M prasanna Lakshmi

CC.No.1041/2019 : 1 :

Dt.13-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM -

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT: Smt.PRASANNA LAKSHMI

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class -cum-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

Monday, this the 13th day of April, 2026

CC No.1041 of 2019

Between: Tadiparthi Srinivasa Rao S/o.Satyanarayana, 49 years, .… Complainant R/o.D.No.7-561, Nidamarru Road, Tipparla Bazar, Mangalagiri Town. AND Chadalavada Naveen S/o.Rattaiah, 35 years, .… Accused R/o.D.No.1-39, Navuluru Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.

This case coming for final hearing before me on 01.04.2026 in the presence of

Sri Syed Ismail – Learned counsel for the Complainant and of Sri P.Satish Babu –

Learned counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

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

This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 190 & 200 of

Criminal Procedure Code against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act”), to punish the accused, according to law and also to award compensation provided under Section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter being referred to as Cr.P.C).

02. The averments of Complaint is as follows:-

Accused herein having borrowed an amount of Rs.2,52,000/- on 13.11.2017 from the complainant to meet his family necessities, in evidence thereof,

CC.No.1041/2019 : 2 :

Dt.13-04-2026 the accused had executed a promissory note in favour of complainant agreement to repay the said debt with interest at 24% per annum either to the complainant or to his order on demand. On persistent demands made by complainant, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.004278 for Rs.2,02,000/-, dt.18.03.2019 drawn on Axis

Bank Ltd., Mangalagiri Branch towards part payment of debt, then, the complainant had presented the cheque for encashment on 18.03.2019 with his banker i.e., HDFC

Bank Ltd., Mangalagiri Branch, said cheque was returned unpaid under a cheque return memo, dt.19.03.2019 as “Kindly contact drawer drawee bank”, thereupon, the complainant got issued a statutory legal notice to the accused on 17.04.2019 calling him to repay the debt, despite receiving the same by the accused on 20.04.2019, he neither complied demand nor gave reply and failed to comply the demands. Hence, complainant has constrained to file the complaint.

03.After filing of complaint, cognizance was taken against the accused for the the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Being satisfied that there are prima-facie materials to proceed against accused, summons was issued.

04.After appearance of the accused before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C and explained the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act in

Telugu, for which accused had denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC.No.1041/2019 : 3 :

Dt.13-04-2026

06.In order to prove his case, the complainant had got examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Complainant also examined one P.Malak

Basha as PW2 and no document is marked through him.

07.After closure of the evidence on behalf of the Complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material evidence appears against him in the evidence of complainant and witness. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, the accused had denied the same and reported defence evidence to adduce on his behalf. However, the accused did not choose to adduce evidence on his behalf.

Hence, the evidence on behalf of defendant is closed on 30.03.2026.

08.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

09. Arguments of the complainant:

The learned counsel for complainant has submitted arguments by reiterating the averments of the complaint and further submitted that on behalf of complainant, the complainant himself is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5. The complainant also examined the attestor of Ex.P1 as PW2 for evidence of

Ex.P1 transaction. Hence, the complainant has proved the transaction under

Ex.P1/promissory note about accused borrowing amount from complainant and the accused has not denied that Ex.P2/Cheque issued by him pertaining to his bank account. There is no explanation given by the accused how the cheque pertaining to his account containing his signature left his custody and came into the hands of the complainant. Except mere oral denial, there is no cogent evidence by the accused.

Hence, the complainant proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt

CC.No.1041/2019 : 4 :

Dt.13-04-2026 and prays to convict the accused by awarding the double of cheque amount as compensation to the complainant.

10. Arguments of the Accused :

The learned counsel for accused has submitted arguments stating that the complaint averments are false. It was further stated that there is no reason mentioned on the dishonour memo that the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds but the cheque was returned with endorsement as “Kindly contact drawer/drawee bank” which is not a reason and cause under section 138 of NI Act.

PW2 admitted that he has seen the accused in the court for the first time on that day he gave evidence before the court, which shows that PW2 has not seen the accused on the date of transaction which proves that Ex.P1/promissory note transaction false.

Hence, it is clear that accused did not execute Ex.P1/promissory note and no consideration was passed under it. Hence, there is no offence committed by the accused under section 138 of NI Act. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted.

11. Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the cheque in question was issued by the accused towards partial discharge of debt covered under promissory note ?

2. Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of NI Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

3. To what relief ?

12. POINTS:-

During trial, to substantiate the case of complainant, the complainant himself is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Complainant also

CC.No.1041/2019 : 5 :

Dt.13-04-2026 examined one P.Malak Basha as PW2 who is 1st attestor of Ex.P1 and no document is marked through him. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of accused.

13.The chief examination affidavit of PW1 is replica of complaint. In the cross examination, it was elicited by the accused from the complainant about his avocation that he is running Timber depot, accused gave cheque at his Timber depot and it was filled by one K.Veeraiah. The reason of “insufficient funds” is not mentioned in his chief, Shaik Malak and P.Srinivasa are the attestors of promissory note and they are brought by the accused. Further, it was elicited that complainant/PW1 has no documentary proof about he having lent amount as he secured from his business dealings. The borrowed amount under Ex.P1/promissory note is for Rs.2,02,000/- and it can be available with complainant by their evidence as he is running Timber Depot, so, it is not a difficult for him to have Rs.2,00,000/-.

14.It was elicited that promissory note was filled by one K.Veeraiah, total five members were present at the time of transaction, the reason mentioned in legal notice for dishonour of cheque is ‘insufficient funds’ and the same is not there in

Ex.P3/cheque return memo. The accused vehemently argued that the reason mentioned in dishonour memo under Ex.P3 is “kindly contact drawer/drawee bank”, with this accused argued that the said reason is not attracted under section 138 NI

Act. But the accused has not denied that the cheque pertaining to his bank account and the signature on it is not of him. So, accused has not disputed the signature on

Ex.P1/promissory note and Ex.P2/Cheque. The accused has not disputed the signatures on Ex P 1 and P2 . The accused contention is only that the cheque is not

CC.No.1041/2019 : 6 :

Dt.13-04-2026 dishonoured for insufficient funds but to prove that there are sufficient funds in his bank account on the date of presentation of cheque, no bank account statement is filed by the accused. So, except mere pleading that cheque is not dishonoured for insufficient funds but no such proof is filed by the accused though accused has opportunity to file his bank account details to say that he has sufficient funds. So, the arguments advanced by the accused is not sustainable.

15.The other contention of the accused is that, PW2 admitted that he has seen the accused for the first time today in the court. For that, the complainant version is that after coming to the court, he has seen the accused first time but not in his lifetime. previously PW2 has seen the accused at the time of transaction and the learned counsel for accused has misled the witness/PW2. Except the said statement,

PW2 supported the complainant case in every material aspect about accused borrowing amount under Ex.P1/promissory note and he executing it after receiving consideration mentioned on it. Hence, the said statement alone is minor discrepancy and not fatal tot he case of the complainant.

16.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 combined with documentary evidence under Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are corroborated with each other. Accused failed to elicit any cogent material to doubt the case of the complainant. Hence, it is proved that the complainant has lent an amount under Ex.P1/promissory note and for discharge of debt amount, the accused gave Ex.P2/cheque which was dishonoured.

17.On this point, this court relied on the following judgments:

Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197 where in it was held that "once the accused has admitted that signatures on the cheque in question then the court is bound to raise presumption under Sec.139 of N.I Act. presumption

CC.No.1041/2019 : 7 :

Dt.13-04-2026 takes effect even in a situation where the accused contends that 'a' blank cheque leaf was voluntarily signed and handed over by him to the complainant”.

K.M.Beena Vs. Muniyappan and another reported in

2001(8) SCC 458 wherein it was held that the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption U/Sec.139 NI Act by proving the contrary. But mere denial by the accused was not enough. The accused has to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.

In para No.40, it was held that, " even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumptions U/s 139 of N.I Act in absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.

In para 42, it was held that, " in absence of any finding that the cheque in question was not signed by the respondent/accused or not voluntarily made over to the payee and in the absence of any evidence with regard to circumstances in which a blank signed cheque had been given to the appellant/complainant, it may reasonably be presumed that the cheque was filled in by the appellant/complainant being the payee in the presence of the respondent accused being the drawer, at his request and or wit his acquiescence. The subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque into an alteration.

B.V.Rangam Vs. B.Govinda Reddy reported in 2004

Crl.J.3170 “wherein it was held that no rebuttal of presumption by the accused, acquittal of accused is not proper”.

18.With the above explanation, it is held that except some mere oral contention, accused did not place any cogent evidence to substantiate his contention. Hence accused failed to discharge the burden upon him to rebut the presumption under sections 118 and 139 of NI Act. Hence, it is held that the complainant has established the guilt of the accused under section 138 NI Act beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be convicted.

CC.No.1041/2019 : 8 :

Dt.13-04-2026

19. IN THE RESULT, the accused is FOUND GUILTY of the offence under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and hence he is CONVICTED under

Section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code. Upon hearing quantum of sentence, accused stated that he is sole breadwinner of his entire family and has children. As the offence involving huge amount of money, provisions of probation of offenders act or section 360 of Cr.P.C. are not applicable. The accused is sentenced to undergo

Simple imprisonment for a period of Two (2) years and he is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,02,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Two Thousand only) which is equal to cheque amounts to the complainant in default of payment of compensation, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three (3)

Months additionally. Both principal sentence and default sentence shall run consecutively. Accused is furnished with free copy of judgment and accused is appraised of his right of appeal, for which, he stated that he has means to engage a counsel to prefer appeal.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade – III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

CC.No.1041/2019 : 9 :

Dt.13-04-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence: None PW1 : T.Srinivasa Rao PW2 : P.Malak Basha

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1 : Original promissory note executed by accused in favour of complainant, dt.13.11.2017, dt.2,52,000/-.

Ex.P2 : Cheque bearing No.004278 of Rs.2,02,000/-, dt.18.03.2019 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Mangalagiri Branch issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, dt.18.03.20219.

Ex.P3 : Cheque returned memo of the complainant’s banker, dt.19.03.2019.

Ex.P4 : Office copy of legal notice with postal receipt, dt.17.04.2019.

Ex.P5 : Postal acknowledgment, dt.20.04.2019.

For Defence: Nil.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

//True Copy//

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class-cum- Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

CC.No.1041/2019 : 10 :

Dt.13-04-2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM –

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : MANGALAGIRI

Calendar in C.C.1041 of 2019

Date of Offence : Prior to 07.06.2019

Date of arrest of Accused : - - -

Date of Release of accused on bail : - - -

Date of commencement of Trial : 02.01.2026

Date of close of Trial : 23.03.2026

Date of sentence or order : 13.04.2026

Name of the Complainant : Tadiparthi Srinivasa Rao S/o.Satyanarayana, 49 years, R/o.D.No.7-561, Nidamarru Road,

Tipparla Bazar, Mangalagiri Town.

Description of the accused: Chadalavada Naveen S/o.Rattaiah, 35 years,

R/o.D.No.1-39, Navuluru Village,

Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.

Reasons for delay : No delay.

Section of Law : U/Section 138 of NI Act.

Pleading: Not guilty.

Finding of Court : Found guilty.

Sentence or Order: IN THE RESULT, the accused is FOUND

GUILTY of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and hence he is CONVICTED under Section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code. Upon hearing quantum of sentence, accused stated that he is sole breadwinner of his entire family and has children. As the offence involving huge amount of money, provisions of probation of offenders act or section 360 of Cr.P.C. are not applicable. The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of Two (2) years and he is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,02,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Two

CC.No.1041/2019 : 11 :

Dt.13-04-2026

Thousand only) which is equal to cheque amounts to the complainant in default of payment of compensation, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Three (3) Months additionally. Both principal sentence and default sentence shall run consecutively. Accused is furnished with free copy of judgment and accused is appraised of his right of appeal, for which, he stated that he has means to engage a counsel to prefer appeal.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

Note:- The accused is enlarged on bail vide Crl.M.P.No.220 of 2026, dt.13.04.2026 under Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C. till 12.05.2026.

//True Copy//

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class-cum- Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

C.C.No.07/2026 1 Dt.15-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM -

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : MANGALAGIRI

PRESENT: Smt.M.PRASANNA LAKSHMI

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class -cum-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

Wednesday, this the 15th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.07 of 2026

Between: The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Thulluru Police Station. ….Complainant

AND

Pulivelugula Raju S/o.Adiyya, 54 years, R/o.Abhuraju Palem, Thulluru Mandal,

Guntur District. ....Accused

This case coming on 08.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.K.Siva Leela - Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri P.Satish Babu – Learned counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- // J U D G M E N T / /

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Thulluru Police Station had laid a charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 318(4)

BNS and section 7 of EC Act in connection with Crime No.224 of 2024.

02. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 17.10.2024 at 5.00 PM, on credible information to

PW1/LW1/K.Suresh, Head Constable, he along with his staff had been to scene of offence i.e., Kuppala Subbarao Shed at Rayapudi Village of Thulluru Mandal, where they found 36 bags of PDS rice containing 50 Kgs each, then, they secured the presence of owner of the said shed and caused enquiry with him, he replied that about 1 week back one Raju of Abbarajupalem had phoned and requested that he

C.C.No.07/2026 2 Dt.15-04-2026 has 4 bags of rice and will kept the same in shed, as he does not know that the said rice is PS rice he agreed for it, then accused kept those bags but owner does. Later,

PW1 had verified the bags, found that the same were PDS rice, seized the same under cover of police proceedings and shifted to police station and handed over to

PW2/LW4/V.Babu Rao for taking necessary action.

ii) Basing on that PW2 had registered the police proceedings as a case in

Cr.No.224 of 2024 under section 318(4) BNS and section of 7 of EC Act and investigated into. During the course of the investigation, PW2 had examined witnesses and recorded their statements, visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch. On 20.10.2024, on surrender of accused before PW2, he verified his particulars and released him after serving notice under section 35(3) BNSS. Later,

LW4 had handed over seized rice i.e., 1800 kgs to MLS Point, Thulluru for sale custody under proper acknowledgment and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet.

03. Cognizance was taken on file against accused for the offence under

Section 318(4) BNS and section 7 of EC Act. On appearance of accused, copies of all documents were supplied to accused as required Under Section 230 BNSS.

04.Accused was examined Under Section 263 BNSS for the alleged offence, accused had pleaded not guilty of the offence. A Charge Under Section 7 of Essential

Commodities Act has been framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.In order to prove its case, though the prosecution had cited four witnesses in the charge sheet but examined PW1 and PW2, got marked Ex.P1 to

C.C.No.07/2026 3 Dt.15-04-2026

Ex.P5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of Lws.2 and 3 namely R.Rama Krishna and K.Subba Rao respectively.

06. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 351(1) BNSS explaining the incriminating material evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witnesses. Accused had denied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence to adduce on his behalf.

07. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

08. Arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is as follows:

The learned APP has submitted arguments by reiterating the averments of the charge sheet and she further submitted that prosecution had examined PW1 and PW2 to prove its case, wherein, PW1 is Head constable who conducted the raid and PW2 is the investigating officer who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet, they deposed evidence constantly about the accused committing offence by corroborated with each other, with those evidence, prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 7(1) of EC Act and prayed this court to punish the accused by convicting them according to law.

09. Arguments of the learned counsel for accused is as follows:

The learned counsel for accused submitted arguments that the accused is innocent and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

Though, prosecution had cited four witnesses in the charge sheet, but examined only two witnesses as PW1 and PW2, and those witnesses are police officials and inter- ested witnesses in this case. Prosecution witnesses deposed evidence contradicting to each other and there are number of omissions and flaws in their evidence. Further-

C.C.No.07/2026 4 Dt.15-04-2026 more, the prosecution did not choose to examine any independent or disinterested witnesses in corroborating with the evidence of PW1 and PW2, to prove the offence allegedly committed by the accused which is fatal to the case of prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

10.Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has bring home guilt of accused for the charge under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11. POINT:

To bring home guilt of accused, the prosecution got examined PW1 and

PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 i.e., Ex.P1 is Police Proceedings. Ex.P2 is FIR.

Ex.P3 is rough sketch, Ex.P4 is receipt and Ex.P5 is Analysis report. No oral or docu- mentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.

12.PW1 has deposed that on 17.10.2024, on credible information to LW4, he along with his staff had been to scene of offence, observed bags thereat, caused en- quiry with accused, on his confession, verified the bags, found 36 bags of PDS rice weighing about 50 kgs each, secured the presence of owner of shed and after his ex- amination, seized the rice under cover of police proceedings. Coming to the cross ex- amination, PW1 admitted that only one bag was opened, there were no logos were present on bags, they did not weigh the bags, no sample was taken, notice person was cited as witness at scene of offence,

C.C.No.07/2026 5 Dt.15-04-2026

13.PW2 has deposed that on 17.10.2024 at 6.30 PM, PW1 handed over

Ex.P1/police proceedings to him, in turn, he registered Ex.P2/FIR, visited scene of of- fence, prepared Ex.P3/rough sketch, examined witnesses and recorded their state- ments, handed over seized rice to Dy.Tahsildar and obtained Ex.P4/receipt, sent sam- ple for chemical analysis, served notice under section 35(3) BNSS on accused, ob- tained Ex.P5/analysis report and later he filed charge sheet. Coming to the cross ex- amination, PW2 has categorically admitted that there were no logs on bags, PW1 pre- pared Ex.P1/proceedings at police station, did not cite any witness at scene of of- fence.

14.On evaluation of evidence, PW1 and PW2 did not depose how they came to assume that the bags are weighed about 1800 kgs without weighing the same.

Moreover, as per evidence of PW1 and PW2, and on perusing the rough sketch, it is seen that the scene of offence is surrounded by houses, then, what had prevented the investigating officer to secure passersby or local inhabitants as mediators in this case.

It is also clearly stated by the prosecution witnesses that there were no logos were present on seized bags showing that the seized rice is PDS rice which is fatal to the case of prosecution. However, PW2 stated in his cross examination that PW1 has prepared Ex.P1/police proceedings at police station which creates doubt about the version of prosecution. However, the except PW1 and PW2 the prosecution did not choose to cite any independent or disinterest witnesses to prove their contention that accused had committed the alleged offence.

C.C.No.07/2026 6 Dt.15-04-2026

15.So, upon perusing the evidence, the confession is recorded by the police themselves and there is no mediator taken by them or nor made any effort to secure presence of mediator from the locality except mere saying. So, the only incriminating material against the accused about possession of alleged PDS rice is from his confes- sion before police. But the confession given to the police is not valid confession and not valid evidence as per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. There is no investigation or evidence collected by the investigating officer from whom the accused collected the

PDS rice. It was also elicited in the cross examination of PW2 that except his oral say, there is no documentary proof to say the seized rice is PDS rice. Hence, there is no iota of evidence appears against the accused about his alleged possession of PDS rice as it is not established that the rice bags are PDS rice bags and prosecution could not adduce any proper evidence to establish the accusation against the ac- cused.

16.Circumstantial Evidence: In order to sustain conviction, the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the Accused only and none else. The Circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evi- dence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the Accused but should be incon- sistent with his innocence.

17.Further, no document is filed into the court by the prosecution that PW1 had tried to secure mediators at the scene of offence by asking the local inhabitants or revenue officials or any third party to act as mediator or refusal of that third party to

C.C.No.07/2026 7 Dt.15-04-2026 act so. Thus, except the self-serving testimony of complainant personnel, no indepen- dent witness is examined to substantiate the case of prosecution. So, the prosecution failed to follow procedure under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. There is no corroborative evi- dence from independent witness in supporting the version of complainant. The Court do not find it safe to conclude affirmatively on the basis of the self-serving testimony of

P.W.1 and PW2 that the Accused committed the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of EC Act. So, the accused is entitled for acquittal. As a consequence, the Court is of the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the of- fence charged, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is determined.

18. IN THE RESULT, the accused is FOUND NOT GUILTY for the charge under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and hence he is ACQUITTED of the said charge under section 271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code. Since no property was produced before this Court, there is no order with regard to case prop- erty.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer grade – III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

C.C.No.07/2026 8 Dt.15-04-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : PW1 : K.Suresh PW2 : V.Babu Rao For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 : Police Proceedings. Ex.P2 : First Information Report. Ex.P3 : Rough sketch. Ex.P4 : Receipt. Ex.P5 : Analysis report. For Defence: NIL

Material Objects

Nil.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

///True Copy//

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class-cum- Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

C.C.No.07/2026 9 Dt.15-04-2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM –

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : MANGALAGIRI

Calendar in C.C.07 of 2026

Date of Offence : 17.10.2024 Date of arrest of Accused : Section 35(3) BNSS notice served Date of Release of accused on bail : - - - Date of commencement of Trial : 18.02.2026 Date of close of Trial : 02.04.2026 Date of sentence or order : 15.04.2026 Crime No. and Name of P.S. : Cr.No.224 of 2024, Thulluru P.S. Name of the Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Thulluru P.S. Description of the accused: Pulivelugula Raju S/o.Adiyya, 54 years, R/o.Abhuraju Palem, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District.

Section of Law : U/Section 7 of EC Act Pleading: Not guilty. Finding of Court : Found not guilty. Reasons for delay : No delay.

Sentence or Order: IN THE RESULT, the accused is FOUND NOT GUILTY for the charge under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and hence he is ACQUITTED of the said charge under section 271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code. Since no property was produced before this Court, there is no order with regard to case property.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

///True Copy//

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class-cum- Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

C.C.No.117/2021 1 Dt.13-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM -

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : MANGALAGIRI

PRESENT: Smt.M.PRASANNA LAKSHMI

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class -cum-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

Monday, this the 13th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.117 of 2021

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Disha Women Police Station,

Guntur Urban.….Complainant

AND

1. Vemu Venkata Ratnam S/o.Bharatrao Late, 50 years, R/o.D.No.7/19, Inturu Village,

Atmakuru Mandal, Guntur.

2. Vemu Samadanam W/o.Bharatrao Late, 70 years, R/o.D..No.7/19, Inturu Village,

Atmakuru Mandal, Guntur.

3. Dammu Jhansy Rani W/o.Koteswara Rao, 51 years, R/o.Thotalamapalli, Marripudi

Village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

4. Dammu Koteswara Rao S/o.Tirupataiah, 55 years, R/o.Thotalamapalli, Marripudi

Village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

5. Nadendla Swarupa Rani W/o.Samsonuu @Gaggarao, 42 years, R/o.China Bazaar

Center, Inturu Village, Amarthaluru Mandal,

Guntur District.

6. Nadendla Sambsonu @ Gaggarao S/o.Yallaiah, (Case against A6 was abated on 23.08.2024)

…..Accused.

C.C.No.117/2021 2 Dt.13-04-2026

This case coming on 07.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Smt.K.Siva Leela – Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Smt.B.Ch.Srinivasa Rao - Learned counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police

Station, Guntur Urban had laid a charge sheet against accused in connection with

Crime Number 110 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 of

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act (for short “DP Act”).

02. The case of prosecution in nutshell is as under :

Marriage of PW1/LW1/J.Prasanna Rani with A1 was solemnized on 25.05.2007 at Inturu village as per Christian rites and customs. At the time of marriage parents of PW1, gave Rs.3,00,000/- cash and one sovereign gold to accused towards dowry on the demand. By that time, A1 working as lecturer in Andhra Christian College.

Soon after marriage, PW1 joined A1 at for some time at Inturu Village and there after shifted to Mangalagiri town to lead conjugal life. At the time, when they stayed at Inturu village, A2 to A6 had openly proclaimed that the marriage was not happened according their wish, used to instigate A1 on silly reasons and made PW1 assaulted physically by

A1. In the year 2008, A2 to A6 visited the house at Mangalgiri and advised A1 in the presence of PW1 to get a motorcycle, then, he went to Inturu village without informing

PW1 and later phoned her informing that he would return only if her parents give enough money to buy motorcycle, on knowing same, parents of PW1 gave an amount of

Rs.48,000/- to purchase a motorcycle. Even then, A2 to A6 picked up quarrel without any reason, used to insulted her as she is a barren lady, even after 5 years of marriage she

C.C.No.117/2021 3 Dt.13-04-2026 could not give a birth and said that they perform the 2nd marriage to A1. Later A2 to A6 demanded an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from the parents of LW1.

ii) On 15.3.2016, at night LW1 called LW4 over phone to come home for help and medicine as she was feeling unwell. At that time, A1 came house, picked up quarrel with LW1 on the pretext that her mother has asked them come to Inturu Village, when

LW1 expressed her that she was unwell, then A1 enraged over her profusely, beaten her with hands and pushed her over cot, A1 took out a bottle, pored the liquor into LW1’s mouth forcibly. In the year 2018, on the eve of Ugadi festival LW2 took LW1 to Inturu village, where A1 to A6 picked up quarrel with them and threatened with dire consequences. As there is no other alternative, LW1 went to her parents house and later went to police station and lodged her report.

Iii) Basing on the report of PW1, LW10 had registered a case in Cr.No.110 of 2020 under section 498-A and 506 IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW10 had visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined witnesses and recorded their statements, secured marriage certificate of PW1 and A1 along with marriage photos and wedding card. On 28.09.2020, LW10 had served section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice on accused. Therefore,

LW11 took up further investigation and later filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. Hence, the charge.

03. The case was taken on file against A1 to A6 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. On appearance accused, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

04.A1 to A5 are examined Under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the alleged offence, accused had pleaded not guilty of the offence. A Charge under

Sections 498A and 506 IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of DP Act have been framed

C.C.No.117/2021 4 Dt.13-04-2026 against accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.In order to prove its case, though the prosecution had cited eleven witnesses in the charge sheet, but had examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW2 to LW9 and LW11 namely J.Ratnakara Rao, J.Vijaya Kumar, D.Sangeetha Rao,

D.Seshagiri Rao, D.Padma, Ch.Yasoda, G.Ramakotaiah, N.Sharonu Raju and

Sk.Khaji Babu respectively.

06. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under

Section 313(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating ma- terial evidence deposed against them by the prosecution witnesses. Accused had de- nied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence to adduce on their be- half.

07. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

08. Arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is as follows:

The learned APP has submitted arguments by reiterating the averments of the charge sheet and further submitted that on behalf of prosecution PW1 and PW2 were examined, wherein PW1 was turned hostile, PW2 who is investigating officer de- posed evidence supporting the case of prosecution in all material aspects. Hence with the evidence of PW2 alone, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence.

09. Arguments of the learned counsel for accused is as follows:

The accused are innocent and did not commit any offence as alleged by

PW2. Further, no independent or disinterested witnesses was examined on behalf of

C.C.No.117/2021 5 Dt.13-04-2026 prosecution in corroborating with the evidence of PW2 about the accused committing the offence. There are many contradictions and omissions in the case of the prosecu- tion. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

10.Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of A1 to A5 for the of- fence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and under sec-

tions 3 and 4 of DP Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11. POINT:

During trial, the prosecution got examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 i.e., defacto complainant as PW1 and investigating officer as PW2.

12.The evidence of PW1 goes to show that her marriage with A1 was per- formed in the year 2007 as per Christian rites and customs, thereafter, disputes arose in between them and she went to Women PS where, the police obtained her signa- tures on some typed papers. At this stage, the learned APP had cross examined the witness after obtaining permission from this court but nothing could be elicited except marking her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ex.P2.

13.PW2/K.Narayana Prasad who registered case and did investigation in this case has deposed that on 25.08.2020 at 1.00 AM, PW1 came to police station and gave typed report, in turn, he registered Ex.P3/FIR in Cr.No.110 of 2020 under sec- tions 498-A and 506 IPC and section 3 & 4 of DP[ Act, examined PW1 at police station and recorded statement, visited scene of offence, prepared Ex.P4/rough sketch, ex- amined LW2 to LW8 and recorded their statements, later went to Inturu village, se- cured the presence of A1 to A6 and released them after serving notice under section

C.C.No.117/2021 6 Dt.13-04-2026 41- A Cr.P.C. and later filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. Coming to the cross examination, PW2 has denied the suggestion that accused was falsely impli- cated in this case.

14.As can be seen from the evidence of prosecution, PW1 who is victim and defacto complainant did not depose evidence in supporting of case of prosecution in corroborating with the evidence of PW2 in toto. The investigating officer who is exam- ined PW2 was naturally supports the case of prosecution but PW2 did not depose any specific overtacts of accused in committing the alleged offence. Moreover, the remain- ing material witnesses including alleged eye witnesses were given up by the learned

APP. The prosecution did not examine any independent or disinterested witnesses to prove their case. Hence, Prosecution has failed to place cogent and convincing evi- dence to connect the accused. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that pros- ecution has not succeeded in establishing guilty of accused for the charged offences.

So that, accused are entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, A1 to A5 are FOUND NOT GUILTY for the charge under

Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and hence they are ACQUITTED under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437A Cr.P.C. Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order with regard to case property. (Case against A6 was abated on 23.08.2024).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade – III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

C.C.No.117/2021 7 Dt.13-04-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence: None PW1 : J.Prasanna Rani PW2 : K.Narayana Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 : Signature portion of LW1 on typed paper. Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P3 : FIR Ex.P4 : Rough sketch. For Defence: NIL

Material Objects

Nil.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

//True Copy//

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class-cum- Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

C.C.No.117/2021 8 Dt.13-04-2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM –

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : MANGALAGIRI

Calendar in C.C.117 of 2021

Date of Offence : Prior to 25.08.2020 Date of arrest of Accused : Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice Date of Release of accused on bail : - - - Date of commencement of Trial : 24.11.2022 Date of close of Trial : 23.03.2026 Date of sentence or order : 13.04.2026 Crime No. and Name of P.S. : Cr.No.110 of 2020, Disha Women P.S. Name of the Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women P.S. Description of the accused:

1. Vemu Venkata Ratnam S/o.Bharatrao Late, 50 years, R/o.D.No.7/19, Inturu Village, Atmakuru Mandal, Guntur.

2. Vemu Samadanam W/o.Bharatrao Late, 70 years, R/o.D..No.7/19, Inturu Village, Atmakuru Mandal, Guntur.

3. Dammu Jhansy Rani W/o.Koteswara Rao, 51 years, R/o.Thotalamapalli, Marripudi Village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

4. Dammu Koteswara Rao S/o.Tirupataiah, 55 years, R/o.Thotalamapalli, Marripudi Village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

5. Nadendla Swarupa Rani W/o.Samsonuu @Gaggarao, 42 years, R/o.China Bazaar Center, Inturu Village, Amarthaluru Mandal, Guntur District.

6. Nadendla Sambsonu @ Gaggarao S/o.Yallaiah, (Case against A6 was abated on 23.08.2024)

Section of Law : U/S. 498A, 506 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act.

Pleading: Not guilty.

Finding of Court : Found not guilty

Reasons for delay : No delay.

C.C.No.117/2021 9 Dt.13-04-2026

Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 to A5 are FOUND NOT GUILTY for the charge under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and hence they are ACQUITTED under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under

Section 437A Cr.P.C. Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order with regard to case property. (Case against A6 was abated on 23.08.2024).

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. //True Copy//

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class-cum- Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

CC.No.481/2022 1 Dt.10-04-2026

THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM -

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : MANGALAGIRI

PRESENT: Smt.M.PRASANNA LAKSHMI

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class -cum-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

Friday, the 10th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.481 of 2022

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mangalagiri Town Police Station.…..Complainant.

AND

Nallabothula Venkaetswara Rao S/o.Krishnarao, 39 years, R/o.D.No.15-1361, Venkata Narasimharao puram Colony, Kesarapalli Village, Gannavaram Mandal,

Krishna District. …..Accused.

This case came before this Court for final hearing on 06.04.2026 in the presence of Smt.K.Siva Leela – Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri

D.Suersh Kumar – Learned counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

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

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Town Police Station had laid charge sheet against accused in connecting with Crime Number 681 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

02. The averments of charge sheet, briefly as follows:

Deceased namely Thadisetti Suresh and Thadisetti Ramanamma were residents of Mangalagiri town and they used to work as daily wagers, that on 27.08.2021, while both deceased were returning after attending the marriage function

CC.No.481/2022 2 Dt.10-04-2026

on motorcycle bearing no.AP07 BT3742, reached Opposite to Janasena Party Office,

NH-16 Highway at New Mishra Dhaba, at that time, the accused being driver of

Lorrybearing No.AP39 TU 3609 came behind their motorcycle, rode the same in rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn and without taking precautions rammed the motorcycle of deceased, as a result, both fell on road and then, the lorry tire was rammed the head of Ramanamma and she received body crush injury and both were died on the spot, same was known to LW1, then, he went to police station and lodged his report.

ii) Basing on the report of LW1, LW13 had registered a case in Cr.No.681 of 2021 under section 304-A IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW13 had examined LW1 and recorded his statement, visited scene of offence in the presence of LW8 and LW9, drafted scene observation report, from there, went to Mortuary room, conducted inquest over the dead bodies of deceased, prepared inquest report. Secured the presence of accused and released him after serving notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. Later, LW13 had examined witnesses and recorded their statements, sent dead bodies to Medical Office for autopsy, then, LW11 had conducted autopsy and issued Postmortem Certificates opining that the deceased were died due to Hemophilic shock due to Poly trauma. Thereafter, LW14 took up further investigation, he received MVI report from LW12 wherein he opined that that accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects. On 18.10.2021, LW14 received

MVOP certificate from Hon’ble Principal District Judge Court, Guntur and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet.

03. The case was taken on file against accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. On appearance accused, necessary copies of case

CC.No.481/2022 3 Dt.10-04-2026

documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure

Code.

04.Accused was examined Under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code for the alleged offence. Substance of accusation for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A IPC has been read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. During trial, PW1 to PW3 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 on behalf of prosecution. The Learned APP gave up evidence of LW2 to LW4, LW6 to

LW12 and LW14 namely T.Gopi, T.Srinivasa Rao, M.Nagaraju, T.Vamsi Krishna,

T.Durga Rao, N.Durga Rao, D.Venkateswarlu, G.Venkata Rajesh, Dr.PPG, Padmaja,

DBV Rangarao and E.Narayana respectively.

06.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating material evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witnesses. Accused had denied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence to adduce on his behalf.

07. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

08. Arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is as follows:

The learned APP has submitted arguments by reiterating the averments of the charge sheet and further submitted that on behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW3 were examined, wherein PW1 and PW2 were turned hostile, PW3 who is investigating officer in this case, gave evidence supporting the case of prosecution in all material as- pects. Hence, with the evidence of PW3, the prosecution has proved the guilt of ac- cused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 304-A IPC.

CC.No.481/2022 4 Dt.10-04-2026

09. Arguments of the learned counsel for accused is as follows:

The accused are innocent and did not commit any offence as alleged by the complainant/PW3. Further, there are no independent or disinterested witnesses was examined on behalf of prosecution in corroborating with the evidence of PW3 about the accused committing the offence. There are many contradictions and omissions in the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

10.Now the points for determination are :- “Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of ac- cused for the offences punishable under Secs.304-A IPC beyond all rea- sonable doubt or not?”

11. POINT:

PW1 is none other than father and father-in-law of deceased D1 and D2 and defacto complainant herein. According to PW1, about five years back, some had phoned informing that the deceased were met with an accident at Pawan Kalyan Of- fice, Mangalagiri, he went to GGH, Mangalagiri and found the deceased were died, later he went to police where police obtained his Ex.P1/signature on report. Similarly,

PW2 also deposed evidence in the lines of PW1. Thus, PW1 and PW2 did not support the version of prosecution in to-to. The learned APP after obtaining permission of the court had cross examined PW1 and PW2, got marked Ex.P3 and Ex.P4/Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 and PW2. However, nothing could be elicited from PW1 and

PW2 in support of version of prosecution.

12.PW2 and PW3 were examined on behalf of prosecution, who deposed in the lines of PW1. Thus, PW2 and PW3 did not support the version of prosecution, the

CC.No.481/2022 5 Dt.10-04-2026

learned APP had cross examined them after obtaining permission from the court and got marked Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 i.e., Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW2 and PW3 re- spectively but nothing could be elicited from the evidence of PW2 and PW3 in support- ing case of prosecution.

13.PW3/J.Srinivasa Rao, one of the investigating officer of this case had de- posed that on 27.08.2021 at 9.30 AM, PW1 came to police station and gave report, in turn, registered Ex.P4/FIR and investigated into, during investigation, visited scene of offence along with LW8 and Lw9, prepared rough sketch, drafted scene observation report, received postmortem report of deceased, released accused who surrendered

before him after serving notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C, later LW14 took up further

investigation who received MVI report from LW12 and he filed charge sheet after com- pletion of investigation.

14.Coming to the cross examination, PW4 has categorically admitted that he did not examine the owner of crime vehicle to ascertain the person who was on duty at the time of alleged offence, he does not know the contents of charge sheet, he did not mention JanaSena Party Officer in rough sketch and denied the suggestion that he has conducted table investigation, accused no way related to the alleged offence and was falsely indicted in this case.

15.Since, PW1 and PW2 who is none other than parents/parents-in-law of deceased D1 and D2 in this case did not depose evidence in corroborating with the ev- idence of PW3 and did not support the version of prosecution in toto, the remaining material witnesses including alleged eye witnesses were given up by the learned APP.

Since the accused is alleged to have committed the offence under Secs.304-A IPC, the burden is on the prosecution to establish the rash or negligent act of the accused

CC.No.481/2022 6 Dt.10-04-2026

with help of direct evidence or such evidence which establishes chain of circum- stances that point to nothing but the rash or negligent act of the accused beyond rea- sonable doubt which resulted in accident in question. In the given case, there is neither direct evidence which establishes that the accused committed the rash or negligent act which resulted in death of deceased as alleged by the prosecution or evidence which establishes the chain of circumstances which point to nothing but rash or negligent act of the accused that resulted in death of deceased. There can be no two opinion that the evidence of PW3 is not sufficient to believe the version of the prosecution in the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence in support of prosecution. When it is not established that the accused is the driver of the vehicle as alleged by the prosecu- tion at the time of accident in question and the guilt of the accused under Secs.304-A

IPC is not established and is not proved. As such, the Court is of the view that the ac- cused is inevitably entitled for clear acquittal in this case. Therefore, this point is an- swered against the prosecution.

16.In the result, accused is FOUND NOT GUILTY for the charge under

Section 304-A IPC, hence he is ACQUITTED under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under

Section 437A Cr.P.C. Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order with regard to case property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade – III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

CC.No.481/2022 7 Dt.10-04-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence: None PW1 : T.Venkayya PW2 : M.Anjamma PW3 : J.Srinivasa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Defence: NIL Ex.P1 : Signature in report. Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.c. statement of LW1. Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.c. statement of LW5. Ex.P4 : FIR Ex.P5 : Scene observation report. Ex.P6 : Rough Sketch. Ex.P7 : Inquest report. Ex.P8 : PMC Report. Ex.P9 : MVI Report. Material Objects:NIL.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

//True Copy//

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class-cum- Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

CC.No.481/2022 8 Dt.10-04-2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM –

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : MANGALAGIRI

Calender in C.C.481 of 2022

Date of Offence : 27.08.2021

Date of arrest of Accused : Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice served

Date of Release of accused on bail : - - -

Date of commencement of Trial : 13.10.2025

Date of close of Trial : 30.03.2026

Date of sentence or order : 10.04.2026

Crime No. and Name of P.S. : Cr.No.681 of 2021, Mangalagiri Town P.S.

Name of the Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Town P.S.

Description of the accused: Nallabothula Venkaetswara Rao S/o.Krishnarao, 39yrs,D.No.15-1361, Venkata Narasimharao puram Colony, Kesarapalli Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District.

Section of Law: U/Section 304-A IPC Pleading: Not guilty. Finding of Court : Found not guilty

Explanation for delay: No delay.

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is FOUND NOT GUILTY for the charge under Section 304-A IPC, hence he is ACQUITTED under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437A Cr.P.C. Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order with regard to case property.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

///True Copy//

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class-cum- Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

C.C.No.255/2021 1 Dt.17-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM -

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : MANGALAGIRI

PRESENT: Smt.M.PRASANNA LAKSHMI

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class -cum-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.255 of 2021

Between: The State:Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mangalagiri Town Police Station. ….Complainant

AND

Chagarlamudi Ramarao S/o.Poornachandrarao, 48 years, R/o.Island Road, Chinakakani Village,

Mangalagiri Rural Mandal. …..Accused.

This case coming on 13.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.K.Siva Leela – Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri G.Vijaya Chandar – Learned counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- // J U D G M E N T / /

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Town Police

Station had laid a charge sheet against accused in connection with Crime Number 798 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

02. The case of prosecution in nutshell is as under :

PW1/LW1/Chagalamudi Sreenivasarao is resident of Chinakakani village.

Previously, in connection with marriage of his younger daughter, there are inimical terms in between PW1 and accused, that on 31.12.2020 at 11.00 AM, when PW1 went near Sahara Hotel in his car with LW2, accused came there, pulled the door and abused PW1 in filthy language, then, PW1 got down from car and questioned the accused, then accused challenged PW1 stating that what he can pluck and pounced

C.C.No.255/2021 2 Dt.17-04-2026 on him with an iron rod on his below left eye, left shoulder, left neck, tore the attire of

PW1 and throw him down, LW2 tried to ease the situation but accused did not stop attacking PW1, later PW1 was shifted to NRI Hospital. Thereafter, on receipt ot AD intimation to LW6, he visited NRI hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 and transmitted the same to concerned PS on point of jurisdiction.

ii) Basing on the statement of PW1, LW7 had registered a case in

Cr.No.798 of 2020 under section 324 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW7 had examined witnesses and recorded their statements, visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, secured the presence of accused and complied section 41-A Cr.P.C. with him. Later, LW7 had received wound certificate of

PW1 from LW5 who treated him gave opinion that the injuries sustained by PW1 are simple in nature. Thereafter, LW8 had took up investigation, verified the investigation done by LW7 and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet.

03. The case was taken on file against accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. On appearance accused, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

04.Accused was examined Under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the alleged offence, accused had pleaded not guilty of the offence. A Charge under

Section 324 IPC has been framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.In order to prove its case, though the prosecution had cited eight witnesses in the charge sheet, but had examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidences of LW3 to

C.C.No.255/2021 3 Dt.17-04-2026

LW6 and LW8 namely V.Sambasivarao, G.Venkata Gopala Krishna, Dr.Narendra babu, M.Rambabu and J.Srinivasa Rao respectively.

06. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witnesses. Accused had denied the same and reported defence evidence.

07.In order to prove his case, accused himself was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1. Accused also examined on P.Anusha on his behalf as DW2 but no document is marked through her.

08. Heard both sides. Apart from oral arguments, the learned counsel for ac- cused had filed written arguments

09. Arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is as follows:

The learned APP has submitted arguments as per the contents of the charge sheet. She further submitted that the defacto complainant/victim is examined as PW1 who supported the case of prosecution in each and every material aspect.

PW2 is the eye witness who corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and supported the prosecution case. Hence, the prosecution with the evidence of PW1 and PW2 i.e., Vic- tim and eye witness has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is liable to be convicted and punished according to law.

10. Arguments of the learned counsel for accused is as follows:

The learned counsel for accused filed written arguments stating that they there are contradictions and omissions in the prosecution witenses. Further, the ac- cused by examining himself as DW1 and daughter of PW1 as DW2 has proved that accused had lent amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on 14.05.2018 under

C.C.No.255/2021 4 Dt.17-04-2026

Ex.D1/Promissory note and it was also admitted that they are disputes between PW1 and accused due to the marriage of daughter of PW1 with relative of accused. Due to those disputes, PW1 got filed this case falsely against the accused. Hence, accused is innocent and entitled to be acquitted.

11.Now the point for determination is :- Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused for the of- fence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12. POINT:

During trial to substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW3. PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 is the eye witness as well as brother of

PW1. PW3 is the investigating officer. On the other hand, the accused himself exam- ined as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1/promissory note executed by PW1 in favour of ac- cused for borrowing amount on 14.05.2018. The accused also examined daughter of defacto complainant as DW2.

13.It is the case of the prosecution and evidence of PW1 that when PW1 was at Sahara Hotel in his car, accused came behind him and abused him in filthy lan- guage, when PW1 questioned the same, the accused has torn his shirt and bet with iron road on his left eye, left shoulder and left neck, by that time, one Sambasiva Rao came there and questioned the accused for his beating and later, PW2/Suresh came there and took him to NRI Hospital. PW1 further stated that prior to the alleged inci- dent, the accused has performed the marriage of his younger daughter with his brother-in-laws son and accused got filed complaint against him through his younger daughter which was not registered by the police.

C.C.No.255/2021 5 Dt.17-04-2026

14.PW2 deposed that on 31.12.2021 at 11.00 AM, he observed accused caught hold the shirt of PW1 and dragged him from the car and bet with rod on his head and PW1 sustained bleeding injury on his left eye and right hand. He took PW1 to NRI Hospital.

15.PW1 deposed that he went to his car and when he tried to open the door of his car, accused came behind him and abused him in filthy language. So, PW1 get into the car and before that only the accused torn his shift and bet with iron rod. But

PW2 deposed that the accused dragged PW1 from the car by holding shirt. So, there is contradiction in the evidence of PW1 and PW2.

16.PW1 in his report under Ex.P1, stated that accused bet him on his left eye, left shoulder and left side neck but PW2 deposed that accused bet PW1 on his head but sustained injuries on his left eye and right hand. So, there is contradiction about the place of injuries sustained by PW1 in the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Fur- ther, there is no corroboration by any medical evidence about the injuries sustained by

PW1 except deposed by PW1 and PW2. Hence, there are material contradictions about the manner of offence committed by accused and also place of injuries sus- tained by PW1 which are fatal to the case of prosecution.

17.Further, as per the evidence of PW1, accused performed marriage of daughter of PW1 with the person of his brother-in-law. So, it was proved that there are prior disputes between PW1 and accused relating to marriage of daughter of PW1 and the same is corroborated with DW1 and DW2. It was also proved by the accused that

PW1 borrowed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.D1/Promissory note from accused.

DW2/daughter of Pw1 also gave evidence that her father/PW1 misunderstood that ac- cused performed their marriage and got filed this case falsely. But in fact, the accused

C.C.No.255/2021 6 Dt.17-04-2026 is no way involved in their marriage. So, from the evidence of PW1, it is evident that there were disputes between PW1 and accused on the reason that accused performed marriage of daughter of PW1 and there are contradictions in the case of the prosecu- tion which has shaken the prosecution case. Due to which the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and there is possibility that

PW1 might have got got filed this case against the accused due to disputes regarding marriage of daughter of PW1. Hence, there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the ac- cused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused is entitled to be acquitted.

18. IN THE RESULT, the accused is FOUND NOT GUILTY for the charge un- der section 324 Indian Penal Code and hence he is ACQUITTED of the said charge under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code. Since no property is pro- duced before this court, there is no order with regard to case property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade – III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

C.C.No.255/2021 7 Dt.17-04-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence: PW1 : Ch.Srinivasa RaoDW1 : Ch.Rama Rao PW2 : Ch.SureshDW2 : P.Anusha PW3 : K.Chennaiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 : Report. Ex.P2 : First Information Report. Ex.P3 : Rough Sketch. Ex.P4 : Wound certificate. For Defence: Ex.D1 : Promissory note.

Material Objects

Nil.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

//True Copy//

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class-cum- Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

C.C.No.255/2021 8 Dt.17-04-2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM –

ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : MANGALAGIRI

Calendar in C.C.255 of 2021

Date of Offence : 31.12.2020 Date of arrest of Accused : Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice served Date of Release of accused on bail : -- Date of commencement of Trial : 14.02.2022 Date of close of Trial : 30.03.2026 Date of sentence or order : 17.04.2026 Crime No. and Name of P.S. : Cr.No.798 of 2020, Mangalagiri Town P.S. Name of the Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Town P.S. Description of the accused: Chagarlamudi Ramarao S/o.Poornachandrarao, 48 years, R/o.Island Road, Chinakakani Village, Mangalagiri Rural Mandal.

Section of Law : U/Section 324 IPC Pleading: Not guilty. Finding of Court : Found not guilty Reasons for delay : No delay.

Sentence or Order: IN THE RESULT, the accused is FOUND NOT

GUILTY for the charge under section 324 Indian Penal Code and hence he is

ACQUITTED of the said charge under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437A of Criminal

Procedure Code. Since no property is produced before this court, there is no order with regard to case property.

Sd/- Smt.M.Prasanna Lakshmi,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

///True Copy//

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class-cum- Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.