Sri.m.pradeep Kumar, M.b.a., L.l.m.,

II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

Prl District Court Ongole · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M.,, II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE, is posted at Prl District Court Ongole, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 725 court orders on record since 2011. 4 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, PRC, STC cases.

725

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/300137/2014 Acquitted

Inspector of Police vs Dorai Ravi

22 Mar 2014

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: ONGOLE

C.C.No. 137 of 2014

Complainant:State: Inspector of Police, Ongole II town police station.

Description of the Accused:Dorai Ravi, s/o.Dorai, aged 28 years, Naidu by caste, Vykuntapuram, Mosque Street, Kavali town, Nellore District.

Offence:Under Sec.379 IPC or 411 IPC

Plea of Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence :In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.379 IPC or 411 IPC and accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused is set at liberty forthwith in this case. Inform the jail authorities to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. M.O.1 to M.O.3, which were returned to PW1 for his interim custody as per the Crl.M.P.No.1241/ 2014, dt. 24.02.2014 shall be retained with him and they shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time. M.O.4, which was returned to PW2 for his interim custody as per the Crl.M.P.No.1242/2014, dt. 24.02.2014 shall be retained with him and it shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time. M.O.5 to M.O.8, which were returned to PW3 for her interim custody as per the Crl.M.P.No.1243/ 2014, dt. 24.02.2014 shall be retained with her and they shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time.

DATE OF

Offence:11-12-2013

Complaint:11-12-2013

Apprehension of Accused:17-12-2013

Released on bail:-- ...2

Commencement of trial:24-02-2014

Closure of trial:21-03-2014

Judgment:22-03-2014

Explanation for the delay: The Inspector of Police, Ongole II town police station filed chargesheet against the accused under Sec.379 and 411 of IPC. On 07.02.2014, this case was taken on file against the accused under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC. On 10.02.2014, copies of documents were furnished to him. On 17.02.2014 the accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and charges under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 24.02.2014, PW1 to PW3 are examined and Ex.P1 to P6 are marked. On 03.03.2014 PW4 is examined and Ex.P7 is marked. On 10.03.2014, PW5 and PW6 are examined and Ex.P8 to Ex.P10 are marked. On 13.03.2014, PW7 is examine and Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 are marked. On 18.03.2014, PW8 and PW9 are examined and

Ex.P13, Ex.P14 and Ex.p15 are marked. On 22.03.2014, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, he denied the evidence and reported no defence witnesses on his behalf. Hence, defense side evidence was closed. On 22.03.2014, heard the arguments of both parties and the Judgment was pronounced on the same day. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

J.M.F.C, Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Ongole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist & Sess. Judge, Ongole. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam Dist., // true copy //

JMFC, SMC

FAC: II AJMFC, Ongole.

...3

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ONGOLE.

Present: M. Pradeep Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

Saturday, this the twenty second day of March, 2014

Calendar Case No. 137 of 2014

State: Inspector of Police, Ongole II town police station

...Complainant

Dorai Ravi, s/o.Dorai, aged 28 years, Naidu by caste, Vykuntapuram, Mosque Street, Kavali town, Nellore

District....Accused

This Criminal case is coming on 21st day of March, 2014 for hearing

before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Complainant and of

Sri N. Sreenivasa Rao, Legal Aid Counsel and Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: // J U D G M E N T //

1. The Inspector of Police, Ongole II town police station filed charge sheet against Accused for the offences punishable under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC relating to Cr.Nos.263/2013, 265/2013 and 266/2013 of Ongole II town police station.

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

The accused committed theft of Gas cylinders belonging to

LW1/Thanikonda Sekhar babu, LW4/Gadireddy Durga Prasad and LW7/Nallagarla

Nagamani at various places. LW12/D.Vijaya Bhaskar, LW13/J.Pullaiah and

LW14/P.Venkateswarlu registered the cases. LW15/V.Suryanarayana arrested the accused and recorded the confessional statement of accused in the presence ...4 of mediators and seized gas cylinders from the possession of accused. Hence, the chargesheet.

3. This case was taken on file for the offences under Sec.379 or 411 against Accused. After appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charges were framed for the offences under

Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and its contents were read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and M.O.1 to M.O.8 were marked. After closure of Prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence spelt out by the prosecution witnesses against him and reported no defense evidence on his behalf. Hence, defense side evidence was closed.

5. Heard arguments on both sides.

6. Now the Point that arises for determination is

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offences under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. The learned A.P.P Argued before this Court that from the evidence of PW1 to PW3, PW6 to PW9, the theft of M.O.1 to M.O.8 and seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.8 from the possession of accused by PW9 is proved. Hence, the accused is liable for conviction.

8. The learned defense counsel for Accused argued before this court that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence and the accused is no way related to this case. He further argued that none of the prosecution witnesses identified the accused as the person, who committed the ...5 theft of M.O.1 to M.O.8. He further argued that PW4 and PW5, who are mediators did not support the case of the prosecution at all. He further argued that the evidence of PW6 to PW9 is not believable as they are interested witnesses to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

9. Perused the record. Out of fifteen list of witnesses, the

Prosecution has examined nine witnesses. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW2/Kapa Srinivasa Reddy, LW3/M.V.Seshaiah, LW5/Gadireddy

Padma, LW6/Chintapalli Srinivasulu, LW8/Nallagarla Suman and LW9/Mettela

Lakshminarayana. PW1 to PW3 are the persons, who initiated this case. PW4 and PW5 are mediators. PW6 to PW8 are police officials, who registered the case and investigated the case. PW9 is the Investigating Officer, who seized

M.O.1 to M.O.8 and arrested the accused and filed chargesheet. Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 are reports. Ex.P2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 are receipts. Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are signatures. Ex.P9, Ex.P11 and Ex.P13 are First Information Reports. Ex.P10,

Ex.P12 and Ex.P14 are rough sketches. Ex.P15 is the mediatornama. M.O.1 to

M.O.8 are Gas Cylinders.

10. POINT: As this is a case under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that M.O.1 to M.O.8 were committed theft by the accused and PW9 seized M.O.1 to M.O.8 from the possession of accused and accused retained M.O.1 to M.O.8 knowingly that they are stolen property.

11. PW1 to PW3 deposed before this Court in their chief examination that they kept their Gas Cylinders in their house and thereafter they found missing of Gas Cylinders (M.O.1 to M.O.8) and thereafter lodged reports (Ex.P1,

Ex.P3 and Ex.P5) before the police. During the investigation, the police ...6 informed them about the recovery of M.O.1 to M.O.8 and they identified the gas

Cylinders and they received their respective Gas Cylinders from the police by issuing receipts (Ex.P2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P6). From the evidence of PW1 to PW3, this

Court observed that the identity of person, who committed the theft of M.O.1 to

M.O.8 is not proved by the Prosecution. Hence, this Court opined that the

Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused under Sec.379 of IPC. From the evidence of PW1 to PW3, this Court believed that M.O.1 to M.O.3 belongs to

PW1, M.O.4 belongs to PW2 and M.O.5 to M.O.8 belongs to PW3.

12. PW4, who is mediator deposed before this Court in his chief examination that on one day at about two months back, police came to his hotel and requested him to affix his signature and he affixed his signature on some written paper and he do not know its contents. PW5, who is another mediator deposed before this Court in his chief examination that on one day at about two months back, he went to Ongole two town police station relating to one petty case and there, the police writer requested him to affix his signature and he affixed his signature on some written paper and he do not know its contents.

Thereafter, PW4 and PW5 were declared hostile. It is observed that PW4 and

PW5 denied the suggestions put by the learned APP in their cross examination that they acted as mediators and the police recorded the confession statement of accused in their presence and arrested the accused in their presence and seized M.O.1 to M.O.8 from the possession of accused in their presence. Hence, this Court opined that the evidence of PW4 and PW5 is not helpful to the case of prosecution at all, as their evidence did not support the case of prosecution.

13. The Only evidence on record, which supports the case of prosecution is the evidence of PW9. PW9 deposed before this Court in his chief examination that he secured the presence of PW4 and PW5 and seized M.O.1 to ...7

M.O.8 from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators (PW4 and

PW5) and prepared mediatornama (Ex.P15) and thereafter obtained signatures of mediators and thumb impression of accused on Ex.P5. This Court observed that PW4 and PW5 admitted their signatures on Ex.P15. But this Court observed that PW4 and PW5 denied the contents of mediatornama (Ex.P15). Hence, this

Court did not believe the contents of Ex.P15. This Court also opined that the evidence of PW6 to PW8 is only helpful for the process of investigation as their role in this case is only with regard to the registration of F.I.R and preparing the rough sketches. This Court further opined that basing on the evidence of interested witnesses alone i.e., PW9, it is not just and proper to convict the accused.

14. From the above discussion, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to prove that accused committed theft of Gas Cylinders (M.O.1 to M.O.8) and also failed to prove the seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.8 by PW9 from the possession of accused. Hence, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of accused. As such, accused is entitled for acquittal

15.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.379 IPC or 411 IPC and accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused is set at liberty forthwith in this case.

Inform the jail authorities to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. M.O.1 to M.O.3, which were returned to PW1 for his interim custody as per the Crl.M.P.No.1241/2014, dt. 24.02.2014 shall be retained with him and they shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time. M.O.4, which was returned to PW2 for his interim custody as per the

Crl.M.P.No.1242/2014, dt. 24.02.2014 shall be retained with him and it shall be

made absolute after the expiry of appeal time. M.O.5 to M.O.8, which were returned to PW3 for her interim custody as per the Crl.M.P.No.1243/2014, dt.

...8 24.02.2014 shall be retained with her and they shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 22th day of March 2014.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

J.M.F.C, Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Ongole. // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined For Prosecution For Defence PW.1:Thanikonda Seskhar babuNONE PW.2:Gadireddy Durga Prasad PW.3:Nallagarla Nagamani PW.4:Nimmalapalli brahmaiah PW.5:Perugu saikrishna PW.6:J. Pullaiah PW.7:D.Vijaya bhasker, HC 1843 PW.8:P. Venkateswarlu, S.I of Police. PW.9:V. Suryanarayana, Inspector of Police.

Documents Marked For Prosecution

Ex.P1Report given by PW 1 Ex.P2Receipt in Cr.No.263/2013 of Ongole II town PS Ex.P3Report given by PW2 Ex.P4Receipt in Cr.No.265/2013 Ex.P5Report given by PW3 Ex.P6Receipt in Cr.No.268/2013 Ex.P7Signature of PW4 on mediatornama dt.17.12.2013 Ex.P8Siganture of PW5 on the mediatornama dt.17.12.2013 Ex.P9First information Report in Cr.No.265/2013 Ex.P10Rough sketch of the scene of offence in Cr.No.265/2013 Ex.P11First Information Report in Cr.No.263/2013 Ex.P12Rough sketch of the scene of offence in Cr.No.263/2013 Ex.P13First Information Report in Cr.No.266/2013 Ex.P14Rough sketch of the scene offence Ex.P15Mediatornama.

Material objects marked M.O.1One indian gas cylinder M.O.2One indian gas cylinder M.O.3HP gas cylinder M.O.4One indian gas cylinder M.O.5One indian gas cylinder M.O.6One indian gas cylinder M.O.7One HP gas cylinder M.O.8One HP gas cylinder.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

J.M.F.C, S.M.C

FAC: II A.J.M.F.C, Ongole.

// true copy //

JMFC, SMC

FAC: II AJMFC, Ongole.

CC/300161/2014 Acquitted

Inspector of Police vs Ponugupati Srinu

19 Mar 2014

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: ONGOLE

C.C.No. 161/2014

Complainant:State: Inspector of Police, Ongole I town police station.

Description of the Accused:Ponugupati Srinu, S/o.Bhaskara Rao, aged 30 years, Kamma by caste, Konijadu Village, Tangutur Mandal.

Offence:under Sec.379 IPC or 411 IPC

Plea of Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence :In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.379 IPC or 411 IPC and accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Accused is set at liberty forthwith in this case. Inform the jail authorities to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. M.O.1, which was already given to PW1 for her interim custody vide

Crl.M.P.No.1244/2014, dt.24.02.2014 shall

be retained with her and it shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time.

DATE OF

Offence:11-03-2013

Complaint:09-04-2013

Apprehension of Accused:31-12-2013

Released on bail:--

Commencement of trial:24.02.2014

Closure of trial:14.03.2014

Judgment:19.03.2014

Explanation for the delay: The Inspector of Police, Ongole I town police station filed chargesheet against the accused under Sec.379 and 411 of IPC. On 11.02.2014, this case was taken on file against the accused under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC. On ...2 14.02.2014, copies of documents were furnished to him. On 19.02.2014 the accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and charges under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 24.02.2014 PW1 and PW2 are examined and Ex.P1 and M.O.1 is marked. On 04.03.2014 PW2 and PW3 are examined and Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are marked.

On 12.03.2014, PW5 and PW6 are examined and Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are marked. On 13.03.2014, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, he denied the evidence and reported no defence witnesses on his behalf. Hence, defense side evidence was closed. On 14.03.2014, heard the arguments of both parties. On 19.03.2014, the

Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

J.M.F.C, Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Ongole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist & Sess. Judge, Ongole. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam Dist., // true copy //

JMFC, SMC

FAC:: II AJMFC, Ongole.

...3

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

ONGOLE.

Present: M. Pradeep Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

Tuesday, this the Eighteenth day of March, 2014

Calendar Case No. 161/2014

State: Inspector of Police, Ongole I town police station.

...Complainant

Ponugupati Srinu, S/o.Bhaskar Rao, aged 30 years, Kamma

by caste, Konijadu village, Tangutur Mandal. ...Accused

This Criminal case is coming on 14th day of March, 2014 for hearing

before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Complainant and of

Smt. M.S. Bhanu Rani, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Inspector of Police, Ongole I town police station filed charge sheet against Accused for the offences punishable under Sec.379 and 411 of IPC relating to Cr.No.92/2013 of Ongole I town police station.

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

On 11th day of March, 2013 LW1/Thalamanchi Susela and

LW2/Thalamanchi Narasimha Rao came to Ongole and on one day went to fruit market and kept their bag consisting of cash of Rs.40,000/- in an auto and purchased fruits. Thereafter, they got into auto and found missing of their cash bag. Then, LW1 lodged a report. During the investigation, LW9/B.T.Naik,

Inspector of Police secured the presence of mediators LW5/Kanamarlapudi

Raghavendra babu and LW6/Sk. Jani and in their presence the accused confessed about the commission of theft and LW9/B.T.Naik seized the cash of Rs.25,000/- ...4 from the possession of accused and thereafter prepared the mediatornama to that effect and arrested the accused. Hence, chargesheet.

Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and its contents were read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and

M.O.1 were marked. After closure of Prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence spelt out by the prosecution witnesses against him and reported no defense evidence on his behalf. Hence, defense side evidence was closed.

5. Heard arguments on both sides.

6. Now the Point that arises for determination is

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offences under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. The learned A.P.P Argued before this Court that from the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and M.O.1, the commission of theft M.O.1 and seizure of M.O.1 from the possession of accused is proved by the

Prosecution. Hence, the accused is liable for conviction.

8. The learned defense counsel for Accused argued before this court that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence and the accused is no way related to this case. He further argued that PW5 registered this false case and filed false chargesheet for statistical purpose. He further argued that the seizure of M.O.1 from the possession of accused is not proved ...5 from the evidence of PW3 and PW4, who are mediators. Hence, the evidence of

PW6 is not believable as PW6 is an interested witness to the case of prosecution.

Therefore, accused is entitled for acquittal.

9. Perused the record. Out of nine list of witnesses, the Prosecution has examined six witnesses. The learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW3/Jagannadham Basavara Raju, LW4/Sk. Abdul Rasheed and LW8/K. Prakasa

Rao. PW1 is the person, who set the criminal Law into motion. PW2 is husband of PW1. PW3 and PW4 are mediators. PW5 and PW6 are police people. Ex.P1 is report. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are signatures. Ex.P4 is F.I.R. Ex.P5 is rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P6 is mediatornama. M.O.1 is cash of Rs.25,000/-.

10. POINT: As this is a case under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that M.O.1 was committed theft by the accused and

PW5 seized M.O.1 from the possession of accused and accused retained M.O.1 knowingly that it was a stolen property.

11. PW1 deposed before this Court that in her chief examination that she went to Ongole in an auto with a cash of Rs.40,000/- in a bag and kept in the auto and purchased water melon. Then, she found missing of cash bag in the auto and searched for the same here and there, but in vain and opined that some unknown persons committed theft of said cash and went to police station and lodged a report (Ex.P1).

12. PW2 deposed before this Court in his chief examination that on 11.03.203, he along with PW1 and (his wife) went to fruit market, Ongole and there, they lost Rs.40,000/- cash and searched for the same here and there, but in vain and opined that some unknown offenders committed theft of the said cash and then went to police station and there PW1 lodged her report (Ex.P1).

...6

13. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is remained unchallenged as the defence counsel reported nil to cross examine them. Hence, from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, this Court believed that PW1 lost cash of Rs.40,000/- and police recovered the cash of Rs.25,000/- (M.O.1). Hence, this Court believed that M.O.1 is a stolen property and is belongs to PW1. But from the evidence of PW1 and

PW2, the prosecution did not establish that the accused committed the alleged theft. Hence, this Court holds that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Sec.379 of IPC.

14. Now the prosecution has to prove that PW6 seized M.O.1 from the possession of accused in the presence of PW3 and PW4 under the cover of mediatornama (Ex.P6). In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW3, PW4 and PW6. PW3 and PW4 deposed before this Court in their chief examination that they went to police station on their personal work and they affixed their signatures on some written papers at the request of police and they do not know its contents. Thereafter, PW3 and PW4 declared hostile. It is observed that PW3 and PW4 denied the suggestions put by the learned APP in their cross examination that they acted as mediator and police arrested the accused and seized M.O.1 from the possession of accused in their presence and police prepared mediatornama in their presence. Hence, this Court opined that the evidence of PW3 and PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution in any aspect.

15. PW5, who is a head constable deposed before this Court that he registered F.I.R (Ex.P4) basing on the report (Ex.P1) of PW1 and examined PW1 and PW2 and visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence (Ex.P5). This Court opined that from the evidence of PW5, this

Court cannot came to an opinion about the accused as the evidence of PW5 is ...7 only with regard to registering of FIR and also investigation with regard to the commission of theft of M.O.1. Hence, the evidence of PW5 is not helpful to the case of prosecution for the accusation of accused.

16. PW6, who is the Investigating Officer deposed before this Court that he secured the presence of mediators (PW3 and PW4) near southern side of

New Vegetable market, Ongole, he saw the accused and caught him and enquired him and accused confessed about the commission of theft in the presence of mediators and he seized M.O.1 from the possession of accused under the cover of mediatornama (Ex.P6) and thereafter he obtained the signatures of PW3 and PW4 and accused on Ex.P6. This Court observed that the evidence of PW6 alone supported the case of prosecution. But this Court is of the opinion that PW6 being the inspector of police and investigating officer in this case is the interested witness to the case of the prosecution. Hence, this

Court is of the view that basing on the evidence of investigating officer i.e., interested witness alone, it is not just and proper to convict the accused. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that some corroborative piece of the evidence required to the evidence of PW6 should be looked into. But the independent witnesses i.e., PW3 and PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution.

Though PW3 and PW4 admitted their signatures on Ex.P6, as they did not support the case of the prosecution, this Court is in doubt about the contents of

Ex.P6. Hence, Ex.P6 is not proved by the prosecution. Hence, this Court is in doubt about the seizure of M.O.1 from the possession of accused. .

17. From the above discussion, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should to in favour of accused. As such, accused is entitled for acquittal ...8

18.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.379 IPC or 411 IPC and accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused is set at liberty forthwith in this case.

Inform the jail authorities to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. M.O.1, which was already given to PW1 for her interim custody vide Crl.M.P.No.1244/2014, dt.24.02.2014 shall be retained with her and it shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 19th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

J.M.F.C, Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Ongole.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined For Prosecution For Defence PW.1:Thalamanchi Suseela NONE PW.2:Thalamanchi Narasimha Rao PW.3:Kanamarlapudi Raghavendra Babu PW.4:Sk. Jani, PW.5:L. Chiranjeevulu, HC 486 PW.6:B.T. Naik, Inspector of Police

Documents Marked For Prosecution

Ex.P1Report given by PW1 to the police Ex.P2Signature of PW3 on the mediatornama Ex.P3Signature of PW4 on the mediatornama Ex.P4First Information Report Ex.P5Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P6Mediatornama Material objects marked M.O.1Cash of Rs.25,000/-

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

J.M.F.C, S.M.C,

FAC: II A.J.M.F.C, Ongole. // true copy //

JMFC, SMC

FAC:: II AJMFC, Ongole.

CC/300550/2012 Acquitted

State rep by SI of Police I-Town PS vs Shak Jakeer Hussain

21 Mar 2014

Calendar and Judgment

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

ONGOLE.

C.C.No. 550 of 2012

Complainant:State: Inspector of Police, Ongole I town Police Station.

Description of the A1 and A2:Shaik Jakeer Hussain, S/o.Sharief Khan, aged 23 years, Muslim, Islampet, 1st lane, Ongole.

Offence:under Secs.292 of IPC, Sec.3 and 6 of Indecent Representation of women Act, Sec.4 r/w Sec.12 of A.P Exhibition of films on television screen through video cassette recorders (Regulation) Act and Sec.51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957

Plea of Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.292 of IPC, Sec.3 and 6 of Indecent Representation of women Act, Sec.4 r/w Sec.12 of A.P Exhibition of films on television screen through video cassette recorders (Regulation) Act and Sec.51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused is set at liberty forthwith in the present case. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

DATE OF

Offence:02-07-2011

Complaint:02-07-2011

Apprehension of Accused:02-07-2011

Released on bail:15-03-2013

Commencement of trial:14-05-2013

Closure of trial:19-03-2014

Judgment:21-03-2014 2

Explanation for the delay: The Inspector of Police, Ongole I town police station filed chargesheet against Accused for the offences punishable under Sec.292 of IPC, Sec.3,4 & 6 of Indecent Representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act 1986, Sec.4 r/w 12 of A.P. Exhibition of Films on TV screen through Video Cassette Recorder (Regulation) Act 1993 and Sec.51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 against the accused in Cr.No.143/2011 of Ongole I town police station. On 20.11.2012 this case ws taken on file against the accused under Sec.292 of IPC, Sec.3,4 & 6 of Indecent Representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act 1986, Sec.4 r/w 12 of A.P. Exhibition of Films on TV screen through Video Cassette Recorder (Regulation) Act 1993 and Sec.51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957. On 13.03.2013, copies are furnished to the accused. On 19.03.2013, the accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and the charges under Sec.292 of IPC, Sec.3,4 & 6 of Indecent Representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act 1986, Sec.4 r/w 12 of A.P. Exhibition of Films on TV screen through Video Cassette Recorder (Regulation) Act 1993 and Sec.51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 was framed, read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 14.05.2013, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked. On 24.06.2013, PW3 and PW4 are examined. On 27.06.2013, PW5 is examined and Ex.P3 is marked. On 18.12.2013, PW6 is examined and Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 and M.O.1 and 2 are marked. On 12.03.2014, PW7 are examined and Ex.P6 is marked and the prosecution side evidence is closed and the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defense evidence on their his behalf on 14.03.2014. 19.03.2014, heard the arguments of both parties. On 21.03.2014, the Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Ongole. FAC: II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Ongole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist & Sess. Judge, Ongole. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam Dist., // true copy //

JMFC, SMC

FAC: II AJMFC, Ongole 3

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

ONGOLE.

Present: M. Pradeep Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ongole

Friday, this the twenty first day of March, 2014

Calendar Case No. 550 of 2012

State: Inspector of Police, Ongole I town P.S.,

...Complainant

Shaik Jakeer Hussain, S/o.Sharief Khan, aged 23 years,

Muslim, Islampet, 1st lane, Ongole....Accused

This Criminal case is coming on 19th day of March, 2014 for hearing

before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Complainant and of

Sri D.V.Vasistha, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Board delivered the following:

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

1. The Inspector of Police, Ongole I town police station filed chargesheet against Accused for the offence punishable under Sec.292 of IPC,

Sec.3,4 & 6 of Indecent Representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act 1986, Sec.4 r/w 12 of A.P. Exhibition of Films on TV screen through Video Cassette Recorder (Regulation) Act 1993 and Sec.51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 relating to

Cr.No.143/2011 of Ongole I town police station.

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

On 2nd day of July, 2011 at about 12.00 PM on receipt of credible information, LW8/U.Nagaraju secured the presence of mediators

LW5/K.Narasimha Rao and LW7/M. Bheema Naik and conducted ride on the shop of accused along with police party. The Accused on seeing the police party concealed some DVDs hurriedly. Then, LW8/U.Nagaraju caught the accused and 4 seized six blue film DVDs and 10 telugu film pirated DVDs and recorded the confessional statement of accused and arrested the accused and prepared the police proceedings. Hence, chargesheet.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.292 of IPC, sec.3,4 and 6 of Indecent Representation of women Act, Sec.4 r/w Sec.12 of A.P.E of films and television screen through video cassette recorder Act and sec.51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957. After appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and charges under Secs.292 of IPC, Sec.3 and 6 of Indecent Representation of women Act, Sec.4 r/w Sec.12 of A.P Exhibition of films on television screen through video cassette recorders (Regulation) Act and

Sec.51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and its contents were read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and Ex.P1 to P6 and

M.O.1 and M.O.2 were marked. After closure of Prosecution side evidence,

Accused was was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence spelt out by the prosecution witnesses against him and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, defence side evidence was closed.

5. Heard arguments on both sides.

6. Now the Point that arises for determination is

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offence Secs.292 of IPC, Sec.3 and 6 of Indecent Representation of women Act, Sec.4 r/w Sec.12 of A.P Exhibition of films on television screen through video cassette recorders (Regulation) Act and Sec.51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. The learned A.P.P argued before this Court that from the evidence

PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW7 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MOs1 and 2, the acts of accused is proved. Hence, accused is liable for conviction.

8. The learned counsel for Accused argued before this Court that apart from the police people no other witness supported the case of prosecution. He further argued that PW4 and PW5 deposed in their chief examination that they do not put their signatures in the police proceedings (Ex.P4). Hence, Ex.P4 is not proved and the evidence of PW3 and PW4 is not believable. He further argued that PW7 admitted in his cross examination that the signature of PW3 and PW4 are not present in Ex.P4. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

9. Perused the record. Out of eight list of witnesses, the Prosecution has examined seven witnesses. The Prosecution has given up the evidence of

LW3/Nuna Ravi. PW1, PW2 and PW5 are independent witnesses. PW3 and PW4 are police constables. PW6 and PW7 are investigating officers. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements. Ex.P4 is police proceedings. Ex.P5 is First

Information Report. Ex.P6 is rough sketch of the scene of offence. M.O.1 is six blue film DVDs. M.O.2 is 10 pirated telugu film DVDs.

10. POINT: As this is a case under Secs.292 of IPC, Sec.3 and 6 of

Indecent Representation of women Act, Sec.4 r/w Sec.12 of A.P Exhibition of films on television screen through video cassette recorders (Regulation) Act and

Sec.51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957, the Prosecution has to prove that the accused selling the blue film DVDs and pirated DVDs without license.

11. PW1, PW2 and PW5 deposed before this Court in their chief examination that they do not know about the facts of this case, they were turned hostile. PW1, PW2 and PW5 denied the suggestions put by the leanred APP in their cross examination that they stated to the police as in their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 respectively.

12. PW3 and PW4 deposed before this Court in their chief examination that they accompanied their Inspector/PW7 and visited the shop of accused and accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed before PW6 and PW7 and seized M.O.1 and M.O.2 and prepared the police proceedings. But PW3 and

PW4 deposed in their cross examination that they do not affix their signatures on police proceedings. PW7 admitted in his cross examination that the signatures of PW3 and PW4 are not present on Ex.P4. Hence, this Court did not believe the evidence of PW3 and PW4 as they visited the scene of offence.

13. This Court observed that the evidence of PW6 and PW7 supported the case of the prosecution. It is observed that PW6 and PW7 deposed before this Court that they visited the shop of accused and accused tried to hide pirated

CDs and blue film CDs and PW7 enquired accused and seized M.O.1 and 2 from the possession of accused and prepared the police proceedings (Ex.P4) and recorded the confessional statement of accused. This Court opined that PW6 and PW7 are S.I of Police and Inspector of Police respectively and are interested witnesses to the prosecution case. Hence, this Court is of the view that the evidence of interested witnesses i.e., PW6 and PW7 should be corroborated with the evidence of any other independent witnesses. But, this Court observed that the independent witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW5 did not support the case of the prosecution at all. Hence, this Court opined that basing on the evidence of 7 interested witnesses alone i.e., PW6 and PW7, it is not just and proper to convict the accused.

14. From the above discussion, this Court is in doubt about the seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2 from the possession of accused and also this Court is in doubt about the confession of accused. Hence, this Court holds that the

Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should go infavour of Accused. As such, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

15. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.292 of IPC, Sec.3 and 6 of Indecent Representation of women Act, Sec.4 r/w Sec.12 of A.P Exhibition of films on television screen through video cassette recorders (Regulation) Act and Sec.51 r/w 63 of Copy

Right Act, 1957 and accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Accused is set at liberty forthwith in the present case. The bail bonds of

Accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this

Judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Board on this, the 21st day of March, 2014.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II A.J.M.F.C, Ongole.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1:Dachepalli Prasad NONE PW.2:Shaik Jani PW.3:K. Narasimha Rao PW.4:Rajesh, PC 850 PW.5:Arla Sarveswara Rao PW.6:M. Bheema Naik PW.7:U. Nagaraju, Inspector of Police 8

Documents Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P1Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P2Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P4Police proceedings Ex.P5First Information Report Ex.P6Rough sketch of the scene of offence

For defence NIL

Material objects marked

M.O.1Six blue film DVDs M.O.210 pirated telugu film DVDs

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

J.M.F.C, S.M.C, Ongole FAC: II AJMFC, Ongole // true copy //

JMFC, SMC

FAC: II AJMFC, Ongole

CC/300599/2012 Acquitted

S.I.I town ongole vs Pratapu Koteswararao

21 Mar 2014

Calendar and Judgment

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

ONGOLE.

C.C.No. 599 of 2012

Complainant:State: Inspector of Police, Ongole I town Police Station.

Description of the A1 and A2:Pratapu Koteswara Rao, S/o.Ramudu, Coolie works, Budabukkala by caste, near PVR Boys High School, Nagendranagar, Ongole town.

Offence:Sec.171-E, Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.123 of Representation of People Act.

Plea of Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.171-E,

Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.123 of

Representation of People Act and accordingly, Accused is acquitted under

Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused is set at liberty forthwith in the present case. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this

Judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be confiscated to state after the expiry of appeal time.

DATE OF

Offence:09-06-2012

Complaint:09-06-2012

Apprehension of Accused:20-07-2012

Released on bail:20-07-2012

Commencement of trial:22-07-2013

Closure of trial:18-03-2014

Judgment:21-03-2014

Explanation for the delay: The Inspector of Police, Ongole I town police station filed chargesheet against Accused in Cr.No.151/2012 of Ongole I town police station.

On 18-12-2012 this case was taken on file against the Accused for the offence under

Sec.171-E, Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.123 of Representation of People Act. On 29.01.2013, copies are furnished to him. On 13.02.2013, the accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C and the accusation read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 22.07.2013, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked. On 23.12.2013, PW3 is examined and Ex.P3 is marked. On 12.03.2014, PW5 is examined and Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are marked and the prosecution side evidence was also closed. On 14.03.2014, the

Accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defense evidence on his behalf. Hence, defense side evidence was closed. On 18.03.2014, heard the arguments of both parties. On 21.03.2014, the

Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Ongole. FAC: II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Ongole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist & Sess. Judge, Ongole. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam Dist., // true copy //

JMFC, SMC

FAC: II AJMFC, ONGOLE.

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

ONGOLE.

Present: M. Pradeep Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ongole

Friday, this the twenty first day of March, 2014

Calendar Case No. 599 of 2012

State: Inspector of Police, Ongole I town P.S.,

...Complainant

Pratapu Koteswara Rao, S/o.ramudu, coolie works, Budabukkala by caste, near PVR Boys High School,

Nagendra Nagar, Ongole town. ...Accused

This Criminal case is coming on 20th day of March, 2014 for hearing

before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Complainant and of

Sri K. Anjireddy, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Board delivered the following:

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

1. The Inspector of Police, Ongole I town police station filed chargesheet against Accused for the offence punishable under Sec.171-E, Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.123 of Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 and Sec.102 of

Cr.P.C relating to Cr.No.151/2012 of Ongole I town police station.

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

On 9th day of June, 2012 at about 3.00 PM, on receiving credible information, LW7/U.Nagaraju along with his police party proceeded to eastern side PVR Municipal Boys High School, Ongole and there, he saw the accused distributing the cash to the public and on seeing the police party, the accused escaped from the scene. Then, LW7/U.Nagaraju seized the cash of Rs.50,000/- and voters list of Ongole Assembly Constituency from the scene of offence and prepared police proceedings to that effect. During the investigation, the 4 accused voluntarily surrendered before LW7/U.Nagaraju, and then he arrested him. Hence, chargesheet.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.171-E, Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.123 of Representation of People Act. After appearance of

Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under

Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C and the accusation under Sec.171-E, Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.123 of Representation of

People Act were read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and Ex.P1 to P6 and

M.O.1 were marked. After closure of Prosecution side evidence, Accused was was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence spelt out by the prosecution witnesses against him and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, defence side evidence was closed.

5. Heard arguments on both sides.

6. Now the Point that arises for determination is

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offence U/Sec.171-E, Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.123 of Representation of People Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. The learned A.P.P argued before this Court that from the evidence of PW4 and PW5 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and M.O.1, the acts of accused is proved.

Hence, accused is liable for conviction.

8. The learned counsel for Accused argued before this Court that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that apart from the evidence of PW4 and PW5, who are police people no 5 other witnesses supported the case of prosecution. Hence, accused is entitled for conviction.

9. Perused the record. Out of seven list of witnesses, the Prosecution has examined only five witnesses. The learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW5/G. Prasad, PC 242. This Court has closed the evidence of LW3/Pedala

Pitchaiah. PW1 to PW3 are independent witnesses. PW4 and PW5 are police people. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of PW1 to PW3 respectively. Ex.P4 is police proceedings. Ex.P5 is First Information Report.

Ex.P6 is rough sketch of the scene of offence. M.O.1 is cash of Rs.25,000/-.

10. POINT: As this is a case under Sec.171-E, Sec.188 of IPC and

Sec.123 of Representation of People Act, the Prosecution has to prove that the accused distributed money to the voters for influencing them to vote on behalf of YSR Congress party.

11. PW1 to PW3 deposed before this Court in their chief examinations that they do not know about the facts of this case. Thereby, they were declared as hostile. PW1 to PW3 denied the suggestions put by the learned APP in their cross examination that they stated to the police as in their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 respectively.

12. PW4, who is police constable deposed before this Court in his chief examination that he along with PW5 went to the scene and saw the accused ran away and PW5 seized M.O.1 and voters list from the scene of offence under the police proceedings and they obtained the identity particulars of accused from

PW1 and PW2.

13. PW5, who is Inspector of Police deposed before this Court in his chief examination that on receiving information, he reached the eastern side of 6

P.V.R M. Boys High School, Ongole along with his staff and saw the accused distributing the money on behalf of YSR Congress party and thereafter, the accused escaped from the scene and then, he seized cash of Rs.50,000/- from the scene of offence and prepared the police proceedings (Ex.P4). Thereafter, he registered F.I.R (Ex.P5) basing on Ex.P4 and prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P6) of the scene of offence and later the accused voluntarily surrendered before him and he arrested the accused and filed chargesheet.

14. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 to PW5, this Court opined that the evidence of PW4 and PW5 alone supported the case of the prosecution.

But, PW4 deposed in his cross examination that PW5 examined him after PW5 arrested the accused. Firstly, PW5 deposed before this Court in his cross examination that the recorded the statement of PW4 after arresting of accused at the scene of offence and again he deposed that he was confused and deposed that after registering Ex.P5, he examined PW4. Hence, from the evidence of PW4 and PW5, the particular stage of the examination and recording the statement of PW4 is doubtful. Moreover, this Court observed that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 did not support the case of the prosecution at all. This

Court opined that though PW4 is a material witness to the prosecution case, as he is police constable, he might have deposed in favour of prosecution to help his higher officials and this Court further opined that the evidence of PW4 is contradicting with the evidence of PW5 as discussed above. This Court also opined that basing on the evidence of PW5 alone, who is an interested witness, it is not just and proper to convict the accused.

15. From the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit 7 of doubt should go infavour of Accused. As such, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.171-E, Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.123 of Representation of

People Act and accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Accused is set at liberty forthwith in the present case. The bail bonds of

Accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this

Judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be confiscated to state after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Board on this, the 21st day of March, 2014.

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Ongole FAC: II A.J.M.F.C, Ongole.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined For Prosecution For Defence PW.1:Darla Satyam NONE PW.2:Darla Anjaiah PW.3:Senagapalli Prasad Babu PW.4:J.Raveen Raju, PC 333 PW.5:U. Nagaraju, Inspector of Police, Documents Marked For Prosecution

Ex.P1Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P2Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4Police proceedings Ex.P5First Information Report Ex.P6Rough sketch of the scene of offence For defence NIL Material objects marked

M.O.1Cash of Rs.50,000/-

Sd/- M. Pradeep Kumar

J.M.F.C, S.M.C, Ongole FAC: II AJMFC, Ongole // true copy //

JMFC, SMC

FAC: II AJMFC, ONGOLE.

Order Record 691 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/300137/2014	Inspector of Police vs Dorai Ravi	22 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/600025/2011	sho maddipadu ps vs Vsnalluri rambabu	22 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600040/2011	sho tangutur ps vs Vssunkara padma	22 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600058/2011	sho maddipadu ps vs Vsramaswamy ravi chandran	22 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600094/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Karumudi Chinna Venkateswarlu	22 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/300355/2014	Inspector of Police vs Pasumarthi Vinod	21 Mar 2014	Order	—
CC/300550/2012	State rep by SI of Police I-Town PS vs Shak Jakeer Hussain	21 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/300599/2012	S.I.I town ongole vs Pratapu Koteswararao	21 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/600110/2012	TANGUTRUR PS vs Bittam Lakshminarayana	21 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600155/2011	sho tangutur ps vs Vssri ram baran prasad	21 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/300161/2014	Inspector of Police vs Ponugupati Srinu	19 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/300270/2012	Kota Srinivasulu Reddy vs A1 Parankusam Anil Kumar	19 Mar 2014	Order	—
CC/300661/2013	Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited vs Challa Hari Narayana	19 Mar 2014	Order	—
STC/600006/2014	State Andhra Pradesh vs G Upendra	19 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/300239/2014	Inspector of Police vs Polamarasetty Ramu	18 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/301117/2008	SI of Police I-Town PS Ongole vs Peetla alias Nallabai Chinni	18 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600114/2014	Inspector of Police vs Thanigundala Srinivasa Reddy	18 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600125/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Medabalimi Srinivasa Rao	14 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600137/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Dasari Anjaiah	14 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600019/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Vallepu Venkata Rao	13 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600104/2011	sho tangutur ps vs Vskommu koteswara rao	13 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600105/2011	sho tangutur ps vs Vsthella david alias david raju	13 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/300146/2014	The Inspector of Police vs Akula Balaji	12 Mar 2014	Order	—
CC/300375/2010	Manchala Venkateswarlu vs Maddali Srinivasa Rao	12 Mar 2014	Order	—
CC/600117/2014	SHO Taluka PS vs Madduri Siva Krishnna	11 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/300714/2013	Inspector of Police vs Doddigorla Vijaya Raju	10 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600036/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Nalluri Srinivasa Rao	10 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600110/2013	SHO Tangutur PS vs Manikonda Srinivasulu	10 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600146/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Thumma Tirupalu	10 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600189/2012	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Yenumala Gopi	10 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
PRC/600005/2011	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Jamal	10 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/300395/2009	Burra Rama Rao vs Gonugunta Priyalatha	06 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/300489/2011	Nallamalli Venkata Subba Rao vs Ponnari Bala Subrahmanyam	06 Mar 2014	Order	—
CC/300588/2013	Shiriram City Union Finance Limited vs Chekuru Malakondaiah	06 Mar 2014	Order	—
CC/600156/2012	SHO TANGUTUR PS vs Kommu Yebelu	06 Mar 2014	Judgement	—
CC/300281/2014	Inspector of Police vs Ponugupati Srinu	05 Mar 2014	Order	—
CC/300692/2013	Inspector of Police vs Padiga Ramu alias Mahesh	04 Mar 2014	Order	—
CC/300230/2013	Inspector of police vs Vspanta nagi reddy	28 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/300375/2012	Perikala Ravamma vs Katikala Santhosha Kumari	28 Feb 2014	Order	—
CC/300585/2013	Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Chekuru Malakondaiah	28 Feb 2014	Order	—
CC/600102/2008	SHO Tangutur PS vs Radha Udaya Kumar	28 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
PRC/600008/2009	SHO Tangutur PS vs Bellam Konda raju	28 Feb 2014	Order	—
CC/300107/2014	Sub Inspector of Police vs Yerrajerla Ramesh Babu	26 Feb 2014	Order	—
CC/300267/2013	Sub inspector of police, II town P.S vs Akula Bhavani	26 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/300584/2012	SHO II Town Ongole vs Kamatham Venkata rajesh	26 Feb 2014	Order	—
CC/600192/2012	SHO Tangutur PS vs Yamana Chiranjeevi	26 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
PRC/300003/2014	Inspector of Police vs Kuttuboina Rajani	25 Feb 2014	Order	—
CC/300180/2012	Desu Veeraiah vs Veeranjaneya Fertilizers	24 Feb 2014	Order	—
CC/600083/2013	SHO Tangutur PS vs Dandela Manoj Kumar	24 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600090/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Nunchala Prasad	24 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600108/2013	SHO Tangutur PS vs Parabathina Amrutha rao	24 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600139/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Vaka Venkata Rami Reddy	24 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600140/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Jangam Nageswara Rao	24 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600245/2009	devarapalli venka reddy vs Vsvaka vijaya bhaskar reddy	24 Feb 2014	Order	—
CC/300445/2012	Sub Inspector of Police, II Town P.S., Ongole vs Vs1. Polavarapu Seshagiri Rao-A1	21 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600107/2012	SHO TANGUTUR PS vs Ramavath Bhaja Naik	21 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/300320/2009	Chandole Rama Rao vs Nagolore Jagadish Babu	20 Feb 2014	Order	—
PRC/300012/2013	Inspector of police vs Yanamadala Yesubabu	20 Feb 2014	Order	—
DVC/7/2013	Alibaig Sakina Bhanu vs Vsalibaig Kishan Feroz	19 Feb 2014	Order	—
DVC/29/2012	Thanneeru Subbalakshmi vs Thanneeru Sreenu	19 Feb 2014	Order	—
DVC/60/2012	Purini Ramamma vs Purini Subbareddy	19 Feb 2014	Order	—
CC/600203/2012	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Guddapathala Rama Rao	19 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
STC/600008/2009	inspector of factories rep by g v v s narayana vs Vsk gopala reddy	19 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600208/2012	SHO MADDIPADU PS vs Gudipati Samba Siva Rao	18 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
STC/600001/2014	State vs Shri M.V.S Prasad Rao	18 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600025/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Malineni Subbarao	17 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600006/2014	Sub-Inspector vs Boddepati Srinivasarao	13 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
STC/600005/2014	AP state vs L.Narasaiah	12 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600130/2012	SHO MADDIPADU PS vs Sk.Jaharuddin	11 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600087/2012	SHO TANGUTUR PS vs Thamdavarayan Ramachandran	07 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600218/2013	State, Sub Inspector of Police, Tangutur PS. vs Adagondu Kasaiah alias Kasi	07 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600225/2010	sho maddipadu ps vs Vskavuri subba rao	07 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600251/2010	sho maddipadu ps vs Vsbodepogu samuel	07 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600326/2009	kommu anitha vs Vskommu kotesu alias koteswari	06 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600015/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Addepalli Venkata Subbaraju	04 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600162/2013	State, Sub Inspector of Police, Maddipadu PS vs Gara Ratna Babu	03 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600222/2012	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Medarametla Ravindara Babu	03 Feb 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600188/2008	sho tangutur ps vs Vsgajjala penchalaiah alias madhu	31 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600207/2013	Sub-Inspector of Police vs Maddineni Venugopal	31 Jan 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600460/2008	sho tangutur ps vs Vsranganadan selvaraj	31 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
STC/600003/2014	The State vs P Srinivasulu Naidu	31 Jan 2014	Judgement	—
STC/600004/2014	State Andhra Pradesh vs MD.Gouse	31 Jan 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600188/2012	SHO Tangutur PS vs Pallaprolu Subba Reddy	30 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
MC/600002/2013	Patibandla Rangamma vs Patibandla Venkateswarlu	30 Jan 2014	Order	—
CC/600137/2012	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Arunachalam Kamaraju	29 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600164/2008	sho tangutur ps vs Vsbilla pothuraju	29 Jan 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600463/2008	sho tangutur ps vs Vsmokka subba rao	29 Jan 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600009/2011	sho maddipadu ps vs Vsthammisetty anjibabu	27 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600022/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Mandadi Venkata Rao	24 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600081/2012	SHO TANGUTUR PS vs Thanneeru Venkaiah	24 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600194/2012	SHO Maddipadu vs Mandadi Venkata Rao	24 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
PRC/600012/2013	SHO Sub-Inspector of police vs Addepalli Suresh	24 Jan 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600121/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Kaki jyothi Raju	23 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600239/2012	S H O Tanguitur p s vs Pamidi Kotaiah	23 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600164/2012	SHO Tangutur PS vs Parabathina Koteswara Rao	22 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
STC/600002/2014	Andhra Pradesh vs P Nageswara rao	21 Jan 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600135/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Kanugoti Ganesh	20 Jan 2014	Judgement	—
CC/600018/2013	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Paleti Sekhar	10 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/600143/2013	SHO Tangutur PS vs Katakam Srinivasa Rao	10 Jan 2014	Judgement	—
PRC/600011/2013	State sub-Inspector of police vs Karne Ravi	10 Jan 2014	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 691 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Mar 2014		37
Feb 2014		40
Jan 2014		31
Dec 2013		29
Nov 2013		7
Oct 2013		2
Aug 2013		3
Jul 2013		44
Jun 2013		50
May 2013		22
Apr 2013		48
Mar 2013		52

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M., handled?

SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M., has handled 725 court orders since 2011 at Prl District Court Ongole. The average disposal rate is 25 orders per month.

What types of cases does SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M., hear?

Based on available records, SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M., primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Prl District Court Ongole.

Where is SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M., currently posted?

SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M., is posted as II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE at Prl District Court Ongole, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M., available online?

Yes. 4 judgments by SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M., are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M., dispose cases?

SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M., disposes approximately 25 cases per month, based on 725 orders handled over their tenure at Prl District Court Ongole.

Since when is SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M., serving?

SRI.M.PRADEEP KUMAR, M.B.A., L.L.M., has been serving at Prl District Court Ongole since 2011.

Case Types

CC 83%

PRC 7%

STC 6%

MC 3%

DVC 1%

OS 0%

Posting History

Feb 2014 — Mar 2014

II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE · 31 orders
Oct 2011 — Apr 2014

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE · 694 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

Sri A.Satyanand

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,ONGOLE

10 orders

Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi

I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

4,159 orders

Smt. Pandiri Laltiha

II Additional District and Sessiosns Judge-cum-Spe...

474 orders

Smt. A.Purnima

III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

409 orders

Sri K.Syam Babu

VII-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

12 orders

Smt G.Deena

JUDGE,FAMILY COURT-CUM-VIII-ADDL.DIST.JUDGE,ONGOLE

0 orders

Smt V.Pallavi

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ongole

0 orders

Sri Ch.V.Rama Krishna

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Ongole

710 orders

Smt S.Komalavalli

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

0 orders

Ms Y Shalini Reddy

I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

505 orders

Ms. Shaik Roshan

II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

325 orders

Ms. V.Navyashri

III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

831 orders

Smt J.Krishna Priya

SPL. JMFC, EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE

0 orders

Sri Vatram Venkateswara Rao

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE

983 orders

Miss K. Sailaja

Spl. Judge for speedy trial of offences under the...

293 orders

← View all judges at Prl District Court Ongole