CC. No.148 of 2003 1/15 13.10.2016
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
NELLORE.
Present: Smt.M. Sobha Rani, II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.
Thursday, this the Thirteenth (13th) day of October, 2016
C.C.No.148 of 2003
Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Nellore Complainant.
Vs.
1.Selika Ramachandra Rao, S/o Chandoji Rao, Aged 59 years, Marati by caste, D.No.20-543, Municipal Quarters, near Stadium road, Cuddapah, Former Municipal Commissioner, Kavali
2.Sanapudi Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, Aged 58 years, Municipal Assistant Engineer, Kandukur, former Municipal Assistant Engineer, Kavali
3.S.N. Krishnamurthy Naidu, Vice Chairman, Puttaparthy Urban Development Authority, Puttaparthy, Ananthapur District, Former Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner, Guntur (Died)
4.Mekala Papaiah, S/o Ragaiah, aged 55 years, Yadava by caste, D.No.4-8-15, Old Town Kavali (Died)
5.Boddukuru Ramanjulu, S/o Veeraswamy, Aged 55 years, Surya Balija by caste, D.No.8-30-93, Anapagunta (Vikuntapuram), Kavali
6.Jammu Venkataramanaiah, S/o Venkaiah, Aged 40 years, D.No.6-3-78, Yadava by caste, Vykuntapuram, Kavali
7.Palakeerthi Chinnaiah, S/o Ankaiah, aged 45 years, Yerukala by caste, D.No.5-1-38, Old Town, Kavali
8.Kaliki Vijayakumar Reddy, S/o Ramana Reddy, Aged 47 years, Kapu by caste, 10-33-5, Co-operative colony, Kavali
9.Shaik Jabbar, S/o Khader Khan, aged 50 years, Arundhatiyapalem, Kasi Street, Kavali
10.Ponaka Pera Reddy, S/o Ramana Reddy, Aged 48 years, Kapu by caste, D.No.10-48-56, Vykuntapuram, Kavali (Died)
11.Kurapati Krishna Reddy, S/o Veera Reddy, D.No.4-7-20, Old Town, Kavali (Died)
12.Mangilapudi Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Sankara Reddy, Aged 37 years, D.No.11-27-10/A, Ramamurthypet, Kavali
13.Chelamcherla Narayana Reddy, S/o Kodandaramireddy, D.No.6-3-9/A, Kethireddyvari Street, Kavali
14.Poonuru Muralidhar Reddy, S/o Sesha Reddy, Aged 45 years, D.No.11-27-66, Ramanurthypet, Near St.Anns School, Kavali
15.Jaladanki Prabhakar Rao, S/o Mallikharjuna Rao, Aged 46 years, Rajaka by caste, D.No.4-12-17, Dodlavari Street, Old town, Kavali
CC. No.148 of 2003 2/15 13.10.2016
16.Mettu Malyadri, S/o Kondaiah, aged 47 years, Yadava by caste, D.No.5-1-76/B, Madduruvari street, old town, Kavali
17.Karreddula Jayamma, aged 40 years, W/o K. Ananda Rao, Yerukala by caste, Vengalarao Nagar, Kavali Accused
This case is coming on 16-09-2016 before me for hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri S.Ramakrishna Prasad and of Sri M.Sekhar, Counsel for A-1,A-2,A-6,A-7,A-9,A-13 and A-15 to A- 17 and of Sri Veluru Ravi, Counsel for A-12 and A-14 and of Sri P.Uma Maheswar, Counsel for A-8, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Nellore, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.87/1997 for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 420, 467 & 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as 'IPC').
2.The contents of the charge sheet filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Nellore in brief are as follows: The Government of Andhra Pradesh implemented low cost Sanitation Scheme to improve the sanitation in Municipal limits. The object of the scheme is to eliminate manual dry lavatories in the municipal limits. In this connection, the Government selected 29 municipalities,
Kavali is one among. Certain guidelines and specifications were issued to implement the scheme in Kavali Municipality during the period from 1993 to 1995. As per the guidelines Commissioner shall conduct meetings in all municipal wards with the beneficiaries, elders and voluntary organizations and shall give vide publicity about the scheme. Thereafter notices shall be issued to the selected beneficiaries in a prescribed proforma, the owners of lavatory less house shall submit an application in prescribed proforma along with enclosures 1 to 6 i.e application form, agreement bond, copy of ration card, house tax challan, passport size photo and deposit challan. The Commissioner shall endorse the same to the Municipal Assistant Engineer with a direction to inspect the premises and to pass remarks as to whether they are eligible for sanction of loan or not,
CC. No.148 of 2003 3/15 13.10.2016
after receipt of application form, Assistant Commissioner shall keep the same
before Municipal Council to select the beneficiaries, after taking consent from the
Council Commissioner shall issue proceedings to the Assistant Engineer by appointing a Municipal contractor with a direction to collect the specifications regarding the construction of lavatory in the premises of respective beneficiaries, after completion of construction of lavatory, the Commissioner and Asst. Engineer shall prepare Form-9 in triplicate indicating completion of work, handing over the structure to the beneficiary and sanction of amount to the contractor, thereafter respective contractor shall submit contingent bill to the Commissioner, the
Commissioner and Regional Director cum Appellate Commissioner shall issue cheque in the name of respective contractor.
According to the guidelines, the Assistant Engineer shall inspect the premises and submit his report regarding the construction of lavatory and availability of space for construction of a new lavatory and shall submit his report in a form prescribed. Asst. Engineer shall certify that the lavatories are constructed as per the Type, design approved by the Engineer in chief public health, he further has to certify that payment can be made to the contractor.
Similarly Regional Director-cum appellate Commissioner should inspect all the municipalities in his jurisdiction every month and to ensure that the lavatories are constructed as per the guidelines issued by the Government and the funds released under this scheme are utilized properly. He shall submit inspection report to the Commissioner and Director cum Municipal Administration at monthly review meetings.
In this connection, Government sanctioned Rs.30,74,700-00 through
APUFIDC and sent six proceedings on 15-2-1996 to the Commissioner Kavali
Municipality to implement the scheme. Regional Director cum Appellate
Commissioner opened a joint account in Vysya bank Kavali vide A/c.No.2838 and deposited the amount received from the government. A1, the then Municipal commissioner, Kavali Municipality collected application forms from 911 beneficiaries during the year 1994 and placed the information before the
Municipal Council. 707 beneficiaries were selected out of 911. A1, the then
Commissioner and A2, the then Assistant Commissioner in Kavali Municipality
CC. No.148 of 2003 4/15 13.10.2016
entered into criminal conspiracy and got made entries in the concerned records by the Manager, Accountant, F1 clerk and other officials as if they implemented the low cost sanitation scheme as per the guidelines issued by the Government.
A-3, the then Regional Director cum Appellate Commissioner and A-4 to A-17 who are contractors joined with A1 and A2 in the said conspiracy and prepared contingent bill, form-9 and submitted the same to A1 for approval, A1 approved the contingent Bill and issued cheques in the name of A4 to A17 on different dates for encashment. A3 also signed along with A1 in all cheques. Actually no lavatories were constructed by the accused contractors. The beneficiaries who received little amount from the accused contractors themselves constructed lavatories by investing extra amount. No single lavatory was constructed by them.
In this connection, basing on the direction given by the Additional Director
General of Police, CID, AP, Hyderabad, one Sri P.Rajkumar took up enquiry and submitted a report to the Additional Director General of Police, CID. He directed one K.Narasimha, SEO, CID, Hyderabad to register the case. Accordingly, he registered a case in Cr.No.87/1997 U/s.406, 409, 420, 467 and 120(B) IPC dated 25-9-1997. On 2-10-1997, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Nellore took up investigation. During the course of investigation, on his direction, Pws. 25 to 27 and LW.43 K.Yanadi Chetty who were working Assistant Engineer, R & B inspected the premises of PWs.1 to 6, 8 to 16, LW.2 Shaik Rahamthullah, LW.9
Shaik Masthan Bi, LW.11 V.Malakondaiah, LW.12 K.Ayyanna, LW.13
P.Venkateswarlu LW.18 Shaik Mera Saheb (died), LW.19 M.Laksmitayaramma (died), LW.23 A.Baskaramma and certified that the lavatories which were existed in the premises of above beneficiaries were not constructed s per the guidelines and specifications given by the Government. The beneficiaries also stated that the lavatories existed in their premises were constructed by them by investing extra amount, non of the municipal people visited their premises for construction or for supervising the construction. A1 to A17 who prepared the documents by furnishing false information withdrew an amount of Rs.63,824-00 in the name of accused contractors from Vysya Bank, Kavali on different dates and misappropriated the amount. Original documents containing the signatures of A1
CC. No.148 of 2003 5/15 13.10.2016
to A7 were sent to the hand writing expert, the expert opined that accused forged the documents. PW.s7 & 17, Manager, Accountant, F1 clerk and other officials who are subordinate to A1 to A3 made entries in the consent records on the directions of A1 to A3. PW20 commissioner Kavali Municipality and PW21 Asst.
Engineer, Kavali handed over original beneficiary files and cash book etc., containing the signatures of A1 to A17 to the investigating officer and identified the signatures of A1 to A17.Present regional Director cum Appellate commissioner i.e. PW36 P.Hanumaiah produced the progress report submitted by A1 to A3 containing the signatures of A1. Thus the accused entered criminal conspiracy and falsified the records by furnishing false information and cheated the government and also misappropriated to a tune of Rs.63,824-00 which was meant for implementing the scheme. Therefore, the accused are liable for punishment for the offence U/s.506, 409, 420, 467 and 120(B) IPC. Hence the charge.
3. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable Under Sec. 406, 409, 420, 467 & 120 (B) IPC.
4.Accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charges under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467 & 120 (B) IPC were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 38 were examined and Exs.P-2 to P-129 documents were marked. Marking of documents was commenced from Ex.P-2 instead of Ex.P-1 by oversight.
6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned councils
for the accused. Written arguments were filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor
CC. No.148 of 2003 6/15 13.10.2016
and learned Counsel for A8, Council for A12 & 14 and Council for remaining accused.
8. Now, the point that arisen for determination is:
"Whether the prosecution is able to prove the offences punishable
under Section 406, 409, 420, 467 & 120 (B) IPC against the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt?"
POINT:
9. I have gone through the written arguments filed by the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for accused. The learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that to establish the prosecution case, the prosecution relied on documentary evidence and also on undisputed facts and circumstances emerged from the evidence on record, A14 to A17 admitted that they were municipal contractors, it was incorrect to state that out of 120 sanctioned lavatories only 7 lavatories were not constructed, unchallenged and undisputed testimonies of Pws. 25 to 27 coupled with the documentary evidence
Exhibits P54 to 72 clinchingly established that A1 to A3 misappropriated the entrusted property and caused financial loss to the Government as well as to the beneficiaries of the scheme, thus the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore the accused are liable to be convicted for the above charges. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in support of her contention relied on a decision in Mir Nagbi Askari Vs. CBI (Criminal Appeal No.1525, 1526 of 2004, 5 and 121 of 2005 (SC) wherein it was observed that though the witnesses treated hostile their evidence has to be deeply scrutinized regarding the facts and circumstances of the case.
10.The learned Counsel for A1, A2, A6,A7,A9,A13, A15 to A17 argued that Pws 2 to 6, 8 to 16 and 19 turned hostile, no witness claimed that no latrine was constructed by the accused, this case was an outcome of political vendetta as PW1 was the then District President of opposite party, he gave report on false assumptions, prosecution did not place conclusive evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against them, the contention that A1
CC. No.148 of 2003 7/15 13.10.2016
to A17 influenced PW.7, 17 & 18 was also not proved by the prosecution, the evidence of Pws.7,17 and 18 did not prove the prosecution case, PW25 Asst.
Engineer, R & B , Kavali in his cross-examination stated that he inspected 15 lavatories only, he was not supplied the list of beneficiaries, he could not say the dates of his inspection, no photographs were taken by him, hence his evidence cannot be admissible, Pws. 26 and 27 who were Assistant Engineers in R & B also not photographed the alleged lavatories, hence their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case, signature of Pw1 was not found in FIR, statements of witnesses were typed in English, there is no need to reduce the statements of witnesses into English by the investigating officer, no case was made out against the accused to prove the charges, therefore accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.
11.The learned counsel for accused No.8 argued that according to the prosecution case, A-8 was related to the construction of lavatory of PW6 and LW.9
Shaik Masthan Bi only, PW6 deposed that lavatory was constructed in his house by the Municipal authorities, evidence of LW.9 was closed as she died, there was no complaint against A8 by PW6 and LW.9, PW.25 Asst. Engineer who allegedly inspected the premises of PW6 and LW.9 did not take measurements of the lavatory, Pws. 2 to 6, 8 to 16 beneficiaries did not support the prosecution case, no incriminating evidence was elicited against A8 from the evidence of PW.7, Pws.
17 and 18 did not state anything against A8, because of political rivalry, this case was foisted therefore A8 is liable to be acquitted.
12.The learned counsel for A12 and A14 contended that names of A12 and A14 were not found in FIR, their names were added in the charge sheet,
Pws. 1 to 4 did not speak anything against A12 and A14 or other accused, all the documents filed by the prosecution would not reveal the alleged commission of offence, therefore A12 and A14 are liable to be acquitted.
13.I had gone through the entire record including oral evidence, documentary evidence and arguments filed on both sides. Ex.P-40 which was
CC. No.148 of 2003 8/15 13.10.2016
marked by the prosecution contains the guidelines in respect of low cost sanitation cum liberation of scavengers programme Stage-II. As provided in
Ex.P-40, under method of finance, the construction of new sanitary latrines is to be financed through a mix of Central subsidy and loan from HUDCO at varying percentages depending on the income limit of the beneficiary category as per the details furnished in the guidelines.
14.Therefore as provided under method of finance, the beneficiaries to be provided loan from HUDCO depending on their income limit. For example, if a beneficiary comes under EWS (Economically Weaker Section) category, if his monthly income is upto Rs.1, 250/-, he is entitled 50% of loan amount with a subsidy of 45%, he has to contribute 5%. As per the guidelines under Ex.P-40, the
Asst. Engineer, Deputy Executive Engineer and Municipal Engineer shall inspect the construction of new latrines in all the cases and ensure that the latrines are constructed as per the type design approved by the Engineer in chief (public health). After completion of the work, the contractor has to submit completion report duly obtaining the satisfactory completion certificate from the owner of the house and submit to the Asst. Engineer. The Asst. Engineer, Deputy Executive
Engineer, Municipal Engineer have to inspect the work and certify for payment to the contractor. After completion of new latrine and the payment is made to the contractor, the loan sanctioned to the beneficiary with interest thereon has to be worked out and a notice has to be issued to the beneficiary to make payment with number of installments and the amount as per the proforma in Annexure-X.
As per the guidelines under Ex.P-40, the house owner or occupier will not get financial assistance in cash under the scheme as provided under by laws in page
No.21 under Para No.10.
15. Coming to the present case on hand, it is the only case and contention of the accused that they did not commit any offence, latrines were constructed properly in the houses of beneficiaries, hence there was no misappropriation of public money. To establish the guilt of the accused for the above charges levelled against them, the prosecution got examined as many as 38 witnesses. Pws. 1 to
CC. No.148 of 2003 9/15 13.10.2016
6, Pws. 8 to 16 and PW19 are alleged beneficiaries. They categorically stated that latrines were constructed in their houses by the Municipal people. But according to the prosecution version, latrines were not constructed as per the specifications provided in the guidelines issued by APUFIDC and the above witnesses in order to help the accused deposed falsely. Since the above witnesses did not support the prosecution case, they were declared as hostile by the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor.
16.To prove that the Government issued proceedings in respect of issuance of prosecution proceedings against the accused, the prosecution got examined PW.29 who spoke about the proceedings issued by the Government.
The prosecution further got examined PW.7, the then Accountant who verified the bills, prepared cheques and handed over the cheques to F1 clerk to get the signatures of Regional Director, PW-17 the then Manager in Municipality, who forwarded the applications of beneficiaries to the authorities concerned after endorsing those applications for scrutiny, PW18 the then A II clerk in Municipality forwarded the applications of beneficiaries to A2 for remarks and thereafter to A1,
PW20 the then Commissioner who handed over account pass book of Municipal
Commissioner, Resolution of Municipality, details of amounts released to Kavali municipality, guidelines issued by APUFIDC, cash book and procedure for standard specifications to the investigating officer, PW21, the then Assistant
Engineer, PW22, Stamp vendor who sold stamps for the purpose of execution of agreement by the beneficiaries, Pws.23 & 24, Bill Collectors who issued tax receipts to the beneficiaries, PW33, Branch manager Vysya bank who handed over 52 cheques to the DSP who is the investigating officer, PW34, expert who verified the signatures of accused with their admitted signatures and finally got examined PW36 in-charge Regional Director of municipal administration, Guntur region to prove that A1 to A17 misappropriated the money sanctioned for the purpose of construction of latrines in Kavali Municipality.
17.The above witnesses were cross examined in length by the counsels
for accused. However, the final outcome from the evidence of these witnesses is
CC. No.148 of 2003 10/15 13.10.2016
that after verifying the applications of beneficiaries by Pw.17, he forwarded the applications to the commissioner, PW18, then forwarded the applications to A2, thereafter to A1, after completion of work, PW7 verified the bills and prepared cheques and forwarded those cheques to the Regional Director. Further the evidence of PW33 Branch Manager, Vysya bank shows that the cheques issued to the contractors were encashed by them which were issued by A1 to A3. In this case beneficiaries i.e. Pws. 1 to 6, 8 to 16 and 19 did not deny the execution of agreement on stamp papers purchased from PW22 and tax receipts issued by
Pws. 23 and 24. When it was the case of the accused that they constructed lavatories as per the specifications and there was no misappropriation of public money, the prosecution has to prove that the alleged constructions were not upto the mark and not as per the standard specifications issued by the Government.
18.The accused were charged for the offences U/s.420 & 467 IPC in addition to Section 406, 409 R/W 120(B) IPC. In so far as the offence under
Sec.406 and 409 IPC are concerned, it is the case and contention of the prosecution that A-1 to A-17 forged the signatures and created false documents.
To prove the above charges against the accused, the Investigating Officer sent the signatures of all the accused found on cheques which were marked as
Ex.P-82 along with the specified signatures of all the accused to the Expert. The
Expert issued his opinion and he was also examined as P.W.34 and his opinions were marked as Exs.P-83 and 84 respectively. In his opinion, the Expert clearly mentioned that the questioned signatures were put by the accused respectively.
Coming to the case of the accused, it is not their case that the signatures on cheques were not of them. From the beginning it is the case and contention of the accused that the cheques were received by them and cheques were encashed by them, but they did not commit any offence, they have completed the constructions of lavatories as per the specifications. Though it is the case of the prosecution that A-1 to A-17 forged the signatures and created false documents, but the prosecution failed to explain whose signatures were forged by the accused and which documents were created by them. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to
CC. No.148 of 2003 11/15 13.10.2016
establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sec.420 and 460 R/W 120-B IPC..
19.In so far as the offence under Sec.406 and 409 IPC is concerned, according to the prosecution case, A1 to A3 in conspiracy with A4 to A17 misappropriated the amount sanctioned for implementation of low cost sanitation scheme. To prove the charges U/s.406 & 409 IPC, it has to be proved by the prosecution that the alleged lavatories constructed in the houses of beneficiaries were not as per the standard specifications as explained in detail in Ex.P-42.
Though the prosecution got examined the beneficiaries, but all turned hostile stating that municipal people constructed lavatories in their respective premises.
As per the evidence of PW.37 who was working as Inspector, CID, Nellore by the date of alleged offence, as per the directions of Addl. Director General of Police,
CID, Hyderabad, he conducted enquiry and submitted a report (Ex.103). PW38 the then DSP, CID Nellore who conducted investigation in this case deposed about examination of all witnesses and examination of witnesses by his successor
P.Satyanarayana who is no more and about arrest of all accused. On perusal of entire record, it was noticed that 161 Cr.P.C. statements of all witnesses were typed in English. PW38 stated that one typist with typewriter accompanied him during the investigation. But no witness stated the same. No witness stated that they gave their statements in English. Out of 36 witnesses many witnesses did not know English. More particularly some beneficiaries stated that they were not examined by the police. Further it is not the specific evidence of prosecution witnesses that their statements were got typed in English by the investigating officer in this case. Thus, the above circumstances creates a doubt as to whether the Investigating officer had done investigation in proper lines or not.
20.To prove that the accused committed misappropriation, the investigating officer directed Pws. 25 to 27 Assistant Engineers in R and B to check the lavatories randomly in the presence of mediators and also directed
PW.30 MRO to verify the applications of beneficiaries. Pws. 25 to 27 accordingly inspected some of the latrines and issued reports. PW31 and 32, VAOs also
CC. No.148 of 2003 12/15 13.10.2016
inspected some of the lavatories, but they did not prepare any reports. PW30
MRO deposed that he verified the applications of 27 beneficiaries produced by the DSP and found that 16 beneficiaries are only eligible. But no report was prepared by Pw30 and the applications verified by PW30 were also not produced
before this Court. Further, it was also not elicited from PW30 by the prosecution
as to whether the tax receipts in respect of those applicants are genuine or not. It was also not elicited as to what are the defects found by him in those applications. Coming to the evidence of Pws.25 to 27 who allegedly inspected the lavatories they admitted that they were not handed over the standard specifications issued by the Government, they did not mention the measurements of houses of beneficiaries in their reports. Admittedly, P.Ws.25 to 27 did not inspect the lavatories in the presence of Investigating Officer. Moreso, no photographs were filed by them in support of their evidence. They did not mention the date of inspection in their reports. P.Ws.25 to 27 could not say the dates even in their evidence. Thus the alleged reports prepared by Pws. 25 to 27 are said to be not having required information which would help the prosecution case. Further, it is an admitted fact that they were not authorized in written to inspect the latrines of beneficiaries. Here it is an important to note that the alleged beneficiaries whose latrines were inspected by Pws. 25 to 27 did not specifically state as to whether the lavatories were inspected by the R & B
Engineers and whether those were not as per the standard specifications. Thus, the reports of R & B Engineers are no way helpful to the prosecution case.
21.As already discussed above the typed statements of witnesses allegedly recorded U/s.161 Cr.P.C would create a doubt about the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer. The entire investigation in this case was initiated basing on the representation of PW1 the then TDP party president. Thus it appears that this case was only a political motivated one. Moreso, except stating that all the accused misappropriated an amount of Rs.63,824/- which was meant to implement the scheme, but the prosecution failed to explain how much mount amount was misappropriated by each of the accused separately and it is also fatal to the prosecution case. One more point to be noted down in the
CC. No.148 of 2003 13/15 13.10.2016
prosecution case is that even according to the case of the prosecution some clerks who worked in the Municipal Office made entries in relevant Registers at the instance of A-1 to A-3. When that is the situation, it can be said that the prosecution failed to explain as to why those people were not shown as accused and it is also fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and observations, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under Sec.409
IPC and the accused No.4 to 17 for the offence under Sec.406 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.
22.In the result, the accused No.1,2,5 to 9 and 12 to 17 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.406, 409, 420, 467 and 120-B IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the offences under
Sec. 406, 409, 420, 467 and 120-B IPC. The case against the accused No.3, 4, 10 and 11 is abated. Bail bonds of accused shall be stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C., was complied with. The bail bonds of accused are in force for six months from today onwards.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 13th day of October, 2016.
II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Nellore.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: -- FOR DEFENCE: -- NONE. PW.1: Dr.P.Venka Reddy. PW.2: B.Suvarnamukhi. PW.3: J.Sikhamani. PW4: B.Sugunamma. PW5: Sk.Khajavalli. PW6: Y.Malakondaiah. PW7: T.Pattabhi Ramaiah. PW.8: B.Chinamala Kondaiah. PW.9: K.Venkateswarlu. PW10: Sk.Fakruddin. PW11: K.Rami Reddy. PW12: P.Venkateswarlu. PW13: T.Subbarayudu. PW14: V.Peda Venkataswamy. PW15: P.Rajarathnam. PW.16: Sk.Masthan. PW.17: T.Nagaiah.
CC. No.148 of 2003 14/15 13.10.2016
PW.18: M.Sreenivasulu Reddy. PW.19: Sk.Khajarahamthulla. PW.20: K.Krishna Rao. PW.21: Y.Nageswara Rao. PW.22: P.Rangaiah. PW.23: R.Malakondaiah. PW.24: V.Ramesh. PW.25: P.Balasubramanyam. PW.26: Ch.Krishna Kishore. PW.27: L.V.Subramanyam. PW.28: S.Radhakrishnaiah. PW.29: R.Venkateswarlu. PW.30: V.C.R.Rajasekharam. PW.31: K.Raghavendra Rao. PW.32: Syed Shajahan. PW.33: V.Sivarama Prasad. PW.34: B.Sai Prakash. PW.35: K.Narasimha. PW.36: C.Hanumaiah. PW.37: P.Raja Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Hyderabad. PW.38: A.V.Subba Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Nellore.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:-- Ex.P-2: A portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P-3: A portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P-4: Application of P.W.4. Ex.P-5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P-6: Application of P.W.5. Ex.P-7: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5. Ex.P-8: Application of P.W.6. Ex.P-9: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6. Ex.P-10: Application of P.W.8. Ex.P-11: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8. Ex.P-12: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.9. Ex.P-13: Application of P.W.10. Ex.P-14: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10. Ex.P-15: Application of P.W.11. Ex.P-16: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10. Ex.P-17: Application of P.W.12. Ex.P-18: Loan agreement. Ex.P-19: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.12. Ex.P-20: Application of P.W.13. Ex.P-21: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.13. Ex.P-22: Application of P.W.14. Ex.P-23: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.14. Ex.P-24: Application of P.W.15. Ex.P-25: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.15. Ex.P-26: Application of P.W.16. Ex.P-27: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.16. Ex.P-28: Relevant portion in the pass order pertaining to P.W.2. Ex.P-29: Endorsement of P.W.17 in Ex.P-4. Ex.P-30: Endorsement of P.W.17 in Ex.P-6. Ex.P-31: Endorsement of P.W.17 in Ex.P-8. Ex.P-32: Endorsement of P.W.17 in the pass order (Ex.P-8). Ex.P-33: Endorsement of P.W.17 in the application of Valleli Malakondaiah. Ex.P-34: Endorsement of P.W.17 in the pass order of Valleli Malakondaiah. Ex.P-35: Entries made by P.W.18 in Page Nos.17 to 22 of Cash book. Ex.P-36: Application of P.W.19. Ex.P-37: Accounts pass books. Ex.P-38: Counsel Resolution (27 Pages) Ex.P-39: Details of amount released to Kavali Municipality (9 Pages)
CC. No.148 of 2003 15/15 13.10.2016
Ex.P-40: Guide lines issued by APUFIDC, Hyderabad (12 Pages) Ex.P-41: Cash book commencing from October, 1993. Ex.P-42: Register containing standard specifications to Engineering Department. Ex.P-43: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.21. Ex.P-44: Rs.10/- stamp paper sold by P.W.22 to Sk.Rahamthulla. Ex.P-45: Rs.10/- stamp paper sold by P.W.22 to Sk.Khasim Valli. Ex.P-46: Tax receipt dated 31-3-1994. Ex.P-47: Tax receipt No.7533 issued to J.Sikhamani. Ex.P-48: Tax receipt No.7613 issued to A.Bhaskaramma. Ex.P-49: Tax receipt No.7900 issued to P.Rajarathnam. Ex.P-50: Tax receipt, dated 5-1-1993. Ex.P-51: Demand notice issued by P.W.24 to Sk.Khajavali. Ex.P-52: Tax receipt, dated 3-3-1994. Ex.P-53: Tax receipt, dated 3-3-1994. Ex.P-54: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to LW.23 A.Bhaskaramma. Ex.P-55: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to P.W.15. Ex.P-56: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to L.W.18 Sk.Meera Saheb. Ex.P-57: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to P.W.10. Ex.P-58: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to P.W.6. Ex.P-59: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to LW.9 Sk.Masthan. Ex.P-60: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to P.W.8. Ex.P-61: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to LW.11 Malakondaiah. Ex.P-62: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to LW.12 K.Ayyamma. Ex.P-63: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to LW.13 V.Venkateswarlu. Ex.P-64: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to P.W.2. Ex.P-65: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to P.W.3. Ex.P-66: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to P.W.4. Ex.P-67: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to P.W.5. Ex.P-68: Inspection report issued by P.W.25 pertaining to P.W.19. Ex.P-69: Inspection report issued by P.W.26 pertaining to P.W.13. Ex.P-70: Inspection report issued by P.W.26 pertaining to P.W.16. Ex.P-71: Inspection report issued by P.W.27 pertaining to L.W.19 Lakshmitayaramma. Ex.P-72: Inspection report issued by P.W.27 pertaining to P.W.12. Ex.P-73: Mahazarnama, dated 13-11-1998. Ex.P-74: G.O.Ms.No.378, dated 19-8-2002. Ex.P-75: G.O.Ms.No.573, dated 30-11-2001. Ex.P-76: G.O.Ms.No.574, dated 30-11-2001. Ex.P-77: G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 31-1-2004. Ex.P-78: Mahazarnama, dated 21-10-1997. Ex.P-79: Mahazarnama, dated 21-10-1997. Ex.P-80: Mahazarnama, dated 21-10-1997. Ex.P-81: Mahazarnama, dated 27-10-1997. Ex.P-82: Cheques (Bunch of 52 Cheques). Ex.P-83: Opinion of P.W.34. Ex.P-84: Opinion of P.W.34. Exs.P-85 to P-.102: Standard signatures of the accused. Ex.P-103: Report of P.Raj Kumar, D.S.P., CID, Hyderabad. Ex.P-104: First Information Report in crime No.87/1997 of CID Police Station, Hyderabad. Ex.P-105: Page Nos.11 to 14 in Ex.P-14 (Cash Book) Ex.P-106: Application of Sk.Rahamthulla. Ex.P-107: Application of Sk.Khasim Valli. Ex.P-108: Application of Sk.Masthan Bee. Ex.P-109: Application of V.Venkateswarlu. Ex.P-110: Application of K.Ayyamma. Exs.P-111 to P-127: Pass orders in Exs.P-4, P-6, P-8, P-11, P-13, P-17, P-20, P-24, P-26, P-28, P-30, P-36, P-106 to 110. Ex.P-128: covering Letter, through which the document was set to F.S.L.,
dated 31-3-1999.
Ex.P-129: Covering letter, through which the document was sent to F.S.L.,
dated 11-7-1999.
FOR DEFENCE: - N I L..
II AJMFC,
NELLORE.