Sri M. S.h.r. Teja Chakravarthi

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF THE FIRST CLASS-CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM

Present : Sri M.S.H.R.T.Chakravarthi

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026

C.C.NO.1834 OF 2021

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ii Town Police Station, Vizianagaram. …Complainant.

AND

1) Pusapati Athidi Vijaya Lakshmi Gajapathi Raju, D/o Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju, Aged 39 years, R/at No.5 Bungalow, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

2) Indukuri Venkatapathi Raju, S/o late Appala Raju, Aged 60 years, Ex.Municipal Counsellor, R/o Babametta, Vizianagaram.

3) Karrothu Venkata Narasinga Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 46 years, R/o Gajularega, Vizianagaram.

4) Boddula Siva Surya Venkata Narasinga Rao, S/o Gurunaidu, Aged 48 years, R/o Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagaram District.

5) Mylapalli Pydiraju, S/o late Guruvulu, Aged 52 years, Ex.Municipal Counselor, R/o Bogguladibba, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

6) Mahanthi Chinnam Naidu, S/o late Seetham Naidu, Aged 67 years, Ex.M.P.P., R/o Rellivalasa Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

7) Prasadula Lakshmi Varaprasad, S/o Ramakrishna, Aged 37 years, R/o Ramakrishna Nagar, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 2 / 19

8) Kandi Venkata Muralinaidu, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 48 years, Ex.Municipal Counselor, R/o Gavara Veedhi, Vizianagaram.

9) Pogiri Pydiraju, S/o Lakshmana Rao, Aged 42 years, R/o Jammunarayanapuram Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District.

10) S.V.S.Sitharama Raju @ Chanti Raju, S/o late Ranga Raju, Aged 49 years, R/o Bondilagudem, Vizianagaram.

11) Polineti Appala Mahesh @ Mahesh, S/o Kannamnaidu, Aged years, R/o Babametta, Vizianagaram.

12) Gedela Adinarayana @ Adibabu, S/o late Appanna, Aged 54 years, Ex.Munici9pal Counselor, R/o Dharmapuri Village, Vizianagaram.

13) Suvvari Anuradha @ Begum, W/o M.A.Saleem, Aged 47 years, Household duties, R./o Chakali Veedhid, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

14) Tumpalli Ramana, S/o Satyam, Aged 47 years, Ex.ZPTC, R/o Gunkalam Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District.

15) Sheik Mehaboob Basha, S/o late Khajavali, Aged 50 years, R/o Gunturuvari Street, Vizianagaram.

16) Punam Chand Chowdary, S/o late Motilal Chowdary, Aged 57 years, R/o Mayuri Junction, Vizianagaram.

17) Kondru Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Bangarayya, Aged 43 years, Ex.Municipal Counselor, R/o Kanapaka, Vizianagaram.

18) Ganta Polinaidu (Duppada Naidu), S/o Satyam, Aged 36 years, R/o Duppada Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District.

19) Althi Bangarubabu, S/o late Venkata Ramana, Aged 45 years, R/o Gajularega, Vizianagaram.

20) Matha Venkata Krishna Vijaya Kumar @ Bujji, S/o Pentayya, Aged 37 years, R/o Kanapaka, Vizianagaram.

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 3 / 19

21) Simhadri Murali Sankara Rao, S/o late Basavalingam, Aged 51 years, R/o Saibab Colony, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram.

22) Kanta Errayya, S/o late Suryanarayana, Aged 51 years, Jonnaguddi, Vizianagaram (Died)

23) Golagana Surendra Kumar, S/o l ate Prasad, Aged 32 years, R/o Ippili Veedhi, Vizianagaram.

24) Bantupalli Ramamurthy @ Ramesh, S/o late Ramunaidu, Aged 51 years, R/o Ambedkar Colony, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

25) Korada Venkata Rao @ Sreenu, S/o Ramamohana Rao, Aged 37 years, R/o K.L.Puram, Vizianagaram.

(A.22 died, hence case against A.22 is abated.) …Accused.

This case is coming on 28.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M Vijay Mohan Rao, Sri K Surya Teja and Smt.K.Roja, Advocates for the accused NO. 1 to 25 and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.05 of 2021 of

Vizianagaram I Town Police Station registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 252, 283, 341, 332 and 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“referred as

IPC”) on the basis of the report of P.W.1.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Police Station,

Vizianagaram/PW.21, laid the charge sheet for the offence under

Sections 285, 283, 341, 332 and 353 read with Section 34 of the

IPC with the following averments:

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 4 / 19

A.1 is the defeated MLA candidate of Vizianagaram

Assembly constituency and A.2 to A.25 are her followers belonging to Telugu Desam Party. According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of 27/28.12.2020, the idol of Lord Sri

Rama situated at Ramateertham hillock was found damaged and in that context certain political reactions arose. It is alleged that due to comments made by the then Endowment Minister against

Sri Ashok Gajapathi Raju, the accused planned to conduct a dharna at Mayuri Junction on 03.01.2021. It is further alleged that despite police instructions not to conduct the dharna and rally in view of Section 30 of Police Act being in force, the accused along with their followers proceeded to Mayuri Junction, raised slogans, obstructed traffic and burnt a scarecrow after pouring petrol. It is also alleged that when police personnel attempted to stop them, the accused obstructed the police and caused simple injuries to

PW.1 and PW.2.

Basing on the report of the P.W.1, P.W.20 registered the above case and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he observed the scene of offence, in the presence of P.W.18 and Shaik Sanavullah/LW.22, drafted the scene observation report, seized the maternal objects i.e., Ash, half burnt grass, grass, half burnt piece of wooden plate, used match box, half burnt flex plastic sheet, one liter plastic water bottle containing with petrol, prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and forwarded the material object to S.V.Sanjeeva Rao, Assistant

Director, AP FSL., Mangalagiri (LW.23). Later, he transferred the case file to P.W.21 for further investigation. Thereafter, he

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 5 / 19 resumed the investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 02.07.2021 he served Section 41(a)(1)

Cr.P.C notice to A.1 to A.21, A.23, A.24 and on 09.07.2021 further served Sectuion notice 41(a)(1) Cr.P.C to A.25. S.V.Sanjeeva

Rao, Assistant Director, AP FSL., Mangalagiri (LW.23) examined the material objects, mentioned in the letter of advice and furnished his opinion as the Item Nos, Item Nos. 1 to 7 which were mentioned in the letter of advice, Item Nos.1 to 7 analyzed as per the methods and petrol a High inflammable Hydrocarbons are found in the Item No. 7. Dr.S.B.Jahnavi, Medical

Officer/LW.24 examined the P.Ws.1 and 2 and issued wound certificates and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, P.W.21 filed charge sheet against the accused before the Court. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under

Sections 285, 283, 341, 332 and 353 of the IPC against the A.1 to

A.21 and A.23 to A.25.

4.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., A.1 to A.21 and A.23 to A.25 were examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.

and they denied the offence. Charge under Sections 285, 283, 341, 332 and 353 r/w 34 of the IPC were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 21 and Exs.P.1 to P.13 and

M.Os.1 to 7 are marked, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 6 / 19

6.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the

guilt of A.1 to A.21 and A.23 to A.25 for the

offence punishable under Sections 285,

283, 341, 332 and 353 r/w 34 of the IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt? POINT:

9.The prosecution case, in brief, is that A.1 is the defeated MLA candidate of Vizianagaram Assembly constituency and A.2 to A.25 are her followers belonging to Telugu Desam

Party. According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of 27/28.12.2020, the idol of Lord Sri Rama situated at

Ramateertham hillock was found damaged and in that context certain political reactions arose. It is alleged that due to comments made by the then Endowment Minister against Sri

Ashok Gajapathi Raju, the accused planned to conduct a dharna at Mayuri Junction on 03.01.2021. It is further alleged that despite police instructions not to conduct the dharna and rally in view of

Section 30 of Police Act being in force, the accused along with

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 7 / 19 their followers proceeded to Mayuri Junction, raised slogans, obstructed traffic and burnt a scarecrow after pouring petrol. It is also alleged that when police personnel attempted to stop them, the accused obstructed the police and caused simple injuries to

PW.1 and PW.2.

10.PW.1 is the defacto complainant and one of the alleged injured witnesses. According to him, on 03.01.2021 at about 4:00 PM, on receiving credible information that Telugu

Desam Party persons were conducting dharna at Mayuri

Junction, he along with other police personnel proceeded to the spot. He deposed that about 150 Telugu Desam Party followers were conducting dharna and manavaharam and despite warning through mike, one person brought a scarecrow, poured petrol and set it on fire. He further deposed that when police attempted to stop them, some persons pushed the police and in that incident he sustained small scratch injuries on his hand and PW.2 sustained injuries on forehead. However, the most important aspect in his evidence is that he categorically admitted that he could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of four years.

During cross-examination, he admitted that he could not remember which passengers were obstructed at the alleged scene. He further admitted that he did not remember whether any passport was issued to him or other constables for Bandobust duty at Mayuri Junction and also admitted that he did not know whether any promulgation order under Section 188 Cr.P.C. or

Section 30 of Police Act was in force.

11.PW.2, another injured witness, deposed on similar lines as PW.1. He also stated that Telugu Desam Party followers

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 8 / 19 conducted dharna and one person burnt the scarecrow after pouring petrol. According to him, police were obstructed and he sustained injuries on forehead. However, he also categorically stated that he could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of four years.

During his cross-examination reveals that he was unable to state whether any promulgation order or Section 30 of

Police Act was in force. He also could not remember which members of the public were obstructed.

12.PW.3 to PW.8, PW.15 to PW.17 and PW.19 are all police personnel who allegedly participated in the bandobust duty.

Their evidence is almost verbatim reproduction of each other.

PW4 in his chief examination deposed that, the entire rally was headed by accused No.1 by name P Athidi Vijaya Lakshmi

Gajapathi Raju and her followers. He further deposed in his chief that, he can identify them if shown to him. On the next day, PW4 in his further chief examination, deposed in presence of accused

No.1 to 25, that he could not identify the persons in the court hall who participated in the alleged rally on 03.01.2021. Hence PW4 did not support the case of prosecution and failed to identify the accused No.1 to 25. They uniformly stated that about 150 Telugu

Desam Party workers gathered at Mayuri Junction, conducted dharna, attempted to burn scarecrow and obstructed police.

However, all these witnesses admitted that they could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of four years.

During their cross-examination also reveals that none of them remembered whether any promulgation order under

Section 188 Cr.P.C. or order under Section 30 of Police Act was in

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 9 / 19 force. None of them could state the names of any passengers or members of public allegedly obstructed due to the rally.

13.PW.4 attempted to state that the rally was headed by

A.1 and her followers. However, significantly, during identification

before Court, he categorically stated that the persons present in

Court were not the persons who participated in the rally on 03.01.2021. Thus, even PW.4 failed to identify the accused before the Court.

14.PWs.9 to 14 are independent witnesses cited by prosecution. All of them turned hostile and categorically stated that they did not know anything about the case facts and police never examined them. Though they were cross-examined by learned APP after obtaining permission from the Court, nothing useful was elicited in support of prosecution case.

15.PW.18 is the Village Revenue Officer who acted as panch witness for scene observation. He deposed that police observed the scene and seized one litre petrol bottle, dried grass, ash, match box, burnt flexi and burnt wooden stick. Ex.P8 is the scene observation report. His evidence only establishes seizure of material objects from the scene but does not connect the accused with the alleged offences.

16.PW.20 is the then Inspector of Police who registered

FIR and conducted part investigation. He spoke about registration of FIR, observation of scene, seizure of MOs.1 to 7 and forwarding material objects to FSL.

However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that no document was filed before Court to show that proceedings

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 10 / 19 under Section 30 of Police Act or promulgation under Section 188

IPC were in force. He further admitted that there are no special identifying marks on M.Os.1 to 7.

17.PW.21 is the subsequent Investigating Officer. He deposed that after transfer of investigation to II Town Police

Station, he resumed investigation, examined witnesses, received

FSL report and wound certificates and filed charge sheet.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that no document was filed before Court to show promulgation under

Section 188 IPC or order under Section 30 of Police Act. He further admitted that General Diary entries were also not filed

before Court.

18.Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 are wound certificates relating to

PW.1 and PW.2. They disclose only simple injuries. Ex.P13 is

FSL report which discloses that petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in Item No.7. These documents only establish that some burnt material containing traces of petrol was seized and that

PW.1 and PW.2 sustained simple injuries. However, these documents do not establish, who caused the injuries or who burnt the scarecrow.

19.Upon careful appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court finds several serious infirmities in the prosecution case.

20.The foremost and fatal defect in the prosecution case is failure of identification of accused. Almost all material witnesses including alleged injured witnesses categorically admitted that they could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time.

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 11 / 19

Identification of accused before Court is substantive evidence. In the absence of proper identification, no conviction can be based merely on vague allegations against a group of persons. In the present case, no Test Identification Parade was conducted during investigation. When witnesses admittedly did not know all accused previously and failed to identify them before Court, their involvement in the alleged offences remains unproved.

21.The prosecution also failed to establish specific overt acts of individual accused. The entire evidence is omnibus in nature stating that “some persons” pushed police and “one person” brought scarecrow and burnt it. Except vague allegations, there is absolutely no reliable evidence attributing any particular act to any particular accused. In criminal law, particularly where large number of persons are implicated, specific evidence connecting each accused with the offence is necessary.

22.Another important aspect is that prosecution utterly failed to prove existence of any lawful prohibitory order. Though prosecution alleged that Section 30 of Police Act was in force and police instructed accused not to conduct rally, not a single document evidencing such promulgation was filed before Court.

Both Investigating Officers admitted the same. Even police witnesses themselves expressed ignorance regarding promulgation. Therefore, prosecution failed to establish that the gathering itself was unlawful.

23.Further, for the offence under Section 283 IPC relating to obstruction of public way and Section 341 IPC relating to wrongful restraint, prosecution has not examined a single independent passenger or member of public allegedly obstructed.

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 12 / 19

All witnesses admitted that they do not remember who were obstructed. Mere general allegation without evidence of actual obstruction is insufficient to attract these offences.

24.Coming to Sections 332 and 353 IPC, though PW.1 and PW.2 sustained simple injuries, prosecution utterly failed to establish which accused caused those injuries. There is no clear evidence that accused voluntarily caused hurt to deter public servants from discharging official duty. Vague statements that “some persons pushed” police are wholly insufficient for conviction.

25.It is also significant that all independent witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The prosecution case thus rests solely upon interested official witnesses whose evidence suffers from material omissions and contradictions. Though evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely because they are official witnesses, prudence requires careful scrutiny particularly in politically sensitive cases.

In the present case, their evidence does not inspire confidence due to complete failure of identification and absence of corroboration.

26.The prosecution has also not produced the alleged videography said to have been recorded by LW.6 during the incident. If really videography was available, the same would have been the best evidence to establish participation and identification of accused. Non-production of such crucial evidence creates serious doubt regarding prosecution case.

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 13 / 19

27.It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The burden lies heavily upon the prosecution to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Where two views are possible, the one favourable to accused must be adopted. In the present case, the evidence adduced by prosecution falls far short of the standard required for recording conviction.

28.Having regard to the totality of circumstances, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that A.1 to A.21 and

A.23 to A.25 committed offences punishable under Sections 285, 283, 341, 332 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered.

29. In the result, A.1 to A.21 and A.23 to A.25 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 285, 283, 341, 332 and 353 read with Section 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C/271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. M.Os.1 to 7 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period, if no appeal is preferred. A.22 died, hence case against

A.22 is abated.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 14 / 19

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: P.W.1: K.Kiran Kumar Naidu, S.I of Police, SB, Vizianagaram

P.W.2: D.Suryanarayana, S.I of Police, Control Room, Parvathipuram

P.W.3: S.Pydi Rama Rao, ASI of Police, II Town P.S, Vizianagaram

P.W.4: Ch.Suryanarayana Raju, ASI of Police, Traffic P.S, Vizianagaram

P.W.5: V.Balaram, Head Constable, Burjavalasa

P.W.6: B.Rama Rao, Police Constable Parvathipuram Town P.S

P.W.7: Ch.Sowjanya, Police Constable, Vizianagaram

P.W.8: K.Bhargavi, Home Guard, Vizianagaram

P.W.9: Bobbadi Srinu

P.W.10: N.Ayyappa

P.W.11: S.Yella Rao

P.W.12: Ch.Sairam

P.W.13: P.Pydiraju

P.W.14: K.Krishna Kiran

P.W.15: Kotam Sunil Kumar, Police Constable, Nellimarla

P.W.16: P.Bhaskara Rao, Police Constable

P.W.17: T.Appala Naidu, Police Constable, Bondapalli

P.W.18: I.Ramesh, V.R.O

P.W.19: Shaik Ziyauddin, Retd. S.I of Police

P.W.20: J.Murali, Inspector of Police

P.W.21: Ch.Lakshmana Rao, Inspector of Police

For Defence: None

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 15 / 19

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report given to police by PW.1.

Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.9

Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.10

Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.11

Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.12

Ex.P.6: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.13

Ex.P.7: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.14

Ex.P.8: Scene observation report, dt.03.01.2021

Ex.P.9: Original F.I.R, dt.03.01.2021

Ex.P.10: Scene observation report along with rough sketch, dt.03.01.2021

Ex.P.11: Wound Certificate of P.W.1, dt.09.02.2021

Ex.P.12: Wound Certificate of P.W.2, dt.22.01.2021.

Ex.P.13: Analysis report, dt.09.03.2021.

For Defence: Nil

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1: One water bottle containing small amount of petrol

M.O.2: Half burnt grass

M.O.3: Grass

M.O.4: Ash

M.O.5: Used matchbox

M.O.6: Half burnt flexi

M.O.7: Half burnt wooden piece

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 16 / 19

Calendar and Judgment

District: Vizianagaram

Calendar case tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of

the First Class-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Date of offence03.01.2021

Date of report or complaint03.01.2021

Date of apprehension of accusedNIL

Date of release on bail Section 41(A)Cr.P.C Notice

Date of commencement of trial07.04.2025

Date of closure of trial15.04.2026

Date of Judgment18.05.2026

Due to non-production of Explanation for delay and remarkswitnesses from time to time by the prosecution.

Calendar and Judgment in 1834 of On the file of the Judicial C.C.No.2021Magistrate of the first Class, Vizianagaram.

Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram I Town Police Station. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the accused, Father’s Name, Aged, Village and Mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Pusapati Athidi Vijaya Lakshmi Gajapathi Raju, D/o Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju, Aged 39 years, R/at No.5 Bungalow, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

2) Indukuri Venkatapathi Raju, S/o late Appala Raju, Aged 60 years, Ex.Municipal Counsellor, R/o Babametta, Vizianagaram.

3) Karrothu Venkata Narasinga Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 46 years, R/o Gajularega, Vizianagaram.

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 17 / 19

4) Boddula Siva Surya Venkata Narasinga Rao, S/o Gurunaidu, Aged 48 years, R/o Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagaram District.

5) Mylapalli Pydiraju, S/o late Guruvulu, Aged 52 years, Ex.Municipal Counselor, R/o Bogguladibba, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

6) Mahanthi Chinnam Naidu, S/o late Seetham Naidu, Aged 67 years, Ex.M.P.P., R/o Rellivalasa Village, Poosapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

7) Prasadula Lakshmi Varaprasad, S/o Ramakrishna, Aged 37 years, R/o Ramakrishna Nagar, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.

8) Kandi Venkata Muralinaidu, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 48 years, Ex.Municipal Counselor, R/o Gavara Veedhi, Vizianagaram.

9) Pogiri Pydiraju, S/o Lakshmana Rao, Aged 42 years, R/o Jammunarayanapuram Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District.

10) S.V.S.Sitharama Raju @ Chanti Raju, S/o late Ranga Raju, Aged 49 years, R/o Bondilagudem, Vizianagaram.

11) Polineti Appala Mahesh @ Mahesh, S/o Kannamnaidu, Aged years, R/o Babametta, Vizianagaram.

12) Gedela Adinarayana @ Adibabu, S/o late Appanna, Aged 54 years, Ex.Munici9pal Counselor, R/o Dharmapuri Village, Vizianagaram.

13) Suvvari Anuradha @ Begum, W/o M.A.Saleem, Aged 47 years, Household duties, R./o Chakali Veedhid, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

14) Tumpalli Ramana, S/o Satyam, Aged 47 years, Ex.ZPTC, R/o Gunkalam Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District.

15) Sheik Mehaboob Basha, S/o late Khajavali, Aged 50 years, R/o Gunturuvari Street, Vizianagaram.

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 18 / 19

16) Punam Chand Chowdary, S/o late Motilal Chowdary, Aged 57 years, R/o Mayuri Junction, Vizianagaram.

17) Kondru Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Bangarayya, Aged 43 years, Ex.Municipal Counselor, R/o Kanapaka, Vizianagaram.

18) Ganta Polinaidu (Duppada Naidu), S/o Satyam, Aged 36 years, R/o Duppada Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District.

19) Althi Bangarubabu, S/o late Venkata Ramana, Aged 45 years, R/o Gajularega, Vizianagaram.

20) Matha Venkata Krishna Vijaya Kumar @ Bujji, S/o Pentayya, Aged 37 years, R/o Kanapaka, Vizianagaram.

21) Simhadri Murali Sankara Rao, S/o late Basavalingam, Aged 51 years, R/o Saibab Colony, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram.

22) Kanta Errayya, S/o late Suryanarayana, Aged 51 years, Jonnaguddi, Vizianagaram (Died)

23) Golagana Surendra Kumar, S/o l ate Prasad, Aged 32 years, R/o Ippili Veedhi, Vizianagaram.

24) Bantupalli Ramamurthy @ Ramesh, S/o late Ramunaidu, Aged 51 years, R/o Ambedkar Colony, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

25) Korada Venkata Rao @ Sreenu, S/o Ramamohana Rao, Aged 37 years, R/o K.L.Puram, Vizianagaram.

(A.22 died, hence case against A.22 is abated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence: under Section 285 of the IPC: Punishment for “negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter” under Section 283 of the IPC: Punishment for Danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530 19 / 19 under Section 332 of the IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty under Section 341 of the IPC: Punishment for Wrongful restraint under Section 353 of the IPC: Punishment for Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.

Finding: Not guilty.

Result: In the result, A.1 to A.21 and A.23 to A.25 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under

Sections 285, 283, 341, 332 and 353 read with

Section 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C/271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. M.Os.1 to 7 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period, if no appeal is preferred.

A.22 died, hence case against A.22 is abated.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.18 16:23:56 +0530

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS-CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM.

Present :-Sri M.S.H.R.T.Chakravarthi,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- Vizianagaram.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.253 OF 2026

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, I Town Police

Station, Vizianagaram....Complainant

AND

Gummidi Aadinarayana, S/o Tammanna, 36 Years, Chilapeta

Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam Dist .. Accused

This case came on 30.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri V Eswara Rao, learned Legal Aid Defence Counsel, for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station,

Vizianagaram, has filed Combined Charge-Sheet against the accused in Crime No. 34/2026, 35/2026 and 37/2026 for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 317 (2) of BNS.

2. The case of Prosecution in brief is as follows:

a)On 20-02-2026 at 15:00 hrs, P.W.2 parked his motor cycle bearing No. TS 09 FK 3631 in front of Dr Srirama Murthy

Hospital, Vizianagaram and went inside and when he returned at 18.00 hours, noticed that his motor cycle found missing, and on 22.02.2026 at 18.00 hours he lodged report and basing on the

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:34 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 2 same LW 11/A Ramana Rao registered it as a case in Crime No.

34/2026 for the offence under Sec. 303(2) BNS

b)On 05.12.2025 at 13.00 hours, PW1 parked his motor cycle bearing No. AP 39 DN 6158 at Reservation Counter Car Parking

Place, Railway Station, Vizianagaram and went inside to the railway station, to drop his relative, and at 15.00 hours, when he came back he noticed that, his motor cycle found missing, and on 02.02.2026 at 18.00 hours lodged report and basing on the same

PW6 registered it as a case in Crime No. 35/2026 for the offence under Sec. 303(2) BNS

c)On 22.02.2026 at 18.30 hours, PW3 parked his motor cycle bearing No. AP 40 BE 2683 by the side of steps of Bank Tank, near LIC Building, Vizianagaram and when he returned back at 20.00 hours and noticed that, his motor cycle found missing and on 23.02.2026 at 18.00 hours lodged report and basing on the same PW6 registered it as a case in Crime No. 37/2026 for the offence under Sec. 303(2) BNS.

During the course of investigation, the II town police,

Vizianagaram arrested the accused on 25.02.2026 in another three crimes and the accused confessed about the commission of thefts in the above three crimes, and after preparation of seizer report, seized the motor cycles. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the Court for judicial remand and the seized property was submitted to Court through Form 60. After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused before the Court.

3.This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under Sections 303(2) 317(2) of BNS. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:34 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 3 documents were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides, charges were framed against him, for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) of BNS, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exhibits P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. The remaining witnesses were given up by the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor. After closure of

Prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which, he denied it totally and reported no Defence evidence.

6. Heard Arguments on both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the Prosecution is able to

prove the guilt of the Accused for the

offence punishable under Sections

303(2), 317(2) of BNS beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

8. Point : In support of the contention of the Prosecution, the

Prosecution witness is examined as P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exhibits P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 3 are marked.

9.PW1 deposed that, some unkinown persons committed theft of his motor cycle bearing No. AP 39 DN 6158 / MO-1 at

Railway Station on 05.12.2025. He gave report on 23.02.2026.

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:34 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 4

There is a delay of three months in reporting the case. No reasonable explanation from the side of prosecution. PW1 dfid not know who committed theft. PW2 deposed that, some unknown persons committed theft of his motor cycle bearing No.

TS 09 FK 3631 on 20.02.2026. He gave report on 22.02.2026.

There is a delay of 2 days. No explanation from the side of prosecution in reporting the case. In the cross examination,he stated that he did not know who committed theft. PW3 deposed that on 22.02.2026 , his motor cycle bearing No. AP 40 BE 2683 was committed theft by unknown persons. He gave report on 23.02.2026. There is a delay of One Day.In the cross examination,he stated that he did not know who committed theft.

10.PW4 is the Village Revenue Officer, who deposed that on 25.02.2026, at 09.00 hours, he along with P Shyamala and the II

Town Police went to Kataveedhi Junction at 09.30 hours, and found one person on a bike, in a suspicious manner. He was caught by the II town Police Vizianagaram. He disclosed that, he committed theft at Bajaj Finance Office, Dasannapeta. Earlier he commited theft of another five bikes and were secretely kept at

Babametta Silparamam. Ex.P4 is the Original Seizure report Dt.

25.02.2026. In the cross examination of PW4, nothing was elicited in favour of the defence. PW5 is the investigating officer in the Crimes related to II Town Police Station, before whom, accused confessed his guilt. Nothing was elicited from thecross examination of PW5. PW6 who reiterated the contents of charge sheet and the original FIRs in three crimes and original rough sketches are marked as Ex.P5 to Ex.P10. PW4 identified the accused correctly. In the cross examination of PW5, she depsoed that, she did not give any written requisition to revenue authorities

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:34 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 5 to act as mediators. CC TV footage not collected at the scene of offence. From the above evidence, there is a delay of lodging report by Pws 1 and 2 respectively in their cases. But basing upon the confession and recovery of accused six bikes were recovered in which, three bikes are Mos 1 to 3. The prosecution is successful in proving the recovery of bikes i.e., Mos 1 to 3 from the accused basing on the confession cum recovery Dt.

25.02.2026 for the offence under Sec. 317(2) BNS. There is no evidence for the offence under Sec. 303(2) BNS. Thus, this court is inclined to answer the point in favour of the prosecution for theoffence under Sec. 317(2) and against the prosecution for theoffence under Sec 303(2) BNS.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C/Sec 278(1)BNSS.

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 317(2) BNS. Accordingly the accused is convicted under Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C. /271(2) BNSS. Mos 1 to3 are already returned to Pws 1 to 3 for safe custody shall be made absolute after the lapse of appeal time, and if no appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation, corrected , signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Typed to my dictation, corrected , signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:34 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 6

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: M Someswara Rao/Defacto complainant None P.W.2:D Salman Raju/Defacto complainant P.W.3: R Ram /Defacto complainant P.W.4: S Prakash P.W.5: K Prameela Devi/S I of Police P.W.6 : B Surendra Naidu/I.O

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1, Dt. 23.02.2026 Ex.P.2: Report of P.W.2, Dt. 22.02.2026 Ex.P.3: Report of P.W.3, Dt. 23.02.2026 Ex.P.4: Original Seizure Report, Dt. 25.02.2026 Ex.P.5: Original FIR in Crime No. 34/2026, Dt. 22.02.2026 Ex.P.6: Original FIR in Crime No. 35/2026, Dt. 23.02.2026 Ex.P.7: Original FIR in Crime No. 37/2026, Dt. 23.02.2026 Ex.P.8: Rough Sketch in Crime No. 34/2026, Dt. 22.02.2026 Ex.P9 : Rough Sketch in Crime No. 35/2026, Dt. 23.02.2026 Ex.P10 : Rough Sketch in Crime No. 37/2026, Dt. 23.02.2026

For Defence: Nil

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1: Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 39 DN 6158 M.O.2: Motor Cycle bearing No. TS 09 FK 3631 M.O.3: Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 40 BE 2683

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:34 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 7

Heard the accused with regard to quantum of sentence that may be imposed against him for the offence under Section 317(2)

BNS. The accused submitted that he did not commit any offence and hence lenient view may be taken. In view of the circumstances narrated in this case, the accused found in possession of Mos 1 to 3. This court holds that lenient view cannot be taken and the benevolent provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act cannot be invoked. Considering the submission by the accused that he did not commit any offence, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 13

Days for the offence under Sec. 317(2) BNS The accused is arrested on 25.02.2026 and was in Jail till date, i.e., 78 Days. The period between 25.02.2026 to 14.05.2026 shall be given set off under Sec. 428 Cr.P.C/Sec 468 BNSS. The right of appeal is intimated to the accused. Free copy of judgment supplied to the accused.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:34 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 252/2026

Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram 05.12.2025, 20.02.2026 Date of offence:& 22.02.2026

Complaint or report23.02.2026, 22.02.2026 & 23.02.2026

Apprehension of accused25.02.2026

Release on bail:In Jail

Commencement of trial:22.04.2026

Close of trial12.05.2026

Sentence or order:14.05.2026 Explanation for delay and remarks: -----

Name of the Complainant: State represented by Sub- Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused, Gummidi Aadinarayana, S/o Tammanna, 36 Years, Chilapeta Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam Dist --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE: under Section 303(2)BNS : Punishment for theft under Section 317(2) BNS: Punishment for Dishonestly receiving stolen property.

FINDING: Not guilty for Section 303(2) BNS Found guilty for Sec 317(2) BNS

Sentence or order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C/Sec 278(1)BNSS.

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:34 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 9 punishable under Sec. 317(2) BNS. Accordingly the accused is convicted under Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C. /271(2) BNSS. Mos 1 to3 are already returned to Pws 1 to 3 for safe custody shall be made absolute after the lapse of appeal time, and if no appeal is preferred. Considering the submission by the accused that he did not commit any offence, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 13 Days for the offence under Sec. 317(2) BNS The accused is arrested on 25.02.2026 and was in Jail till date, i.e., 78 Days. The period between 25.02.2026 to 14.05.2026 shall be given set off under Sec. 428

Cr.P.C/Sec 468 BNSS. The right of appeal is intimated to the accused. Free copy of judgment supplied to the accused.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:34 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS-CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM.

Present :-Sri M.S.H.R.T.Chakravarthi,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- Vizianagaram.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 252 OF 2026

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, II Town Police

Station, Vizianagaram....Complainant

AND

Gummidi Aadinarayana, S/o Tammanna, 36 Years, Chilapeta

Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam Dist .. Accused

This case came on 30.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri V Eswara Rao, learned Legal Aid Defence Counsel, for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station,

Vizianagaram, has filed clubbed Charge-Sheet against the accused in Crime No. 32/2026, 44/2026 and 45/2026 for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) of BNS.

2. The case of Prosecution in brief is as follows:

a)On 08-01-2026 at 21:00 hrs, P.W.1 parked his motor cycle bearing No. AP 03 AW 1553 opposite to Old Veternary

Hospital, Kalikamatha Temple, Ring Road, Vizianagaram and went to his duty at Andhra Organic Company, Pydibheemavaram and returned on 09.01.2026 at 7.30 hours, and noticed that his

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:37 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 2 motor cycle found missing, and on 12.02.2026 at 20.00 hours he lodged report and basing on the same PW5 registered it as a case in Crime No. 32/2026 for the offence under Sec. 303(2) BNS

b)On 13.02.2026 at 14.40 hours, PW2 parked his motor cycle bearing No. AP 39 QP 3709 in front of Bajaj Finance,

Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram and at 20.30 hours, when he came back from the office noticed that, his motor cycle found missing, and on 22.02.2026 at 20.45 hours lodged report and basing on the same PW5 registered it as a case in Crime No. 44/2026 for the offence under Sec. 303(2) BNS

c)On 16.02.2026 at 20.00 hours, PW3 parked his motor cycle bearing No. AP 35 AA 4351 at the open place, Opposite to

Kalikamatha Temple, Ring Road, Vizianagaram and went to

Andhra Organic Company, Pydibheemavaram, and when he returned back on 17.02.2026 at 07.00 hours and noticed that, his motor cycle found missing and on 23.02.2026 at 13.15 hours lodged report and basing on the same LW12/S Krishna Murthy registered it as a case in Crime No. 45/2026 for the offence under

Sec. 303(2) BNS.

During the course of investigation, the police arrested the accused on 25.02.2026 and the accused confessed about the commission of thefts in the above three crimes, and after preparation of seizer report, seized the motor cycles.Thereafter, the accused was produced before the Court for judicial remand and the seized property was submitted to Court through Form 60.

After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused before the Court.

3.This Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under Sections 303(2) of BNS. On

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:37 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 3 appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides, charges were framed against him, for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) of BNS, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exhibits P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. The remaining witnesses were given up by the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor. After closure of

Prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which, he denied it totally and reported no Defence evidence.

6. Heard Arguments on both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the Prosecution is able to

prove the guilt of the Accused for the

offence punishable under Sections

303(2) of BNS beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

8. Point : In support of the contention of the Prosecution, the

Prosecution witness is examined as P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exhibits P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 3 are marked.

9.PW1 deposed that, some unkinown persons committed theft of his motor cycle bearing No. AP 03 AW 1553/ MO-1 at

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:37 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 4

Kalikamatha Temple in between 08.01.2026 to 09.01.2026. He gave report on 12.02.2026. There is a delay of one month in reporting the case. No reasonable explanation from the side of prosecution. PW1 dfid not know who committed theft. PW2 deposed that, some unknown persons committed theft of his motor cycle bearing No. AP 39 QP 3709 on 13.02.2026. He gave report on 22.02.2026. There is a delay of 10 days. No explanation from the side of prosecution in reporting the case. In the cross examination,he stated that he did not know who committed theft. PW3 deposed that on 16.02.2026, his motor cycle bearing No. AP 35 AA 4351 was committed theft by unknown persons. He gave report on 23.02.2026. There is a delay of seven days. No explanation from the side of prosecution in reporting the case. In the cross examination,he stated that he did not know who committed theft.

10.PW4 is the Village Revenue Officer, who deposed that on 25.02.2026, at 09.00 hours, he along with P Shyamala and the II

Town Police went to Kataveedhi Junction at 09.30 hours, and found one person on a bike, in a suspicious manner. He was caught by the II town Police Vizianagaram. He disclosed that, he committed theft at Bajaj Finance Office, Dasannapeta. Earlier he commited theft of another five bikes and were secretely kept at

Babametta Silparamam. Ex.P4 is the Original Seizure report Dt.

25.02.2026. In the cross examination of PW4, nothing was elicited in favour of the defence. PW5 is the investigating officer who reiterated the contents of charge sheet and the original FIRs in three crimes and original rough sketches are marked as Ex.P5 to Ex.P10. PW4 identified the accused correctly. In the cross examination of PW5, she depsoed that, she did not give any

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:37 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 5 written requisition to revenue authorities to act as mediators. CC

TV footage not collected at the scene of offence. From the above evidence, there is a delay of lodging report by Pws 1 to 3 respectively in their cases. But basing upon the confession and recovery of accused six bikes were recovered in which, three bikes are Mos 1 to 3. The prosecution is successful in proving the recovery of bikes i.e., Mos 1 to 3 from the accused basing on the confession cum recovery Dt. 25.02.2026 for the offence under

Sec. 317(2) BNS. There is no evidence for the offence under

Sec. 303(2) BNS. The charges are framed for the offence under

Sec. 303(2) BNS but not under Sec.317(2) BNS. Since 317(2)

BNS is a minor charge than 303(2) BNS, this court is inclined to answer the point in favour of the prosecution for theoffence under

Sec. 317(2) instead of 303(2) BNS.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C/Sec 278(1)BNSS.

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 317(2) BNS. Accordingly the accused is convicted under Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C. /271(2) BNSS. Mos 1 to3 are already returned to Pws 1 to 3 for safe custody shall be made absolute after the lapse of appeal time, and if no appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation, corrected , signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Appendix of Evidence

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:37 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 6

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: P Srinivasa Rao/Defacto complainant None

P.W.2:G Sankara Rao /Defacto complainant

P.W.3: G Suresh /Defacto complainant

P.W.4: S Prakash

P.W.5: K Prameela Devi/S I of Police

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1, Dt. 12.02.2026

Ex.P.2: Report of P.W.2, Dt. 22.02.2026

Ex.P.3: Report of P.W.3, Dt. 23.02.2026

Ex.P.4: Original Seizure Report, Dt. 25.02.2026

Ex.P.5: Original FIR in Crime No. 32/2026, Dt. 12.02.2026

Ex.P.6: Original FIR in Crime No. 44/2026, Dt. 22.02.2026

Ex.P.7: Original FIR in Crime No. 45/2026, Dt. 23.02.2026

Ex.P.8: Rough Sketch in Crime No. 32/2026, Dt. 13.02.2026

Ex.P9 : Rough Sketch in Crime No. 44/2026, Dt. 23.02.2026

Ex.P10 : Rough Sketch in Crime No. 45/2026, Dt. 23.02.2026

For Defence: Nil

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1: Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 03 AW 1553

M.O.2: Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 39 QP 3709

M.O.3: Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 35 AA 4351

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:37 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 7

Heard the accused with regard to quantum of sentence that may be imposed against him for the offence under Section 317(2)

BNS. The accused submitted that he did not commit any offence and hence lenient view may be taken. In view of the circumstances narrated in this case, the accused found in possession of Mos 1 to 3. This court holds that lenient view cannot be taken and the benevolent provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act cannot be invoked. Considering the submission by the accused that he did not commit any offenceand as the accused languished in Jail in CC 252/2026 from 25.02.2026 to till date, , the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 13 Days for the offence under Sec. 317(2) BNS

The accused is arrested on 25.02.2026 and accused furnished solvency on 10.03.2026. The period between 25.02.2026 to 10.03.2.206 shall be given set off under Sec. 428 Cr.P.C/Sec 468

BNSS. The right of appeal is intimated to the accused. Free copy of judgment supplied to the accused.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:37 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 252/2026

Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram 08.01.2026, 13.02.2026 Date of offence:& 16.02.2026

Complaint or report12.02.2026, 22.02.2026 & 23.02.2026

Apprehension of accused25.02.2026

Release on bail:10.03.2026

Commencement of trial:22.04.2026

Close of trial12.05.2026

Sentence or order:14.05.2026 Explanation for delay and remarks: -----

Name of the Complainant: State represented by Sub- Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused, Gummidi Aadinarayana, S/o Tammanna, 36 Years, Chilapeta Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam Dist --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE: under Section 303(2)BNS : Punishment for theft under Section 317(2) BNS: Punishment for Dishonestly receiving stolen property.

FINDING: Not guilty for Section 303(2) BNS Found guilty for Sec 317(2) BNS

Sentence or order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C/Sec 278(1)BNSS.

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:37 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 9 punishable under Sec. 317(2) BNS. Accordingly the accused is convicted under Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C. /271(2) BNSS. Mos 1 to3 are already returned to Pws 1 to 3 for safe custody shall be made absolute after the lapse of appeal time, and if no appeal is preferred. Considering the submission by the accused that he did not commit any offenceand as the accused languished in Jail in CC 252/2026 from 25.02.2026 to till date, , the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 13

Days for the offence under Sec. 317(2) BNS The accused is arrested on 25.02.2026 and accused furnished solvency on 10.03.2026. The period between 25.02.2026 to 10.03.2.206 shall be given set off under Sec. 428 Cr.P.C/Sec 468 BNSS. The right of appeal is intimated to the accused. Free copy of judgment supplied to the accused.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:37 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram

CC 584/2023 Addl. JMFC/VZM

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE

FIRST CLASS-CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM.

Present :-Sri M.S.H.R.T.Chakravarthi,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- Vizianagaram.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.584 OF 2023

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station,

Vizianagaram....Complainant

AND

A1Chukka Ravi, S/o Appanna, 20 Years, Jiyyannavalsa Village, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District

A2 Padala Shankar S/o Adinarayana, 20 years, Jiyyannavalasa Village, Bondpalli Mandal, Vizianagaram.

A.3 Yerra Srinu S/o Late Pydi Raju, aged 27 years, Jiyyannavalasa Village, Bondpalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

A.4 Patnana Appala Naidu S/o Pydi Raju, aged 27 years, Ambativalasa Village, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram.

...Accused 1 to 4

This case came on 30.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri S Rama Krishna, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Page 1 of 8

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:42 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram

CC 584/2023 Addl. JMFC/VZM

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station,

Vizianagaram,filed Charge-Sheet against the accused in Crime No.

200/2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of Prosecution in brief is as follows:

On 23-03-2023 at about 20:30 hrs, P.W.1 closed his

Matching Collections Cloth Shop, situated at Shop No.304, SBT Market,

Vizianagaram, and while he was in his house, PW2 informed him over phone that, his upstair shop was open by around four unknown persons coming out from his shop with bundles of ladies nighties, on that, PW1 rushed to his shop and noticed that some unknown culprits committed theft of Rs.1,90,000/- worth bundles of nighties by using false key and decamped with booty. Basing on his report, P.W.6 registered a case in

Crime No. 200/2023 under Sections 454 and 380 IPC.

During the course of investigation, the police arrested the accused

No. 1 to 4 on 26.03.2023 at R & B Junction, Vizianagaram. During interrogation, the accused 1 to 4 confessed that they committed the theft and the stolen property i.e., 10 bundles of ladies nighties (266) cash of

Rs.75,000/- were seized from the possession of A1 to A4 and submitted a seizure report. Thereafter, the accused 1 to 4 were produced before the

Court for judicial remand on 27.03.2023 and the seized property was submitted to Court through Form 60. After completion of investigation, added Section 411 IPC and filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 before the Court.

Page 2 of 8

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:42 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram

CC 584/2023 Addl. JMFC/VZM

3.This Court has taken cognizance against the accused persons No.1 to 4 for the offence under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of

IPC. On appearance of the accused persons before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of

Cr.P.C.

4.Accused 1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides, charges were framed against him, for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exhibits P.1 to P.11 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. The remaining witnesses were given up by the learned Senior

Assistant Public Prosecutor. After closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which, they denied it totally and reported no Defence evidence.

6. Heard Arguments on both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the Prosecution is able to prove the

guilt of the Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the

offence punishable under Sections 457, 380

or 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Page 3 of 8

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:42 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram

CC 584/2023 Addl. JMFC/VZM

8. Point :

In support of the contention of the Prosecution, the

Prosecution witness is examined as P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exhibits P.1 to P.11 and M.Os.1 and 2 are marked.

9.PW1 in his chief deposed that, in the month of March 2023 on one day, the neighbouring shop owner called him during night hours and informed him that his shop was open. Then PW1 went to the shop and identified the theft of nighties and cash of Rs.80,000/-. Ex.P1 is the report marked through PW1. MO 1 is Rs.75,000/- and MO 2 is 266 nighties are marked through PW1 which are alleged to be recovered from the accused

No.1 to 4, under the confession cum recovery. PW1 did not state anything about the accused No.1 to 4. Learned APP declared PW1 as hostile. Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of PW1, except marking his section 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P2. In the cross examination of PW1 by the defence, he deposed that, he did not furnish any receipts about the stolen property. PW2 and PW3 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosectuion. Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of PW2 and PW3 except marking Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4.

10.PW4 is the brother of PW1, and he deposed that he observed the scene of offence. PW5 is the village revenue officer and mediator to the confession cum recovery. He deposed that, he and another VRO by name CH Rama Lakshmi went to R & B Junction on 26.03.2023 at about 17.00 hours. In their presence, the police recovered cash of Rs.23,400/-, duplicate keys and cloth bag containing 20 to 30 nighties from accused

No.1, recovered cash and nighties from accused No.2 to 4. Ex.P6 to

Page 4 of 8

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:42 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram

CC 584/2023 Addl. JMFC/VZM

Ex.P9 i.e., the recovery portiion in the confession is marked through

PW4. At last PW4 deposed that he cannot identify the accused No.1 to 4 due to lapse of three years. In the cross examination of PW4, nothing was elicited against the prosecution. But PW4 could not identify accused

No. 1 to 4 due to lapse of three years., this court cannot rely upon his evidence.

11.PW5 is the investigating officer, who reiterated the contents of charge sheet and Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 are marked i.e., Original FIR and

Rough Sketch. Since the entire investigation is relied upon the confession cum recovery, which is a very weak piece of evidence, in which, the identification of accused No.1 to 4 is impossibile, this court cannot rely upon the evidence of PW5 also.

12. IN THE RESULT, the accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal

Code and is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall remain in force for six months, as required under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2, which were already given to P.W.1 as per deposition of PW1.

Typed to my dictation, corrected , signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Page 5 of 8

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:42 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram

CC 584/2023 Addl. JMFC/VZM

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: Arunkumar Agrawal/Defacto Complainant None P.W.2:Sarath Kothari/Corroboration P.W.3: Irfan Basha/Corroboration P.W.4: Rajesh Kumar Agarwal/Mediator to Scene of Offence P.W.5: K Babu Rao/Mediator to confession cum recovery P.W.6: S Bhaskara Rao/ S.I of Police

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1, Dt. 24.03.2023 Ex.P.2: Sec 161 (3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW1, Dt. 24.03.2023 Ex.P.3: Sec 161 (3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW2, Dt. 24.03.2023 Ex.P.4: Sec 161 (3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW3, Dt. 27.03.2023

Ex.P.5: Scene Observation Report Dt. 24.03.2023 Ex.P.6: First 8 lines of the last paragraph in the confession cum recovery of accused No.1 Ex.P.7: 9 Lines of under line portion in the confession cum recovery of accused No.2 Ex.P.8: First 8 lines of the last paragraph in the confession cum recovery of accused No.3 Ex.P9 : First 8 lines of the last paragraph in the confession cum recovery of accused No.4 Ex.P10 : Original FIR Dt. 24.03.2023 Ex.P11 : Rough Sketch Dt. 24.03.2023 For Defence: Nil

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1: Cash of Rs.75,000/-

M.O.2: 266 Nighties

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge

Vizianagaram

Page 6 of 8

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:42 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram

CC 584/2023 Addl. JMFC/VZM

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 584/2023

Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Date of offence:Prior to 24.03.2023

Complaint or report24.03.2023

Apprehension of accused26.03.2023

Release on bail:29.03.2023

Commencement of trial:19.01.2026

Close of trial30.04.2026

Sentence or order:14.05.2026 Explanation for delay and remarks: -----

Name of the Complainant: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram

Name of the Accused A1Chukka Ravi, S/o Appanna, 20 Years, Jiyyannavalsa Village, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District

A2 Padala Shankar S/o Adinarayana, 20 years, Jiyyannavalasa Village, Bondpalli Mandal, Vizianagaram.

A.3 Yerra Srinu S/o Late Pydi Raju, aged 27 years, Jiyyannavalasa Village, Bondpalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

A.4 Patnana Appala Naidu S/o Pydi Raju, aged 27 years, Ambativalasa Village, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram.

Page 7 of 8

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:42 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram

CC 584/2023 Addl. JMFC/VZM

OFFENCE: under Section 457 of IPC: Punishment for Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence under Section 380 of IPC: Punishment for Theft in dwelling house, etc.

under Section 411 of IPC: Punishment for Dishonestly receiving stolen property.

FINDING: Not guilty.

Sentence or order:

IN THE RESULT, the accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The bail bonds of the accused persons shall remain in force for six months, as required under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2, which were already given to P.W.1 as per deposition of PW1.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge

V IZIANAGARAM

Page 8 of 8

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:42 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram

1

CC 1967/2018 AJFCM/VZM

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: VIZIANAGARAM

Present: MSHRT Chakravarthi

I Additional Judl. Magistrate of the First Class,

Vizianagaram

Thursday, this the 14th day May, 2026

C.C.No. 1967/2018

Between: Narikenabilli Veerabhadra Rao, S/o Srirama Murthy,56 Years, Business, Kamma Street, Near Rice Mill, Vizianagaram … Complainant

And

Siriki Parameswara Rao, S/o Appa Rao, 51 Years, Driver, Mobile Crane Complex, M C Complex, Chief Mechanical Engineering Department, CME Department, Visakhapatnam .… Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 20.04.2026 in the presence of Sri N Ramesh Kumar , Advocate

for the complainant and of Sri M S N Reddy, Learned Counsel

for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood

upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The complainant filed the complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act’1881 [hereinafter referred as N.I.Act for brevity].

2.The averments of the complaint in brief are that the accused issued cheque bearing No. 148966, Dt. 18.07.2018 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India,

Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam in favour of the complainant towards part payment of the amount due under promissory note Dt. 10.01.2017 for Rs.2,00,000/- When the said cheque was presented for collection in Union Bank of India,

Vizianagaram, on 20.09.2018 and the same was returned with an

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:40 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 2

CC 1967/2018 AJFCM/VZM

endorsement that “EXCEEDS ARRANGEMENTS” Dt.21.09.2018.

The complainant issued registered lawyer notice on 28.09.2018 demanding the accused to pay the cheque amount and the said notice was received by the accused, and gave a reply on Dt.

12.10.2018 and failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, this complaint.

3.On perusal of the record, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI.Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, case copies are furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. explaining the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under section 138 of

NI.Act, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of the complainant evidence, the complainant was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P 5. The complainant also examined one R Satish as PW2, but no documents were marked on his behalf.

6.After closure of complainant evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence that has come on record through the complainant evidence, to which, the accused denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard both sides and perused the evidence both oral and documentary, on record along with the written arguments.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the complainant could bring

home the guilt of accused for the offence

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:40 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 3

CC 1967/2018 AJFCM/VZM

punishable under section 138 of NI.Act,

beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. POINT:-

The complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and testified that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a under the cover of promissory note as Ex.P.5. The accused issued the Ex.P.1 cheque bearing No. 148966 dated 18.07.2018 for Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of the complainant drawn on accused branch towards payment of the above said debt due to the P.W.1, that on presentation of the Ex.P.1 cheque before his banker for collection, the same was dishonored for “EXCEEDS

ARRANGEMENTS” and intimated vide the Ex.P.2 cheque return memo dated 21.09.2018 by the Union Bank of India,

Vizianagaram that on 28.09.2018, P.W.1 got issued the Ex.P.3 statutory notice demanding the accused to repay the amount covered under the Ex.P.1 and that said notice was served. Even after issuing the Ex.P.3/legal notice, the accused not paid any amount due under the cheque under the Ex.P.1. The accused issued reply notice under Ex.P4.

10. There is no dispute that the Ex.P.1/cheque pertains to the bank account of the accused. Further, there is also no dispute that the signature on the Ex.P.1 pertains to the accused only. Even otherwise, the reason for dishonour of the

Ex.P.1/cheque is not due to the drawer’s signature not tallying, but for exceeds arrangements . At this juncture, the Court finds it apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between T. Vasantha Kumar Vs. Vijaya Kumari reported in LAWS (SC) 2015 479. The said judgment is an outcome in a criminal

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:40 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 4

CC 1967/2018 AJFCM/VZM

appeal, wherein the Hon’ble Court held as follows at paragraph 10, which is not out of place for extraction.

“Therefore, in the present case since the cheque as well as the signature has been accepted by the accused/respondent, the presumption under section 139 would operate. Thus, the burden was on the accused to disprove the cheque or the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability……..” As per Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that for every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration.

Further Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act stipulates that unless the contrary is proved it shall be presumed that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for the discharge of whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Applying the above ratio as laid down in the case cited supra to the present case, which is squarely applicable, the presumption under section 139 of the N.I.

Act comes into operation favoring a rebuttal presumption in favour of P.W.1 that the issue of the Ex.P.1 cheque by the accused is towards discharge of legally enforceable debt.

11. Now the onus is upon the accused to prove that the issue of the Ex.P.1 is not towards the legally enforceable debt.

The contention of the accused is that, no Ex.P5 transaction occurred at the house of PW1 on 10.01.2017. In the cross examination of PW1, he deposed that, PW1 gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash in the denomination of Rs.500.00.

PW1 denied the suggestion that, he got Ex.P1 Cheque from

Induru Ramesh, who has financial transctions with the accused.

Nothing was elicited from the cross examination of PW1 to disbelive the case of the complainant. PW2 supported the case of PW1 in his chief examination. Nothing was elicited from the

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:40 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 5

CC 1967/2018 AJFCM/VZM

cross examiantion of PW2 to disbelieve the case of the complainant. In the cross examination of PW2, he deposed that, the accused received cash in the denomination of 500.00 in four bundles. He is attestor to Ex.P5. Just because the door number of the accused not mentioned in Ex.P5, does not nullify the case.

Further, PW1 in his cross examination specifically stated that he gave valid currency to accused. The accused did not touch anything about the contents of reply notice which was marked as

Ex.P4. Hence this court cannot rely upon the contents of Ex.P4 and to disbelieve the case of the complainant. In view of the above, this Court holds that the prosecution is successful in establishing the guilt of accused for offence under Section 138 of

N.I. Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12. In the result, the accused is found guilty of offence under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C/278 (2) of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Accused called absent. No representation. For hearing of sentence the presence of accused is necessary. Hence issue NBW against accused.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vizianagaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of Witnesses Examined

For Complainant :

P.W1 : N Veerabhadra Rao/Complainant P.W.2 : R Satish/Attestor

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:40 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 6

CC 1967/2018 AJFCM/VZM

No. of Documents Marked

For Complainant:

Ex.P1 : Original Cheque bearing No.148966 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- issued by the accused in favour of the complainant Dt. 18.07.2018 Ex.P2 : Cheque return memo Dt. 21.09.2018 Ex.P3 : Office copy of the Registered legal notice Dt. 28.09.2018 issued by the complainant to the accused along with postal receipt Ex.P4 : Copy of reply notice Dt. 12.10.2018 Ex.P5 : Original Promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/- executed by the accused in favour of the complainant, Dt. 10.01.2017

For Accused :

NILI

Additional Judl.Magistrate of I Class,

Vizianagaram.

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:40 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram 7

CC 1967/2018 AJFCM/VZM

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

VIZIANAGARAM

Judgment in : C.C. NO. 1927 of 2022

Date of Offence : 13.10.2018

Report / complaint : 30.10.2018

Release on bail : NIL

Commencement of trial : 03.12.2025

Close of trial: 22.01.2026 : 14.05.2026 Sentence or Judgment

Explanation for delay and remarks : Pendency of old cases

Name of the complainant :

Narikenabilli Veerabhadra Rao, S/o Srirama Murthy,56 Years, Business, Kamma Street, Near Rice Mill, Vizianagaram

Name of the Accused :

Siriki Parameswara Rao, S/o Appa Rao, 51 Years, Driver, Mobile Crane Complex, M C Complex, Chief Mechanical Engineering Department, CME Department, Visakhapatnam

Offence : Under section 138 & 142 of N.I. Act

Finding : In the result, the accused is found guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C/278 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Accused called absent. No representation. For hearing of sentence the presence of accused is necessary. Hence issue NBW against accused.

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vizianagaram

Digitally Signed by

MALLA S H R TEJA

MALLA S H R TEJA CHAKRAVARTHI

CHAKRAVARTHIDate: 2026.05.14 17:01:40 +0530 Location: Vizianagaram