Sri M.Krishna Murthy

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN 

MAGISTRATE:HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI. P. BHASKARA RAO, B. Sc., LL.M.,

VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 10 th day of May, 2013.

C.C.NO. 541/2012.

Between: State through: The Sub­Inspector of police,

Tappachabutra Police station. ..Complainant. 

A N D

Name : P.C. Ramulu (A­26) S/o : P. Kattaiah Aged : 53 years. R/o : L­19, Osmania University campus,

Hyderabad. .. Accused.

(Note : This case originally split from C.C.776/2007 against the present accused A­26, A­6, A­23 and A­37 and numbered as CC 27/2012. Later the case against A­26 in CC 27/2012 was merged with main case in

 CC 776/2007 and case against A­6, A­23 and A­37 was

 split from CC 27/12 and numbered as CC 324/2012 and again case against A­26 was split up from main case as

 CC 541/2012 as NBW was pending against him.)

( Case against A­1 to A­6, A­8, A­10 to A­14, A­17 to A­25, A­27, A­28, A­30 to A­36, A­38 and A­39 ended in acquittal in CC 776/2007 on 9.10.2012.) ( Case against A­7, A­9, A­15, A­29 and A­40 abated since died. Case against A­16 and A­37 is pending in CC 344/2012 as NBWs pending).

This case coming before me in the presence of APP for the State 

and of Sri. E. Radha Krishna, Counsel for accused (A­26) and upon perusing 

material on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for 

consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of police, Tappachabutra police station has laid 

charge sheet against present accused and other accused in Crime No. 120/2003 

for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

2. The material allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:

L.W.4 Y. Koteshwar Rao (builder) (since died) declared the venture of 

independent houses admeasuring about 106 sq. yards and 126 sq. yards @ 

Rs. 4,00,000/­ to Rs. 6,00,000/­ 2 bed room home with plinth area of 700 to 

1000 sq. feet at Injapur, Hayath Nagar (M), Ranga Reddy District in the year 

2002 and took assistance of P.Ws.5 and 6 who introduced several employees 

of the public sectors like NFC, BHEL, ECIL, HCL (Hindustan Cables Limited) 

and Osmania University of Hyderabad on commission basis. As such the 

2

above said builder introduced all the borrowers i.e., accused to P.W.2 who 

was Senior Branch Manager, Hyderabad branch at Andhra Bank, Karwan at 

that time with a request to sanction house loans as per bank rules. P.W.2 

proceeded to all the above said organizations and verified with the superiors 

whether the borrowers are working in their respective organizations in 

different categories but he did not verify their salary particulars and their 

salary certificates and sanctioned loans in two stretches. Some of the 

borrowers availed in one stretch. Meanwhile P.W.4 employee of 

Inspection Department, Zonal office of Andhra Bank received anonymous 

petition informing that the borrowers submitted forged salary certificates 

with an intention to avail higher quantity of housing loan amounts as they 

were not eligible to get sanction the housing loan amounts and besides that 

they are not having any interest to repay the housing loan amount to the 

bank which was availed. P.W.3 employee of recovery Management Division 

of the bank processed the application with connected documents. L.W.6 

Mr. Sai Durga Prasad, Chartered and Structural Engineer issued report (Land 

and constructions) approved by the bank Engineer. L.W.7 B. Chennappa Reddy 

issued legal opinion to the borrowers which is accepted by the bank. P.W.4 

along with P.W.2 visited Organizations and collected their genuine salary 

certificates. P.W.11, P.W.8, P.W.7, P.W.10 and P.W.9 compared with the salary 

certificates submitted by A­1 to A­40 were forged. P.W.4 issued orders to stop 

further loans to the accused concerned and recover the sanctioned housing 

loans from them as soon as possible. Accordingly, P.W.1 stopped payment of 

remaining part of sanctioned loan to the accused persons and reported the 

matter to P.W.12 Sub­Inspector. The details of loans sanctioned to the 

accused are mentioned in the charge sheet.

i) On the above report crime was registered and investigation 

was taken up. Witnesses were examined. A­1 to A­6, A­8, A­11, A­12, A­14 to A­

20, A­24, A­30 to A­39 surrendered before this court i.e., IX Metropolitan 

Magistrate at that time. They were released on conditional bail. P.W.13 another 

Sub­Inspector conducted further investigation. The details of genuine pay slips 

and forged pay slips in respect of the accused are mentioned in the charge 

sheet. A­7, A­9, A­13, A­20, A­23, A­25 to A­29 and A­40 are absconding. Hence, 

the charge. 

3. My learned predecessor took the case on file for the offences 

punishable under Sections 468, 420 and 471 IPC and issued NBWs against the 

accused who are shown as absconding.

During pendency of the case A­18, A­14, A­19, A­20 and A­30 filed 

Crl. M.P. petition No. 3122/11 before Hon.’ble High court of A.P. to quash the 

proceedings in this case. On 23.11.2011 the said petition was disposed of 

3

with a direction to this court to conclude trial within a period of six months 

from the date of the said order. The said order was received in this court 

on 12.12.2011. A­4 and A­11 also filed similar petition in Crl. Petition 

No.14049/11 and the said petition was also disposed of by the Hon.’ble 

High court on 2.1.2012 with the same direction and the said order was 

received in this court on 29.1.2012. In view of the said directions the case 

against A­16 to A­23 and A­26 and A­37 was split up by this court and 

numbered as C.C. 27/2012 as NBWs were pending and the case was 

proceeded against other accused. 

4. During pendency of the case, A­7, A­9, A­15, A­29 and A­40 had 

died and the case against them therefore abated. A­1 to A­6, A­8, A­10 to A­14, 

A­17 to A­22, A­24, A­25, A­27, A­28, A­30 to A­36, A­38 and A­39 were furnished 

copies of documents on which the prosecution proposed place reliance u/Sec. 

207 Cr.P.C.. They were examined u/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C.. They denied the accusation. 

This court framed charges under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC against the 

said accused read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not 

guilty and claimed to be tried.

The main case was proceeded against the above referred accused 

and after examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 and after exhibiting of Exs.P­1 to P­40 

present accused (A­26) appeared before this court and the case against him 

was merged with this case after furnishing copies to him u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. 

and after framing the above said charges against him as counsel for present 

accused (A­26) filed memo adopting evidence already adduced in the main 

case.

5. In all prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got exhibited 

Exs.P­1 to P­87.

During pendency of case A­26 absconded and as police filed report 

stating that whereabouts of A­26 not known and there is no possibility to 

execute NBW on A­26 in the near future and as there is direction of Hon.'ble 

High court extending time to dispose of the case by 20.10.2012 and as A­23 

is in jail the case against A­26 is split up and numbered as CC 541/12. 

After closure of the prosecution side evidence the above said available accused 

were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C..

6. After disposal of the main case the present accused (A­26) was 

produced before this court on execution of NBW on 6.2.2013. As the case 

against present accused was split up from main case at the stage of 

examination u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C.. The present accused (A­26) was examined under 

Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied incriminating circumstances appearing against him 

in the prosecution side evidence. He reported no witnesses in defence.

7. Heard both sides.

4

8. The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved beyond 

reasonable doubt the guilt of the above said accused for the offences punishabe 

under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC..

9. POINT:­ The prosecution case is that the accused created fake 

salary certificates by increasing their net salary and used them as genuine 

ones to get loans and cheated the bank referred to earlier by drawing loans 

and hence, they are liable for punishment for the alleged offences. The plea 

of the accused is one of total denial.

This case originally split from C.C.776/2007 against the present 

accused, A­26, A­6, A­23 and A­37 and numbered as CC 27/2012. Later the case 

against A­26 in CC 27/2012 was merged with main case in CC 776/2007 and 

case against A­6, A­23 and A­37 was split from CC 27/12 and numbered as CC 

324/2012 and again case against A­26 was split up from main case as CC 

541/2012 as NBW was pending against him.

Case against A­1 to A­6, A­8, A­10 to A­14, A­17 to A­25, A­27, A­28, A­

30 to A­36, A­38 and A­39 ended in acquittal in CC 776/2007 on 9.10.2012. 

Case against A­7, A­9, A­15, A­29 and A­40 abated since died. Case 

against A­16 and A­37 is pending in CC 344/2012 as NBWs pending.

10. In this case the prosecution has to prove that the accused forged 

salary certificates with dishonest intention to cheat the bank and used them 

as genuine and got the loans sanctioned. The prosecution has to prove its case 

clinchingly but mere surmises and conjectures cannot prove the prosecution 

case.

11. P.W.1 is senior Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Karwan at the 

relevant point of time. He is the de facto complainant. He deposed that Ex.P­1 

is report given by him along with six sheets containing particulars of the 40 

employees of various organizations. He also deposed that he handed over 

fake documents to the police. He next deposed that prior to his joining in 

their bank branch his predecessor Manager along with Zonal office 

representative went to the organizations of the employees and verified 

original salary certificates and came to conclusion that salary certificates 

produced before their bank were not genuine ones and Exs.P­2 to P­40 are 

the fake salary certificates submitted by 39 employees out of the 40 

employees. P.W.2 is senior Manager of the said bank at the relevant point of 

time. He deposed about 49 employees of different organizations applying for 

loans and offering some sites as security. He further deposed that loans 

were sanctioned to 40 persons with a condition of repayment of monthly 

instalments, that construction of houses was commenced at Imjapur village 

and instalments of loan amounts were released by the bank basing on the 

5

evaluation of bank Engineers. He next deposed about receiving anonymous 

letter by their Zonal office and his coming to know after verification that 

salary certificates were given for higher amounts and were forged and about 

issuing notices to the borrowers to repay the loan amounts. P.W.3 Assistant 

Manager in the said bank at the relevant point of time deposed that he 

verified all the loan documents except salary certificates. He further deposed 

that he had no duty to verify genuineness of documents other than their 

bank documents. He also deposed that all the borrowers came and accepted 

their mistakes and asked to grant loan stating that they will clear off the 

departmental loan and increase their net salaries. P.W.4 Senior Manager in 

Zonal office of Andhra Bank deposed that he verified the original 

documents in the respective salary disbursing sections of the Organizations 

and found that the certificates submitted to their banks by the borrowers 

were fake i.e., Ex.P­2 to P­40 and P­41 to P­80 are the attested copies of 

salary certificates with which he verified the salary certificates submitted to 

their bank. P.Ws.5 and 6 were alleged to have got sanctioned loans and 

obtained commission of Rs. 50,000/­ each but they did not support 

prosecution case. They were cross examined on behalf of the prosecution with 

permission of the court treating them hostile. P.Ws.5 and 6 denied to have 

stated to police as in Ex.P­81 and P­82 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in support 

of the prosecution case. 

P.W.7 General Manager in Hindustan Cables Limited at the relevant 

point of time deposed that he issued Pay slips in respect of nine employees 

i.e., A­32 to A­40 (case against A­37 split up and numbered as CC 344/2012 

and case against A­40 abated since died) and the attested salary certificates 

are Exs.P­72 to P­80 and Ex.P­83 is letter for furnishing attested salary slips. 

P.W.8 Dy. General Manager, Personnel and administration, ECIL, at the 

relevant point of time deposed that Sub­Inspector of police, Tappachabutra 

gave a letter asking him for certified Pay slips of their employees i.e., A­27 to 

A­30 and he instructed to his subordinates to collect pay slips of June, 2002 

from the pay Rolls Section and the copies duly attested by his subordinate 

were forwarded to police by a letter dated 11.10.2003 which is Ex.P­84 and 

the Sub­Inspector informed to him that the above named four employees 

obtained bank loan through forged pay slips. P.W.9 is concerned officer of 

Heavy water plant and he deposed that he furnished copies of pay slips Exs.P­

41 to P­64 prepared by their accounts department and attested by Assistant 

Accounts officer along with covering letter Ex.­85. P.W.10 Registrar of 

Osmania University at the relevant point of time deposed that on 17.10.2003 

he received a letter from Inspector Tappachabutra asking their office to say 

whether the salary certificates sent with that letter were genuine or not and 

6 asked their office to send attested salary certificates issued from the University 

in respect of one G. Satyanarayana (A­25) and one Ramulu (A­26) (case 

against A­26 split up and numbered as CC 541/2012), that their audit officer 

verified the said certificates and found that they were not issued by their 

University and he gave the same information to the Inspector of police and 

he also furnished salary certificates Exs.P­70 and P­71 as per letter Ex.P­

86. P.W.11 Dy. Manager, Human Resources , BHEL at the relevant point of 

time deposed that he furnished Ex.P­65 salary certificate of Mr. Bikshapathy 

who worked as Artisan Grade­I for the month of May, 2002. 

i) P.W.12 is Sub­Inspector at the relevant point of time deposed that 

he received complaint Ex.P­12 from P.W.1, registered crime and issued Ex.P­

87 FIR and he deposed about his investigation i.e., examining witnesses and 

collecting documents and he further deposed that Ex.P­41 to P­80 are certified 

salary certificates of the accused from the respective organizations. P.Ws.5 

and 6 stated before him as in Ex.P­81 and P­82 under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. 

P.W.13 another Investigating Officer deposed that he filed charge sheet 

showing some of the accused as absconding.

12. P.W.1 deposed that he did not verify loan agreement, loan sanction 

letters and other relevant documents before giving police report and he did 

not enquire with his predecessor Manager and concerned bank staff to know 

as to who approached the bank for sanction of loans and he does not 

know whether the accused never approached their banks for loan. 

P.W.1 admitted that there are no signatures of employee on the 

salary certificates Exs.P­2 to P­40 and there is no any attestation on the said 

salary certificates to the effect that they belonged to particular employees. 

P.W.1 does not know whether the accused did not furnish the said 

documents. P.W.1 did not verify any documents such as loan agreement.

13. According to P.W.2, 49 applications were given individually and he 

does not remember whether he took Form­16 and three months bank 

statements from the borrowers. He deposed that loan application, salary 

certificate and landed property security will be obtained for sanctioning loans 

and borrowers who produced his property as security. P.W.2 does not 

remember whether he stated to police that they visited the respective 

organizations and could not get entry in to respective departments due to 

security reason. He further deposed that he obtained their bank legal 

advisers opinion in this case for sanctioning loan. He did not address letters 

to the respective organizations along with copies of salary certificates for 

clarification whether they were genuine or not. He did not obtain any 

opinion from FSL to the effect that the said salary certificates were forged. 

He admitted that there is nothing in writing in the bank to the effect that 

7

the salary certificates were forged. He further deposed that the Title deeds of 

the borrowers were with the bank. P.W.2 does not know whether 49 loan 

applications were filed in the court. He admitted that there are no 

signatures of borrowers on the salary certificates.

14. P.W.3 admitted that after verifying documents and coming to 

conclusion that the documents were genuine the loans were sanctioned and 

the loans were credited to parties accounts. He next admitted that no 

document is filed to show that loans were credited to parties accounts. He 

deposed that there is no proof to show that borrowers came to their bank, 

accepted mistake and requested for sanction of loans undertaking that they 

will increase their net salaries by clearing off departmental loans. He clearly 

deposed that he has no proof to show that particular accused filled in 

particular loan application. P.W.4 admitted that after proper verification of the 

loan documents only loan will be sanctioned and after sanctioning loans the 

loan amount will be paid by way of Demand Drafts to builders and it will 

not be credited to the account of borrowers. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 

is inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.3 that the loans were credited to 

parties accounts.

15. P.W.12 Investigating Officer admitted that he did not seize loan 

applications and loan sanction proceedings in respect of the accused and 

there are no signatures of the accused on any of the documents filed in this 

case. He could not say whether the signatories to the salary certificates filed 

in this case were competent or not to issue said certificates. He deposed that 

his investigation reveals that the construction of houses was stopped in the 

middle i.e., after partial construction and he did not taker photographs of 

constructions. He also admitted that he did not send the disputed documents 

to FSL for comparison for admitted signatures and writings and he did not 

verify as to who filed the loan applications and who filed salary certificates. 

16. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not specific regarding accused 

submitting forged salary certificates. Without filing loan applications said to 

have been filed by the accused how the prosecution established that the 

accused applied for loan is not explained for the prosecution. The prosecution 

did not produce loan sanction proceedings. Hence, it cannot be said that the 

prosecution proved sanctioning of loan to the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 

shows that he is not having any personal knowledge. He only gave report. 

P.W.2 at one breath deposed that they could not get entry in to the 

respective department for verification because of security reasons and could 

not verify the salary certificates. On another breath he deposed that senior 

Inspector from Zonal office by name Venu Gopal i.e., P.W.4 visited their 

branch and verified all the documents and himself and P.W.4 visited the 

8

respective organizations and their departments and noticed that the salary 

certificates were given for higher amounts and were forged. Therefore, the 

evidence of P.W.2 is in­consistent. The evidence of P.W.3 shows that after 

verifying the documents coming to conclusion that all the documents were 

genuine the loans were sanctioned. His evidence also shows that there is no 

any proof to show that borrowers came to their bank, accepted mistake and 

requested for sanctioning of loan undertaking that they will increase their 

net salaries by clearing off departmental loans. Therefore, there is no basis 

for his evidence regarding borrowers admitting their mistakes. If really 

borrowers approached banks and admitted their mistakes in submitting salary 

certificates showing higher net amounts there should have been any document 

in writing to that effect. The evidence of P.W.3 also shows that he has no 

proof to show that particular accused filled in particular loan application. There 

is no evidence on behalf of prosecution to show that the builder got 

sanctioned the loans for the purpose of commission with the assistance of 

P.Ws.5 and 6. As P.Ws.5 and 6 did not support the prosecution case, it has to 

be said that the prosecution did not prove its case that the builder got 

sanctioned loans with the assistance of P.Ws.5 and 6. There is no any definite 

evidence on record to show that the accused submitted the alleged forged 

salary certificates without knowledge and intention to cheat the bank. The 

Investigating Officer P.W.12 and bank official P.W.2 clearly admitted that the 

alleged forged salary certificates were not sent to F.S.L.. In the absence of the 

same it cannot be said that the accused submitted said forged documents. 

There is no evidence on record to show that the accused had intention to cheat 

the bank and with that intention they submitted forged salary certificates. 

The prosecution evidence is not at all sufficient to come to conclusion against 

the accused regarding the offences alleged against them. In view of the fact 

that the loan applications of the accused are not filed and as the documents 

regarding sanction of loan, to the accused are not filed and there is no any 

convincing evidence to show that the accused submitted the alleged forged 

salary certificates the court is of the considered opinion that it cannot be said 

that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offences 

alleged against the accused. As already stated above the case against above 

referred accused in the main case in CC 776/07 ended in acquittal on 

9.10.2012.

17. From the foregoing discussion, I hold that the prosecution in this 

case failed to prove the guilt against A­26 for the offences punishable under 

Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, A­26 is 

entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

9

18. In the result, the accused (A­26) is found not guilty for the offences 

punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and the accused is acquitted 

under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.. Bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled 

after expiry of six months.

Directly typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 10 th day of May, 2013.

VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

Hyderabad. 

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution : For Defence:

P.W.1 C.M.A. Rasheed Ahmed, Sr. Branch Manager, 

Andhra Bank, Karwan branch. ­NONE­

P.W.2 D.V.S. Vara Prasad, Sr. Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Karwan branch. P.W.3 J. Venkata Ramana, Asst. Manager, Andhra Bank, Karwan branch. P.W.4 V. Venu Gopal, Senior Manager in Zonal Pffoce of Andhra Bank, Hyderabad. P.W.5 Satyender Kumar, Electrician in Hindustan Cables Limited. P.W.6 K. Ramana Reddy,Working operator in Hindustan Cables Limited. P.W.7 V. Yerraiah, General Manager, Hindustan Cables Limited. P.W.8 K.S.R. Murthy, Sr. Dy. General Manager, Personnel and Administration, ECIL, Hyderabad. P.W.9 K.S.Shankar Rao, Administrative Officer, Phase­II in Nuclear Fuel complex. P.W.10 M. Mutha Reddy, Registrar of Osmania University, Hyderabad. P.W.11 M. Mutha Reddy, Registrar of Osmania University, Hyderabad. P.W.12 N. Prabhakar, Sub­Inspector, Tappachabutra P.S. P.W.13 Mohd. Khaja, Sub­Inspector, Tappachabutra P.S. 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION 

Ex.P­1 Complaint dated 22.8.2003. Ex.P­2 Fake salary certificate of Shankaraiah. Ex.P­3 Fake salary certificate of M.V. Raghava Charyulu. Ex.P­4 Fake salary certificate of M. Srinivasulu. Ex.P­5 Fake salary certificate of M. Narayan Rao. Ex.P­6 6 salary certificate of G. Sukumaran Pillai. Ex.P­7 Fake salary certificate of Dhanraj. Ex.P­8 Fake salary certificate of A. Anthony. Ex.P­9 Fake salary certificate of P. Rama Rao. Ex.P­10 Fake salary certificate of K. Basawaraja Ex.P­11 Fake salary certificate of M.Poornachander. Ex.P­12 Fake salary certificate of Ratna Kumar. Ex.P­13 Fake salary certificate of A. Rajendra Kumar. Ex.P­14 Fake salary certificate of E. Yadagiri. Ex.P­15 Fake salary certificate of A. Manohar. Ex.P­16 Fake salary certificate of B.N. Balaram. Ex.P­17 Fake salary certificate of P. Raghunath Reddy.

10

Ex.P­18 Fake salary certificate of Surya Prakash. Ex.P­19 Fake salary certificate of C.B. Rao. Ex.P­20 Fake salary certificate of N. Vishnu Vardhan Rao Ex.P­21 Fake salary certificate of J. Swamy Das. Ex.P­22 Fake salary certificate of G. Krishna Rao Ex.P­23 Fake salary certificate of N. Yadaiah Ex.P­24 Fake salary certificate of T. R. Ashok Ex.P­25 Fake salary certificate of G. Satyanarayana. Ex.P­26 Fake salary certificate of P.C. Ramulu. Ex.P­27 Fake salary certificate of D. Anand. Ex.P­28 Fake salary certificate of Sk. John Saheb. Ex.P­29 Fake salary certificate of A. Venkatesh. Ex.P­30 Fake salary certificate of A.K. Madhav Rao Ex.P­31 Fake salary certificate of Bixapathi. Ex.P­32 Fake salary certificate of Omana Kuttan. Ex.P­33 Fake salary certificate of J. Jaya Ram. Ex.P­34 Fake salary certificate of I. Somaiah. Ex.P­35 Fake salary certificate of Rajesh Singh Ex.P­36 Fake salary certificate of V.M.M. Krishnan Ex.P­37 Fake salary certificate of A. Narasimha Rao Ex.P­38 Fake salary certificate of T. Krishna. Ex.P­39 Fake salary certificate of G. Narsingh Rao. Ex.P­40 Fake salary certificate of B. Kistaiah. Ex.P­41 to P­80 are attested copies of salary certificates. Ex.P­81 Statement of P.W.5 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P­82 Statement of P.W.6 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P­83 Statement of P.W.7 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P­84 Letter of ECIL dated 11.10.2003. Ex.P­85 Letter given by P.W.9. Ex.P­86 Letter given by P.W.10. Ex.P­87 F.I.R. Dated 1.4.1997.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

­NIL­

MATERIALOBJECTS MARKED

­NIL­

VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

Hyderabad.

11

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN 

MAGISTRATE:HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI. M. KRISHNA MURTHY, B. Sc., LL.B.,

VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 14 th day of March, 2013.

C.C.NO. 188/2008.

Between: State through: The Sub­Inspector of police,

Humayun Nagar Police station. ..Complainant. 

A N D

A­2 : A. Srikanth S/o : A. Satyanarayana Age : 19 years. Occ : Labour. R/o : H.No. 12­2­37/B/37, B Class Zeba bagh, Asif nagar, Hyderabad.

(As summons against A­1 Venkatesh S/o: Nagesh was pending from long time, hence case against

 A­1 was split up and numbered as CC 377/2012). .. Accused. 

This case coming before me in the presence of APP for the State 

and of Sri. K. Srikanth Reddy, Counsel for accused, upon perusing material on 

record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for 

consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of police, Asif nagar Nagar police station has 

laid charge sheet against two accused in Crime No. 438/2007 for the offence 

punishable under Section 382 IPC. 

2. The prosecution case in short as per charge sheet is as follows: On 

06.11.2007 at about 9.00 p.m., when P.W.1 was going to the house of his 

brother, two un known persons came by walk and snatched away his cell 

phone by holding his hands and sped away. On his hue and cries people 

gathered there and tried to apprehend them. They escaped and they were 

aged about 20 to 25 years, wearing 'T' shirt and pant and on the report of 

P.W.1 the crime was registered by P.W.2 and investigated in to. On 6.1.2008 

L.W.4 N.V. Ramulu Goud and L.W.5 M. Dhanraj, constables produced A­1 

before P.W./2 when they were moving in suspicious circumstances. In the 

presence of mediators L.Ws.2 and 3 K. Narasimha Chary and Abdul Qayyum 

on the information of A­1 that he committed offence along with A­2 cell 

phone w as seized and panchnama was conducted and he was sent to court 

for remand on 6.1.2008 same constables produced A­2 and on his admission 

he was arrested and sent to court for remand. Hence, the charge. 

3. My learned predecessor took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 382 IPC.

2

As summons against A­1 was pending from long time, hence case 

against A­1 was split up and numbered as CC 377/2012.

4. After appearance of accused copies of all the documents on which 

the prosecution proposed to place reliance were furnished to him under section 

207 Cr.P.C..

5. The accused (A­2) was examined u/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C.. He denied 

the accusation. Charge under Section 382 IPC has been framed against the 

accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused No.2 pleaded 

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Only P.Ws.1 and 2 were got examined and Exs.P­1 and Ex.P­2 were got exhibited on behalf of prosecution. 

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused (A­2) 

was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., He denied the incriminating 

circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution side evidence. He 

reported no witnesses in defence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved 

beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused No.2 for the offence 

punishable under Section 382 IPC..

10. POINT : The case of the prosecution that the present accused 

and another committed theft of cell phone from the possession of P.W.1 and 

during investigation it was recovered from the possession of A­1 at his 

instance and A­2 was also arrested at the instance of A­1 and hence, A­1 

and A­2 are liable for punishment. Case against A­1 was split up and 

numbered as CC 377/2012 as summons were pending against him from long 

time. The plea of A­2 is one of total denial. 

11. P.W.1 deposed about the incident and further deposed that Ex.P­1 

is the report given by him and he took return of his cell phone towards 

interim custody and the said cell phone was not in working condition at 

present. P.W.2 is Sub­Inspector. He deposed that FIR was issued in this case 

by L.W.6 Mohd. Afzal, HC­3283 and it is Ex.P­2 and he conducted investigation. 

12. P.W.1 depose d that A­2 present in the court was person caught 

hold of on that day. According to him, himself and locality persons chased 

A­2 and c aught hold of him and handed over to Asif Nagar police. In Ex.P­1 

report catching hold of A­2 and handing over of him to police is not 

mentioned by P.W.1.. P.W.2 Sub­Inspector also did not speak to the said fact 

and according to P.W.2 two constables produced A­2 before him and on his 

admission about the offence he arrested him. In Ex.P­1 it is clearly mentioned 

that the offenders absconded but P.W.1 improved his version and deposed 

3

that A­2 was caught hold of and handed over to police. Therefore, there is 

no basis for the same and more­over, the evidence of P.W.2 is against the 

said version of P.W.1.. Except the alleged confession of co accused A­1 

against A­2 there is no independent evidence and convincing evidence against 

A­2 to connect him with the alleged offence. No property was seized from A­

2. P.W.2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and he did 

not examine any independent witness. The police did not get conduct any 

Test Identification parade in respect of A­2.. The evidence of independent 

mediators for alleged confession and recovery from A­1 was given up by APP on 

police report that their whereabouts are not known. Hence, In these 

circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be accepted.

13. For the above reasons, the court holds that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 382 IPC. The point is answered accordingly

14. In the result, the accused (A­2) is found not guilty for the offence 

punishable under Section 382 IPC and under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. he is 

acquitted of the said offence. The accused shall be set at liberty and his bail 

bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months.

No property order is passed as case against A­1 is pending in CC 

377/2012. 

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, 

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14 th day of March, 

2013.

VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

Hyderabad. 

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution : For Defence:

P.W.1 K. Chandu, Complainant. ­NONE­

P.W.2 Mohd. Razzak Khan, Sub­Inspector of police/ First Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION 

Ex.P­1 Complaint dated 6.11.2007. Ex.P­2 FIR dated 6.11.2007.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

­NIL­

MATERIALOBJECTS MARKED

­NIL­

VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

Hyderabad.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN 

MAGISTRATE:HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI. P. BHASKARA RAO, B. Sc., LL.M.,

VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 4 th day of June, 2013.

C.C.NO. 41/2008.

Between: State through: The Sub­Inspector of police,

Humayun Nagar Police station. ..Complainant. 

A N D

Name : Mohammed Fareeduddin @ Fareed S/o : Mohammed Muneeruddin Aged : 26 years. R/o : H.No. 9­4­29/38/1/C, Hakeemplet,

Tolichowki, Hyderabad. .. Accused.

This case coming before me in the presence of APP for the State 

and of Sri. Mohd. Rafathullah, Counsel for accused and upon perusing material 

on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for 

consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of police, Humayun Nagar police station has laid 

charge sheet against accused in Crime No. 506/2007 for the offence under 

Section 379 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.12.2007 at 

9.00 a.m., some un known culprit committed theft of motor cycle belongs to 

P.W.1 bearing registration No. AP­05 AD 4772 which was kept at Hockey 

ground, Masab tank, Hyderabad. On 27.12.07 at 5.00 p.m., P.W.1 lodged Ex.P­1 

report in Humayun Nagar P.S.. P.W.3 Sub­Inspector of police registering a 

report as a case in crime No.506/07 under Section 379 IPC and took up 

investigation. It is further alleged that P.W.2 Sub­Inspector of police, Habeeb 

Nagar police station during the course of investigation arrested the accused 

on 7.1.2008 and seized property belongs to P.W.1 along with other vehicles 

in the presence of mediators P.W.4, L.W.3 G. Mohan under cover of 

panchnama and handed over Motor cycle to P.W.3 along with relevant 

documents. P.W.3 received the case property and obtained custody of accused 

on P.T. Warrant and filed charge sheet after completion of entire investigation. 

2

4. My learned predecessor examined the accused u/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C.. He 

denied the accusation. Charge under Section 379 IPC has been framed against 

the accused, read over and explained to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and 

claimed to be tried.

3. My learned predecessor took the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC .

4. After appearance of accused copies of all the documents on which 

the prosecution proposed to place reliance were furnished to him under section 

207 Cr.P.C.. 

5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has cited 

five witnesses and examined only four witnesses. P.W.1 is the de facto 

complainant and owner of motor cycle, P.W.2 is Sub­Inspector of police, 

Habeeb nagar police station who arrested the accused and seized case property 

from the possession of the accused, P.W.3 Sub­Inspector of police, Humayun 

Nagar police station who registered FIR and filed charge sheet and P.W.4 

said to be mediator in whose presence the accused was arrested and property 

was seized. The evidence of L.W.3 G. Mohan, other panch witness was closed 

by this court. On the side of the prosecution Exs.P­1 and P­2 were marked. 

6. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was 

examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., He denied the incriminating material 

appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He did not 

examine any witnesses and no documents were marked. 

7. Heard arguments on either side.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution 

proved the guilt against the accused for the offence u/Sec. 379 IPC beyond 

reasonable doubt?

Point No.1:­ There is no direct evidence to show that the 

accused committed theft of motor cycle bearing No. AP­05 AD 4772 which 

belongs to P.W.1. P.W.1 also did not state that the accused committed 

theft of his Motor cycle. What all stated by him is that some un known 

3

culprit committed theft of his motor cycle and he lodged Ex.P­1 report in 

police station. that's all. The other witnesses are police officers and panch 

witness. So, there is no direct evidence available on record to attract charge 

under Section 379 IPC against the accused.

9. The other material available on record is P.W.4 stated to be 

panch witness present at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of motor 

cycle from accused. P.W.4 admitted that his house is situated far away 

from Habeeb nagar police station. He unable to say police jeep number and 

motor cycle number. P.W.2 Sub­Inspector of police who arrested the accused 

and seized motor cycle from accused admitted that the scene of offence is 

situated in a busy locality though he prepared two panchnamas one at the 

place of arrest and another at the house of the accused, but the said two 

panchnamas have not seen the light of the day. The said panchnamas are 

neither filed nor marked before the court. Strangely, even the stolen 

property i.e., Motor cycle of P.W.1 is also not produced and not marked 

before the court. There remains the evidence of Sub­Inspector who simply 

registered the FIR.. 

10. In my view without filing material documents namely panchnama 

and the stolen property, the charge u/Sec. 379 IPC or in alternatively u/Sec. 

411 IPC also not proved before the court. Due to the above lacunas, 

prosecution in this case failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond 

all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove 

the guilt against the accused u/Sec. 379 IPC and the accused is entitled the 

benefit of doubt. 

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

Section 379 IPC and the accused is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.. Bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months.

The un marked case property shall be retained by P.W.1 Syed Sayeed 

and the undertaking given by him while taking its interim custody shall be in 

4 force till expiry of appeal or till disposal of appeal if any.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

 corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 4 th day of June, 2013. 

VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

Hyderabad. 

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution : For Defence:

P.W.1 Syed Sayeed, Complainant. ­NONE­

P.W.2 S. Krishna Gopal, Sub­Inspector of police.

P.W.3 R.C.K. Reddy, Sub­Inspector/ Investigating Officer. P.W.4 Mohd. Ghouse, Panch witness.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION 

Ex.P­1 Complaint dated 27.12.2007.

Ex.P­2 F.I.R. Dated 27.12.2007. 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

­NIL­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­NIL­ 

VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

Hyderabad.

5 6 7 8 9 10

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN 

MAGISTRATE:HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI. M. KRISHNA MURTHY, B. Sc., LL.B.,

VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 27 th day of February, 2013.

C.C.NO. 922/2010.

Between: State through: The Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector,

Golconda Excise station. ..Complainant. 

A N D

Name : Smt. P. Bayamma W/o : Mothi Singh Age : 56 years. R/o : H.No. 8­1­88/1, Shaikpet,

Hyderabad. ..Accused.

This case coming before me in the presence of learned APP for the 

State and of Sri. Gulab Singh, Counsel for accused upon perusing material on 

record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for 

consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector, Golconda filed charge sheet 

against accused in Crime No. 99/2009­10 for the offence punishable under 

Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 7­A of said Act.

2. The prosecution case in brief as per charge sheet is as follows:

On reliable information on 8.9.09 about illegal sale of ID liquor at open place, 

behind H.No. 8­1­68/1, Shaikpet, Hyderabad. P.W.1 Prohibition and Excise Sub­

Inspector, Golconda along with staff went to the above place along with 

mediators L.W.1 Hussain and L.W.2 Syed Jaffer Ali and found the accused with 

one plastic bag surrounded by some persons and on seeing the officer the 

persons ran away and the officer stopped the accused. On enquiry the accused 

revealed her particulars as Smt. P. Bayamma W/o: Mothi Singh. During search 

of the bag found 247 ID liquor sachets each containing 100 ml., The Officer 

has drawn two samples each containing 3 sachets and seized the samples 

and remaining contraband under panchnama. She took the samples along 

with case property and came to the station and registered crime. The accused 

produced before the court for remand. She sent one sample for analysis. She 

deposited the case property before Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. 

The chemical examiner analyzed the sample and gave opinion that sample 

was ID liquor unfit for potable purpose. Hence, the charge. 

2

3. My learned predecessor took the case on file against the accused 

for the offence punishable under Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act read with 

7­A of the said Act.

4. After appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents on 

which the prosecution proposed to place reliance were furnished to her under 

Section 207 Cr.P.C..

5. The accused was examined u/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C.. She denied the accusation. A charge under Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act read with 7­A of 

the said Act against the accused, read over and explained to her in Telugu. The 

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Only P.W.1 was got examined and Exs.P­1 to Ex.P­3 were got exhibited on behalf of prosecution. 

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was 

examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied incriminating circumstances 

appearing against him in the prosecution side evidence. He reported no 

witnesses in defence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved 

beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable 

under Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act read with 7­A of the said Act. 

10. POINT : According to the prosecution that the accused was in 

illegal possession of 247 ID liquor sachets on 8.9.2009 and the same were 

recovered from accused under panchnama and hence, the accused is liable for 

punishment. The plea of the accused is one of total denial.

11. P.W.1 Excise Official supported the prosecution case. She further 

deposed that Ex.P­1 is panchnama, that Ex.P­2 is Crime occurrence report and 

Ex.P­3 is chemical Examiner's report.

12. In this case, the evidence of mediators L.W.1 Hussain and L.W.2 

Syed Jaffer Ali was given up by A.P.P. basing on the police report that their 

whereabouts are not known. Therefore, there is only evidence of P.W.1.. P.W.1 

admitted that she is complainant and Investigating Officer in this case. He 

stated that three to four staff members accompanied her but she did not 

mention their partricuars in the panchnama. She further stated that the place of 

offence is in a residential area and she did not examine any local person. She 

further stated that the mediators in this case acted as mediators in other 

cases also. She admitted that there is delay of 20 days in sending sample 

for analysis and it is not explained in the charge sheet. In the absence of 

evidence of independent mediators and in these circumstances the sole 

testimony of P.W.1 cannot be relied upon.

3

13. For the above said reasons, the court holds that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offence 

punishable under Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act read with 7­A of the said 

Act.. The point is answered accordingly.

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

under Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act read with 7­A of the said Act and 

under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. she is acquitted of the said offence. The accused 

shall be set at liberty and her bail bond shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27 th day of February, 2013.

`

VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

Hyderabad. 

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution : For Defence:

P.W.1 Smt. B. Renuka, Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector ­NONE­ 

Investigating Officer. 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION 

Ex.P­1 Panchnama dated 8.9.2009. Ex.P­2 Crime Occurrence report dated 8.9.2009. Ex.P­3 Chemical Examiner report dated 18.09.09.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

­NIL­

MATERIALOBJECTS MARKED

­NIL­

VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

Hyderabad.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN 

MAGISTRATE:HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI. M. KRISHNA MURTHY, B. Sc., LL.B.,

VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 14 th day of March , 2013.

C.C.NO. 331/2011

Between: State through: The Sub­Inspector of police (Crimes),

Langer House Police station. ..Complainant. 

A N D

Name : Mohd Saleem Pasha @ Saleem S/o: Mohd Jahangir Miyan aged: 24 years. Occ : Welder R/o: H.No. 13­3­1087/182 , near Moghbera Ziaguda Hyderabad.

This case coming before me in the presence of learned APP for the 

State and of Sri Mohd Jani, Counsel for accused and upon perusing material 

on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for 

consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of police, Langer House , police station has 

laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 73/2011 for the offence 

punishable under Section 379 IPC. 

2. The prosecution case in short as per charge sheet is as follows: 

On 1­3­2011 when PW1 went to a hotel at Nanal nagar for meals his auto 

rickshaw bearing no. AP28W 2021 was stolen away by somebody . On the 

complaint given by PW1 investigation was conducted and at the instance of the 

accused in the presence of the LW2 Mohd Asad and LW3 Syed Fareed the stolen 

auto was seized . The accused was arrested and sent to court for judicial 

custody. Hence, the charge. 

3 This court took cognizance against the accused for the offence 

punishable under Section 379 IPC.

4. After appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents on 

which the prosecution proposed to place reliance were furnished to him under 

section 207 Cr.P.C..

2

5 The accused was examined u/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C.. He denied the 

accusation. A charge under Section 379 IPC was framed against the accused, 

read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and 

claimed to be tried.

6 On behalf of the prosecution only P.W.1 was got examined and 

Ex.P.1 report and MO1 were got exhibited.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, examination of the 

accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C has been dispensed with by this court as 

there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the 

prosecution side evidence. 

8. Heard both sides.

9 The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved 

beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable 

under section 379 IPC..

10. POINT : The prosecution case is that the auto of PW1 bearing no. AP28W 

2021 was stolen away by somebody and during investigation it was recovered at 

the instance of the accused in the presence of the mediators and and hence, the 

accused is liable for punishment. The plea of the accused is one of total 

denial. 

11 In this case prosecution examined only P.W.1 V.Balavardhan Goud . He 

deposed about the theft . He further deposed that Ex.P.1 is the report given by 

him to the police and MO1 is auto taken by him towards interim custody as per 

court orders.

12. The evidence of LW2 Mohd Asad and LW3 Syed Fareed independent 

mediators for alleged confession and seizure of stolen property was given up by 

APP basing on the police report that their whereabouts are not known. The 

evidence of LW4 D.Venkateshwarlu , Asst. Sub Inspector of Police, Langer house 

who issued FIR and assisted investigating officer and LW5 K.Gopal, Sub 

Inspector of Police, Langer house who conducted investigation was closed by 

this court as they are not produced though sufficient opportunities were given. 

Therefore there is absolutely no evidence on record against the accused to 

connect the accused with the offence alleged against him. 

3

13. For the above said reasons, the court holds that the prosecution

failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the 

offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.. The point is answered accordingly. 

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

punishable under Section 379 IPC and under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. he is 

acquitted of the said offence. The accused shall be set at liberty and his bail 

bond shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months.

The MO1 Auto rickshaw shall be retained by PW1 Balavardhan 

Goud S/o: Venkataiah Goud , Age : 22 years as per charge sheet R/o: H.No. 

8­3­228/597/5, Rahmathnagar, Yosufguda, Hyderabad and the undertaking 

given by him shall b e in force till expiry of appeal time or till disposal of 

appeal if any.

Dictated to Personal Assistant of VI Addl.CMM Court, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14 th day of March, 2013.

VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

Hyderabad. 

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution : For Defence:

P.W.1 Balavardhan Goud ­NONE­ 

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P.1 Report given by P.W.1 to police on 2.3.2011. ­NIL­

MATERIALOBJECTS MARKED

MO1 Auto rickshaw bearing No. AP28W 2021 ­NIL­ 

VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

Hyderabad.

4