father said that since April 2016 Sambasivarao came to him and further Pw1 accused doing contract works and that there are two agreements for doing such contract works by accused, Pw1 said that one agreement was closed at the consent of accused. Pw1 said before the court that Guntur - Pagidipalli section painting agreement is closed and accused requested for doing painting works to bridge no 133 between Rentachintala and Macherla stations. Pw1 said to accused and his father that agreement was closed and when father of the accused asking for verification of bills regarding their works, in the mean time accused beat him with hands on left side of his face

Pw1 said that Pw2 and Pw3 were present at the time of incident in his room, after the incident accused and his father fled away, Pw1 further said that he gave report to PV.S.S. Rama rao Assistant Divisional Engineer and also sent letter to Senior Divisional Engineer Co-Ordination informing the incident, after obtaining permission he gave report against the accused and that he was enquired by the police.

The stand of the accused is that, he is no way concerned with offence

15

and false case registered against the accused. Pw1 said in his evidence that, he did not enclose duty particularsalong with Ex.P1 and that he did not file

(si1

5 any documents to show that accused do contractor works of railways. Ex.P1 disclose the information about the presence of Kammela Sambasiva Rao who is the father of the accused. Pw1 also said before the court that accused along with his father came to his office and verified the bills regarding the their works. Accused did not disprove the presence of his father at the office of

Pw1 along with him on the date of offence at any point of time, this fact itself show that accused do contract works of railways. The evidence of Pw1 makes it clear that accused along with his father attend the office of Pw1 on 24-8 2020 at about 11 am., during that time accused assaulted Pw1, by causing hurt and obstructed the duties of Pw1. The evidence of Pw1 makes clear that he is discharging his duties in his office.

In order to corroborate, the evidence of Pw1, the prosecution relied 16. on the evidence of Pw2 and Pw3. The prosecution arrayed both Pw2 and Pw3 as eye witness to the incident happened in the office of Pw1, that accused prevented or deter Pw1 from discharging lawful duties. Pw2 and Pw3 said that on 24.8.2020 at about 11 am., discussion for the works done by accused are going on with Pw1. Pw2 said that accused suddenly, slapped on the face of the Pw1, where as Pw3 said that accused beat Pw1 while discussion going on for the works done by accused.

Pw2 and Pw3 where subjected to cross examination, then both 17. witness said that they do not know the contents of the statement recorded by police, but Pw2 and Pw3 said in the chief examination that on 24.8.2020 at 11.am, accused along with his father came to their office and accused beat

Pw1, while having discussion for the works done in railways, this obstructed the legitimate duties of Pw1 while he was in duty. The Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, argued the case and submitted that Pw1 is public servant duties, accused assaulted and deter Pw1 and and while discharging obstructed the legitimate duties of Pw1, the sole evidence of Pw1 is sufficient to believe the version of the prosecution. The counsel appearing to the accused argued the case and submitted that evidence of Pw1 is not

(4) e41 22

6 substituted with duty particulars to say that Pw1 is performing the duties on the alleged time and date of offence and further submitted that the evidence of Pw1 is not corroborate with the evidence Pw2 and Pw3.

18

The contradictory evidence elicited in the cross examination of Pw2 and Pw3 is that, their statements are not recorded by investigating officer on enquiry, but accused failed to elicit the same in the evidence of investigating officer, the only contention of accused is that Pw4 does not have jurisdiction to investigate the case, but in the present case, the place of offence is in the precincts of Railway station, as such Pw4 as the power to investigate the case and his jurisdiction to conduct investigation does not oust.

19 The evidence elicited through the victim, cannot be kept a side, stating that eye witness gave contrary statement, that their statements are not recorded by Pw4 who is investigating officer. The evidence before the

Court through the evidence of Pw1 establish that accused along with his father attended the office of Pw1, and accused assaulted Pw1, that deter the duties of Pw1. The Prosecution is successfully in establishing the case before the court, beyond all reasonable doubt.

POINT No.2

20. As discussed above in Point No.1 the prosecution successfully establish the case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt, that accused guilty for the offence under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code 21 In result, Accused found guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 353 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.PC.

Judgment dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class

for Railways, Guntur.

Heard the quantum of sentence in the presence of Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing to the accused. Accused informed about the sentence imposed under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code

Then accused pleaded mercy of Court, stated that he is married, his 23. old aged parents depending on him and pleaded wife, two children and Consider the submissions of the accused. This Court is of mercy of Court. opinion that this is not a fit case to release the accused under The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as he assaulted public servant, while discharging legitimate duties.

In the result, accused found guilty for the offence punishable under 24. convicted under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- [Rupees One section 248(2) Cr.P.C., thous�nd only), in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Accused informed about the sentence imposed against him and also informed his right to appeal against the present Judgment and getting free legal aid even at appeal stage. Free copy of this Judgment also furnished to accused immediately on pronouncing the Judgmentand obtainedhis endorsenment thereof.

Judgment dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 8th day of April, 2022.

elul21

Judl. Magistrate I Class for Railways, Guntur.

8

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence: NIL

P.W.1/18.3.2021: S.Tirumala Rao

PW.2/15.12.2021: G.Sathish

P.W.3/22.12.2021: S.Gayathri

PW.4/16.3.2022: PSrinivasa Rao

Exhibits marked

For prosecution

For Defence: NIL Ex.P1 is Report

Ex.P2 is First Information Report

Ex.P3 is Rough Sketch

Material Objects Marked

For prosecution: NIL For Defence: NIL

Judl. Massa1class

for Railways, Guntur.

Page 1 of 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Present: Sri M. Kasi Viswanadha Achary. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 16h day of March, 2022

C.C. No.395 of 2016

(U/Sec.138 of NI Act) BETWEEN:

Moparthi China Sambaiah, S/o. Suraiah,

Age 55 years, Business, R/o. Door No.4-7-28/1A, Koritepadu, Guntur.

.. Complainant.

-And-

Medarametla Venkteswara Rao, S/o. Rama Chandra Rao, Age 50 years, R/o. Flat No.G-1, Santhosh Homes Apartments, Chaitanyapuri, Guntur, . Accused.

ORDERR

Complainant counsel filed memo stating that accused passed away. Hence, memo recordedcase against accused abated.

16151P

Judicial Magistráte of I Class for Railways, Guntur.

Page 1 of

IN.THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS POR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Present:- Sri M. Kasi Viswanadha Achary. Judl. Magistrate of 1 Class for Railways, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 16th day of March, 2022

C.C. No.370 of 2016

(U/Sec.138 of NI Act)

BETWEEN

Nadendla Seetharamaiah,

S/o. Basavaiah, Age 75 years,

R/o. Koritepadu, Guntur. Complainant.

And

Kolla Aruna Kumar, W/o. Purnachandra Rao, Age 48 years, R/o. Door No.4-22-29/3, 1 " line, Chaitanyapuri, Guntur. Accused.

ORDER

Complainant counsel filed memo stating that accused passed away. Memo recorded, case against accused abated.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

for Railways, Guntur.