Smt M.V.N.Padmaja

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

PRESENT: Smt.M.V.N.PADMAJA

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL.

Tuesday, the 28 th day of September, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No.529/2016

Between:

State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluk P.S. . . . Complainant

A N D

Pathan Mohammad Khan S/o Osman Khan, aged 45 years H.No.28-102/6, Vadlapeta Atmakur Village and Mandal Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 3114 . . . Accused

This case came before me on 28-09-2021 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the prosecution and of Sri M.Azmathulla, Advocate for the Accused and after hearing both sides, through video conference having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool P.S., has filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.66/2015 for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A of Indian

Penal Code against the accused.

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

On 15-03-2015 at 10-00 a.m., the deceased Shaik Sirajuddin left the house on his Honda Activa motorcycle bearing No.AP-21-AA-9396 stating that he is going to Gargeyapuram Village to attend field work and then, he will attend lunch at Yellamma Temple. At afternoon, P.Ws.1 and 11 also went to

Yellamma Temple to attend lunch and called the deceased Shaik Sirajuddin, who informed that he will come within few minutes. On that, P.Ws.1 and 11 were waiting for him at Nandanapalli Village board near Yellamma Temple.

Meantime, the deceased Shaik Sirajuddin came on his Honda Activa and stopped vehicle in opposite direction of Nandanapalli Village board. At 01- 45 p.m., the accused being the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 3114 2 came from Kurnool side in a rash and negligent manner in wrong route with high speed, and dashed the deceased Shaik Sirajuddin, who was present on stationed Honda Activa motorcycle as a result, the motorcycle was damaged and deceased Shaik Sirajuddin sustained severe bleeding injuries.

He was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, by 108

Ambulance by P.Ws.1 and 11 for treatment. The Doctor examined and declared his death at 02-15 p.m.

3.Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.10 registered a case in Crime

No.66/2015 of Kurnool Taluk P.S., for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, P.W.10 examined and recorded the statements of all the witnesses. He visited the scene of accident; observed the same and drafted the rough sketch. He held inquest over the dead body of Shaik Sirajuddin and prepared inquest report in the presence of P.Ws.5, 6 and L.W.10.-Mazaruddin. He arrested the accused on 18-03-2015 at 10-00 a.m., and released him on bail on production of sufficient sureties. P.W.8-Assistant Professor held Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Shaik Sirajuddin and issued Post

Mortem Certificate, opining that the cause of death is due to 'intracranial haemorrhages with skull fracture resulting from head injury'. P.W.7-Motor

Vehicle Inspector, inspected the crime vehicle and issued accident report opining that the accident is occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. On completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed charge sheet in this case.

4.After perusal of charge sheet and other material on the record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents on which, the prosecution relied was supplied to the accused as contemplated under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure code.

3

6.The accused was examined Under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure code. The substance of accusation read over and explained to him in

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

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. The evidence of L.W.10-Syed Mazaharuddin, is given up by the learned APP.

8.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of incriminating evidence is read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the same as false and stated that there is no defence evidence on his behalf.

9. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record. Considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 15; coupled with Exs.P1 to P11 and other material on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code

beyond reasonable doubt”? POINT:

11.On perusal of the record, it is the case of prosecution as per contents of charge sheet that on 15-03-2015 at 01-45 p.m., while the deceased

Shaik Sirajuddin stopped his Honda Activa motorcycle bearing No.AP-21-AA- 9396 opposite to Nandanapalli village board near Yellamma Temple, meantime, the accused being the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing

No.AP 16 TX 3114 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in wrong route and dashed the stationed motorcycle, as a result, the deceased Shaik Sirajuddin sustained severe bleeding injuries and he died at 02-15 p.m. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. P.W.1 is the colleague of deceased Shaik

Sirajuddin. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the incident. P.Ws.5 and 4 6 are inquest panchayatdars. P.W.7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the crime vehicle. P.W.8 is the Professor who held Autopsy over the dead body of deceased Shaik Sirajuddin. P.W.9 is the wife of deceased

Shaik Sirajuddin. P.Ws.10 and 14 are Investigating Officers. P.W.11 is eye witness to the incident. P.W.12 is the cousin of deceased Shaik Sirajuddin.

P.W.13 is the son of deceased Shaik Sirajuddin. P.W.15 is the cleaner of the

Lorry.

12.The learned APP argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 are cogent, corroborating with each other and the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt hence, she prays the court to convict the accused according to law. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that no witness stated the rash or negligent act of the crime vehicle’s driver and that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident hence, he sought for acquittal of the accused.

13. In respect of the death of deceased Shaik Sirajuddin in the road accident, P.W.1 who is defacto-complainant deposed that on 15-03-2015, he and P.W.11 went to Venkayapalli Village and called the deceased Sirajuddin to come near Yellamma Temple and when they were waiting opposite to

Nandanapalli board, they found one Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 3114, which came from Kurnool side with high speed without blowing horn and dashed the Scooty belongs to the deceased Siraduddin who was coming near

Nandanapalli board at 01-45 p.m., and they found the deceased Sirajuddin with head injury hence, they called 108 Ambulance and shifted him to

Government General Hospital, Kurnool, but the Doctor confirmed his death.

P.W.11, who accompanied with P.W.1 at the time of alleged incident, deposed corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of their presence near Yellamma Temple just before the incident. He further deposed that the deceased Sirajuddin came on Activa Motor cycle from Gargeyapuram side 5 and stood opposite road in order to cross the road on seeing the Lorry coming from Kurnool side, but the said Lorry came with high speed and dashed the deceased Sirajuddin as a result, he sustained injuries and then, they shifted him to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment and he died while undergoing treatment at hospital.

14.The prosecution also examined the family members of the deceased

Sirajuddin to prove his death. P.W.9 who is the wife of deceased Sirajuddin, deposed that she came to know about the incident through employees and then, she rushed to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and found the dead body of her husband. P.W.12 who is cousin of deceased Sirajuddin, deposed that he came to know about the incident and found the dead body of his cousin at Government General Hospital, Kurnool. P.W.13 who is father of deceased Sirajuddin, deposed that he came to know through P.W.1 about the accident and then, he rushed to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, and found the dead body of his father.

15.The prosecution also examined the panchayathdars at the time of inquest by the police i.e., P.Ws.5 and 6, in order to prove the death of deceased Sirajuddin. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that Police not held inquest over the dead body of deceased Shaik Sirajuddin and he signed on some papers on the request of Police, but, he does not know its contents. P.W.5 did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile. Though the learned A.P.P. was permitted to cross examine P.W.5, nothing was elicited during his cross examination except marking of his signature on

Ex.P5-inquest report as Ex.P4. Contrary to the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.6- another Panchayatdar deposed that on 16-03-2015, the Police held inquest over the dead body of deceased Sirajuddin at Government General

Hospital, Kurnool and got prepared inquest panchanama in his presence.

Supporting the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.10-Investigating Officer deposed that he held inquest over the dead body of deceased Sirajuddin and got 6 prepared Ex.P5-inquest report in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and L.W-10-

Mazaruddin. The prosecution also examined P.W.8 who held Autopsy over the dead body of deceased Shaik Sirajuddin. P.W.8 deposed that he held

Autopsy over the dead body of deceased Sirajuddin and issued Ex.P7-Post

Mortem Certificate opining that the death is caused due to 'intra cranial haemorrhages with skull fracture resulting from head injury'. Supporting his evidence, P.W.10 further deposed that he received Ex.P7-Post Mortem

Certificate from P.W.8.

16.In respect of the report, P.W.1 deposed that after informing to the family members of the deceased Sirajuddin, he presented Ex.P1-written report to the Police. Supporting his evidence, P.W.10-Investigating Officer deposed that on 15-03-2015 at 6-30 p.m., he received Ex.P1-written report from P.W.1 and then, he registered the case in Crime No.66/2015 of Kurnool

Taluk P.S., for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal

Code against the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 3114 and issued

Ex.P9-FIR. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, the death of deceased Sirajuddin in road accident, is not at all disputed fact. Herein the present case, the prosecution has to prove that the incident was happened due to negligence of crime vehicle’s driver and that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident.

17.In regard to the identification of crime vehicle’s driver, P.Ws.1 and 11 deposed that the Lorry driver escaped from the scene leaving the Lorry after the incident. Eventhen, they deposed that they can identify the driver of the Lorry. During cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that the accused surrendered at Police Station on the next day of the report. On the other hand, P.W.1 also deposed during his cross examination that he had seen the accused at the scene of arrest. As per the cross examination of P.W.1, Police examined him on the next day of the report, whereas P.W.11 deposed during his cross examination that the Police examined him on the date of 7 incident itself at evening. As per the evidence of P.W.10-Investigating

Officer, he examined P.W.1 at Police Station immediately after the report.

On perusal of Ex.P9-FIR, it was registered against the driver of Lorry, which itself clearly shows that P.W.1 and P.W.11 have no acquaintance with the driver of the Lorry by the time of giving report to the Police. When the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.11 clearly disclose that the driver of Lorry escaped from the scene leaving the Lorry, how they identified him, is no where explained by the prosecution. P.W.12 who is cousin of deceased

Sirajuddin deposed that he did not see the driver of the crime vehicle and he came to know the number of Lorry and the Lorry driver name through

Police. P.W.13 who is Son of deceased Sirajuddin deposed that he came to know the Lorry number and the driver of the Lorry through P.W.1 and he had seen the crime vehicle’s driver for the first time at the Court premises.

The prosecution also examined P.W.15 who is the cleaner of the Lorry.

P.W.15 deposed that he does not the lorry driver. Further as per record, no test identification was conducted through the eye witnesses to prove guilt against the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 11 is not corroborated and the evidence of other witnesses on record is not supporting the case of prosecution, in respect of the identification of crime vehicle's driver at the time of incident. In regard to the identification of the crime vehicle’s driver,

P.Ws.2, 3, 9 and 15 did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. Though the learned A.P.P. was permitted to cross examine them, nothing was elicited during their cross examination except marking of their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure as Exs.P2, P3, P8 and P11. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 11, 12 and 13 is not sufficient to prove that the accused herein is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident.

18.In regard to the manner of incident, P.W.15 deposed that he does not know the facts of the case and that he did not witness the incident and that 8 he is not cleaner of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. P.W.15 who is material witness, not supported the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile. Further P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are eye witnesses to the incident as per the prosecution case categorically deposed that they do not know the facts of the case and that they did not witness the accident and that Police not examined or recorded their statements. As per the evidence of P.W.7 who inspected the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P6-inspection report, the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. P.W.9 who is wife of deceased Sirajuddin deposed that she does not know the manner of the accident. In respect of the manner of the incident, except P.Ws.1 and 11, no eye witness supported the case of the prosecution. Further, there are so many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 11 in respect of the manner of incident. P.W.1 deposed as if the incident was happened while the deceased was coming on his Activa Motorcycle near Nandanapalli board, whereas,

P.W.11 deposed as if the incident was happened while the deceased

Sirajuddin was crossing the road. There is no corroboration in their evidence in respect of the manner of accident. As per the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 11, their presence at the time of incident is not believable.

19.Further to record the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove culpable rashness or negligence of the accused. No doubt in the present case, to convict the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that the accused being the driver of the crime vehicle, drove it in a rash or negligent manner and thereby caused the death of deceased Shaik

Sirajuddin. In the present case, on careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 15 coupled with Exs.P1 to P11, the prosecution failed to prove the rash or negligence on the part of the crime vehicle’s driver and that the accused 9 is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident. Basing on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused cannot be convicted which may cause injustice to him. All the circumstances as discussed above and the evidence available on record are not at all sufficient to convict the accused for which, the accused is charged. Therefore this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove their case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted of the same under Section 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, Transcribed and typed by him; corrected and

pronounced by me through video conference, this the 28th day of September,

2021.

Sd/-Smt.MVN.Padmaja

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Kurnool

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: PW1 :D.Bhanu Prakash None PW2 :E.Venkata Ramudu PW3 :E.Yella Goud PW4 : (inadvertently number 4 is not given) PW5 :P.Nasir Khan PW6 :Syed Nazimuddin PW7 :K.Chandra Babu PW8 :Dr.T.Sai Sudheer PW9 :Shaik Azimunnisa PW10 :S.K.Jaffar Saheb PW11 :S.Chinna Rao PW12 :Nayab Azimuddin PW13 :Shaik Junaid PW14 :G.Peddaiah Naidu PW15 :P.Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Written report of P.W.1 10

Ex.P2 : Under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of P.W.2 Ex.P3 : Under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of P.W.3 Ex.P4 : Signature of PW-5 on inquest report Ex.P5 : Inquest panchanama Ex.P6 : Inspection report Ex.P7 : Postmortem certificate Ex.P8 : Under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of P.W.9 Ex.P9 : F.I.R Ex.P10: Rough sketch Ex.P11: Inquest report

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil

M.Os. MARKED

Nil

Sd/-Smt.MVN.Padmaja

JFCM/Spl.MC Kurnool.

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile court, Kurnool 11

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

CALENDER CASE NO.529/2016

1. Date of offence prior to: 15-03-2015

2. Date of complaint or report: 15-03-2015

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 18-03-2015

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : 18-03-2015

5. Date of commencement of trial: 07-08-2018

6. Date of close of trial: 27-09-2021

7. Date of sentence or Order: 28-09-2021

8. Explanation of delay if any: Due to Non-Production of Prosecution witnesses COMPLAINANT:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluk P.S, in Crime No.66/2015

ACCUSED:

Pathan Mohammad Khan, s/o.Osman Khan, aged 45 years, H.No.28-102/6, Vadlapeta, Atmakur Village and Mandal. Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 3114

Offences :- Causing death by rash or negligent act

Section of Law :- Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code

Finding of Court :- Found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted of the same under Section 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Kurnool

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Principal Asst. Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Dis. No. ________Dated________

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

CALENDER CASE NO.842/2015

1. Date of offence prior to: 20-03-2014

2. Date of complaint or report: 20-03-2014

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 10-04-2015

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : 21-04-2015

5. Date of commencement of trial: 04-12-2019

6. Date of close of trial: 12-04-2021

7. Date of sentence or Order: 28-04-2021

8. Explanation of delay if any: Due to non-production of witnesses by the Prosecution COMPLAINANT:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur P.S., in Crime No.28/2014

ACCUSED:

1. Vadla Jayanna, S/o V.Chinna Swamanna, Age 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, H.No.76-97-130, Weaker Section Colony, Kurnool

2. Vadla Subbamma, W/o V.Ramudu, age 45 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, H.No.14-62-3, Vadlageri, Gudur Town & Mandal

Nature of Law :- Cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property or the making alteration or destruction of a valuable security Section of Law :- Section 420 of Indian Penal Code Finding of Court :- Found not guilty Sentence/Order:

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked Non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.MVN.Padmaja,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Kurnool

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Principal Asst. Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Dis. No. ________Dated________.

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile court, Kurnool 2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

PRESENT: Smt. M.V.N. PADMAJA,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

Wednesday, the 28 th day of April, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No.842/2015

Between:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur Police Station . . . Complainant

A N D

1. Vadla Jayanna, S/o V.Chinna Swamanna Age 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation H.No.76-97-130, Weaker Section Colony Kurnool

2. Vadla Subbamma, W/o V.Ramudu, age 45 Years, Religion-Hindu, Cultivation H.No.14-62-3, Vadlageri Gudur Town and Mandal . . . Accused

This case came before me on 26-04-2021 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the prosecution and of Sri P.Satyanarayana Reddy Advocate for the Accused through video conference and after hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur P.S., has filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.28/2014 for the offence punishable Under Section 420 of Indian Penal

Code against the accused.

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

At 15 years ago, A1 sold out his house to P.W.1 and shifted to Kurnool.

Whenever, A1 visits Gudur village, he used to stay at the house of his sister-in-law i.e., A2. A1 sold out his ancestral property i.e., an extent of

Ac.0-03 ¾ cents house site plot bearing No.11 situated in Survey numbers 825, 826 of Gudur, to one Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty for Rs.6,400/- but, the said Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty could not get it registered due to financial problems. The said Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty paid entire amount to A1 in the presence of P.W.2 and L.W.2-Vadla 3

Ramakrishnaiah on the date of sale agreement scribed by one Jangam

Veeru Pakshaiah, who died at six years ago. The said Nayakanti Venkata

Ramana Setty sold out the same for Rs.20,000/- to P.W.1 who asked A1 for the registration of the plot in the name of P.W.1 within a month for which,

A1 agreed, on that, P.W.1 paid entire amount to the said Nayakanti Venkata

Ramana Setty on 15-04-2002 in the presence of L.W.4-Golla Ramudu and

P.W.3 under the sale agreement scribed by P.W.4, who is document writer.

3.After 20 days, A1 went to the house of A2 at Gudur village. P.W.1 and

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty asked A1 for the registration of the plot in the name of P.W.1. On that, A1 stated that he was busy hence, he would register the plot at later. A2 who was present there also stated that A1 would register the plot in the name of P.W.1 whenever he demands. Later

P.W.1 and Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty approached A1 at several times with a demand to get the plot registration but, A1 used to postpone the same on one pretext or the other. Meantime, the value of the plot increased abnormally. A1, A2 with a malafide intention, colluded with each other and deceitfully went to Sub-Registrar office, Gudur and met P.W.7 who is document writer and got prepared document as if A1 sold out the plot in the name of A2 for Rs.1,09,000/- and the document was attested by P.Ws.5 and 6 and P.W.8 got registered the sale deed on 19-10-2013. Later P.W.1 filed private complaint before the court.

4.On receipt of court endorsement, P.W.9 registered a case in Crime

No.28/2014 of Gudur P.S. During course of investigation, P.W.9 seized copy of sale deed dated, 19-10-2013 from Sub-Registrar Office, Gudur in the presence of L.W.11-S.Abdul Shukur and L.W.12-D.S.Abu Bakkar under cover of seizure panchanama dated, 12-09-2014 at 4-00 p.m. P.W.9 arrested A1,

A2; sent them to the court and got remanded them. As per the proceedings of SDPO, the said Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty was not charged. On completion of investigation, P.W.9 filed charge sheet in this case.

4

5. After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 420 of

Indian Penal Code against the Accused 1 and 2.

6. On appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents on which, the prosecution relied were supplied to the accused as contemplated under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure code.

7.The accused were examined Under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure code. The contents of Charge sheet read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Charge Under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against Accused 1 and 2 has been framed. The contents of charge read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

9. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of incriminating evidence is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the same as false and stated that there is no defence evidence on their behalf.

10. Heard arguments on both sides through video conference. Perused the record. Considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 coupled with Exs.P1 to

P5 and other material on record.

11. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt for the offence

punishable Under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against A1 and A2

beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

12.On perusal of the record, it is the case of prosecution as per contents of charge sheet that A1 sold out his house plot bearing No.11 to an extent of Ac.0-03 ¾ covered in survey numbers 825, 826 of Gudur, to one 5

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty under sale agreement, who in turn, sold away the same to P.W.1 and later said Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty and P.W.1 several times demanded A1 for the registration of the plot in the name of P.W.1 but, A1 with a malafide intention colluded with A2 and deceitfully got registered the plot in the name of A2 who is his sister-in-law and thereby cheated P.W.1. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. P.W.1 is the defacto- complainant. P.W.2 is the attester of sale agreement between A1 and

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty. P.W.3 is the attester on the sale agreement between P.W.1 and Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty. P.W.4 is the document writer of sale agreement between Nayakanti Venkata

Ramana Setty and P.W.1. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the attesters of sale deed between A1 and A2. P.W.7 is the document writer between A1 and A2.

P.W.8 is the Sub-Registrar who registered sale deed between A1 and A2.

P.W.9 is the investigating officer.

13.The learned APP argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 are cogent, corroborating with each other and prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt hence, she prays the court to convict the accused according to law. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that the case is in civil nature and that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 are suffered with material contradictions and omissions hence, he sought for acquittal of the accused.

14. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is the evidence of

P.W.1 that he purchased an extent of Ac.0-03 ¾ cents of land from one

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty covered in survey numbers 825, 826 of

Gudur village for the plot No.11 for consideration of Rs.20,000/- under an agreement of sale deed attested by P.W.3 and L.W.4-Ramudu which was drafted by P.W.4 document writer. The said attester i.e., P.W.3 deposed supporting the evidence of P.W.1 that on the request of P.W.1, he and L.W.4-

Ramudu signed as an attesters on the sale agreement between P.W.1 and 6

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty drafted by P.W.4-document writer. P.W.4 document writer deposed supporting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 that on the request of L.W.4-Ramudu, he drafted an agreement of sale deed between Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty and P.W.1 on which, L.W.4-

Ramudu and P.W.3 signed as attesters. As per the above evidence, there is no dispute in respect of execution of sale agreement between P.W.1 and

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty. Moreover, as per evidence of P.W.4, A1 and A2 were not present at that time which itself clearly shows that A1 and

A2 have no knowledge about execution of sale agreement.

15. It is further evidence of P.W.1 that he several times demanded A1 for the registration of the plot for which, A1 promised that he would do the same and after some time, he along with Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty went to the house of A1 who was present at the house of A2 and demanded for the registration of the plot for which, A1 requested some more time.

Admittedly A1 and A2 were not present at the time of sale agreement between P.W.1 and Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty. It is further admitted fact that A1 not executed agreement of sale deed in favour of P.W.1 nor attested the agreement of sale deed executed by Nayakanti Venkata

Ramana Setty in favour of P.W.1. Moreover, P.W.1 is admittedly not attested the agreement of sale deed between A1 and Nayakanti Venkata Ramana

Setty. It is further admitted fact that there is no document proving that A1 promised P.W.1 that he would register the property in favour of P.W.1.

Moreover, admittedly P.W.1 not issued any legal notice either to A1 or to

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty. Further admittedly P.W.1 did not file civil suit against Venkata Ramana Setty seeking specific performance of contract. P.W.2 who is attester of agreement of sale deed between

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty and A1 deposed supporting the evidence of P.W.1 that A1 sold away plot in favour of Nayakanti Venkata Ramana

Setty under an agreement of sale deed on which, he and L.W.2-Vadla

Ramakrishnaiah signed as attesters but, later the said Nayakanti Venkata 7

Ramana Setty failed to get registration of the property due to financial problems and later A1 sold away the same to P.W.1. Admittedly the said

Venkata Ramana Setty is no more. Further there is no evidence showing that the said Venkata Ramana Reddy got issued legal notice to A1 during his life time seeking registration of the property.

16.Further the attesters of sale deed between A1 and A2 i.e., P.Ws.5 and 6 deposed before the court. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that no transaction was taken place between Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty and A1 in his presence and that police not examined or recorded his statement. It is the evidence of P.W.6 that on the request of A2, he signed on some white blank paper, but he does not know its contents. P.Ws.5 and 6 did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile, though the learned APP was permitted to cross examine P.Ws.5 and 6, nothing was elicited during their cross examination except marking of their statements recorded under

Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code as Exs.P2 and P3. The prosecution also examined P.W.7 who is document writer between A1 and A2. It is the evidence of P.W.7 that he drafted ExP5-sale deed and the parties got registered the same. The prosecution also examined P.W.8 who is Sub-

Registrar. It is the evidence of P.W.8 that A1 sold away an extent of Ac-0.03 ¾ cents of land in the name of A2 under Ex.P5-registered sale deed in his presence. Though P.Ws.5 and 6 did not support the execution of sale deed by A1 in favour of A2, the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 discloses about the execution of Ex.P5-sale deed between A1 and A2. Herein the present case, the prosecution has to prove that A1 executed sale deed in favour of A2 with a malafide intention to cheat P.W.1.

17.In order to prove the same, P.W.1 deposed that on 19-10-2013, A1 intentionally registered the land in the name of A2 and he came to know the same through document writer i.e., L.W.11-S.Abdul Shukur and then he questioned A1, but he replied arrogantly hence, he got filed Ex.P1-Private complaint before the court. P.W.9-Investigating Officer deposed that basing 8 on court endorsement; he registered a case in Crime No.28/2014 of Gudur

P.S., for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and issued Ex.P4-FIR. He also deposed that on 12-09-2014 during course of investigation, he seized Ex.P5-Certified copy of registered sale deed from registrar office, Gudur in the presence of L.W.11-S.Abdul Shukur and

L.W.12-Abu Bakkar. On perusal of Ex.P5-Certify copy of sale deed dated 19- 10-2013, the recitals are clearly showing that A2 purchased the schedule land from A1 for consideration of Rs.1,09,000/-. Except Ex.P5-Certified copy of sale deed between A1 and A2, the prosecution did not place any material

before the court showing that A1 and A2 intentionally colluded with each

other and thereby deceitfully got registered the property by cheating P.W.1.

Without seeking relief before an appropriate court of law, P.W.1 filed this private complaint. Moreover, there is no material placed before the court showing that he issued legal notice to A1 or the Venkata Ramana Setty seeking registration of the property. As per entire evidence on record, it appears that the case is civil nature and the parties ought have taken steps

before an appropriate court of law. This court is no way concerned to decide

the civil rights of the parties over the immovable property without adducing cogent and reliable evidence showing that A1 cheated P.W.1. As discussed above and the evidence available on record is not at all sufficient to convict the accused for which, the accused are charged. Therefore this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove their case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and the accused are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The 9 unmarked Non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, Corrected and

pronounced by me through video conference, this the 28th day of April, 2021

Sd/-Smt.MVN.Padmaja

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Kurnool

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: PW1:K. Venkateswarlu None PW2: J. Murali Rao PW3: P. Ramachandra Reddy PW4: S. Nazeer Ahammed PW5: M. Adivappa PW6: P. Jashuva PW7: K. Prabhakar PW8: S. Hanuma Naik PW9: U. Sunil Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Complaint of P.W.1 Ex.P2 : Under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of P.W.5 Ex.P3 : Under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of P.W.6 Ex.P4 : FIR Ex.P5 : Certified copy of document No.1608/2013

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil

M.Os. MARKED

Nil

Sd/-Smt.MVN.Padmaja

JFMC/Spl.MC,

Kurnool // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile court, Kurnool 10

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

CALENDER CASE NO.842/2015

1. Date of offence prior to: 20-03-2014

2. Date of complaint or report: 20-03-2014

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 10-04-2015

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : 21-04-2015

5. Date of commencement of trial: 04-12-2019

6. Date of close of trial: 12-04-2021

7. Date of sentence or Order: 28-04-2021

8. Explanation of delay if any: Due to non-production of witnesses by the Prosecution COMPLAINANT:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur P.S., in Crime No.28/2014

ACCUSED:

1. Vadla Jayanna, S/o V.Chinna Swamanna, Age 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, H.No.76-97-130, Weaker Section Colony, Kurnool

2. Vadla Subbamma, W/o V.Ramudu, age 45 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, H.No.14-62-3, Vadlageri, Gudur Town & Mandal

Nature of Law :- Cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property or the making alteration or destruction of a valuable security Section of Law :- Section 420 of Indian Penal Code Finding of Court :- Found not guilty Sentence/Order:

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked Non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.MVN.Padmaja,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Kurnool

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Principal Asst. Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Dis. No. ________Dated________.

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile court, Kurnool 2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

PRESENT: Smt. M.V.N. PADMAJA,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

Wednesday, the 28 th day of April, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No.842/2015

Between:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur Police Station . . . Complainant

A N D

1. Vadla Jayanna, S/o V.Chinna Swamanna Age 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation H.No.76-97-130, Weaker Section Colony Kurnool

2. Vadla Subbamma, W/o V.Ramudu, age 45 Years, Religion-Hindu, Cultivation H.No.14-62-3, Vadlageri Gudur Town and Mandal . . . Accused

This case came before me on 26-04-2021 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the prosecution and of Sri P.Satyanarayana Reddy Advocate for the Accused through video conference and after hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur P.S., has filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.28/2014 for the offence punishable Under Section 420 of Indian Penal

Code against the accused.

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

At 15 years ago, A1 sold out his house to P.W.1 and shifted to Kurnool.

Whenever, A1 visits Gudur village, he used to stay at the house of his sister-in-law i.e., A2. A1 sold out his ancestral property i.e., an extent of

Ac.0-03 ¾ cents house site plot bearing No.11 situated in Survey numbers 825, 826 of Gudur, to one Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty for Rs.6,400/- but, the said Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty could not get it registered due to financial problems. The said Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty paid entire amount to A1 in the presence of P.W.2 and L.W.2-Vadla 3

Ramakrishnaiah on the date of sale agreement scribed by one Jangam

Veeru Pakshaiah, who died at six years ago. The said Nayakanti Venkata

Ramana Setty sold out the same for Rs.20,000/- to P.W.1 who asked A1 for the registration of the plot in the name of P.W.1 within a month for which,

A1 agreed, on that, P.W.1 paid entire amount to the said Nayakanti Venkata

Ramana Setty on 15-04-2002 in the presence of L.W.4-Golla Ramudu and

P.W.3 under the sale agreement scribed by P.W.4, who is document writer.

3.After 20 days, A1 went to the house of A2 at Gudur village. P.W.1 and

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty asked A1 for the registration of the plot in the name of P.W.1. On that, A1 stated that he was busy hence, he would register the plot at later. A2 who was present there also stated that A1 would register the plot in the name of P.W.1 whenever he demands. Later

P.W.1 and Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty approached A1 at several times with a demand to get the plot registration but, A1 used to postpone the same on one pretext or the other. Meantime, the value of the plot increased abnormally. A1, A2 with a malafide intention, colluded with each other and deceitfully went to Sub-Registrar office, Gudur and met P.W.7 who is document writer and got prepared document as if A1 sold out the plot in the name of A2 for Rs.1,09,000/- and the document was attested by P.Ws.5 and 6 and P.W.8 got registered the sale deed on 19-10-2013. Later P.W.1 filed private complaint before the court.

4.On receipt of court endorsement, P.W.9 registered a case in Crime

No.28/2014 of Gudur P.S. During course of investigation, P.W.9 seized copy of sale deed dated, 19-10-2013 from Sub-Registrar Office, Gudur in the presence of L.W.11-S.Abdul Shukur and L.W.12-D.S.Abu Bakkar under cover of seizure panchanama dated, 12-09-2014 at 4-00 p.m. P.W.9 arrested A1,

A2; sent them to the court and got remanded them. As per the proceedings of SDPO, the said Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty was not charged. On completion of investigation, P.W.9 filed charge sheet in this case.

4

5. After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 420 of

Indian Penal Code against the Accused 1 and 2.

6. On appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents on which, the prosecution relied were supplied to the accused as contemplated under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure code.

7.The accused were examined Under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure code. The contents of Charge sheet read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Charge Under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against Accused 1 and 2 has been framed. The contents of charge read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

9. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of incriminating evidence is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the same as false and stated that there is no defence evidence on their behalf.

10. Heard arguments on both sides through video conference. Perused the record. Considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 coupled with Exs.P1 to

P5 and other material on record.

11. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt for the offence

punishable Under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against A1 and A2

beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

12.On perusal of the record, it is the case of prosecution as per contents of charge sheet that A1 sold out his house plot bearing No.11 to an extent of Ac.0-03 ¾ covered in survey numbers 825, 826 of Gudur, to one 5

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty under sale agreement, who in turn, sold away the same to P.W.1 and later said Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty and P.W.1 several times demanded A1 for the registration of the plot in the name of P.W.1 but, A1 with a malafide intention colluded with A2 and deceitfully got registered the plot in the name of A2 who is his sister-in-law and thereby cheated P.W.1. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. P.W.1 is the defacto- complainant. P.W.2 is the attester of sale agreement between A1 and

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty. P.W.3 is the attester on the sale agreement between P.W.1 and Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty. P.W.4 is the document writer of sale agreement between Nayakanti Venkata

Ramana Setty and P.W.1. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the attesters of sale deed between A1 and A2. P.W.7 is the document writer between A1 and A2.

P.W.8 is the Sub-Registrar who registered sale deed between A1 and A2.

P.W.9 is the investigating officer.

13.The learned APP argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 are cogent, corroborating with each other and prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt hence, she prays the court to convict the accused according to law. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that the case is in civil nature and that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 are suffered with material contradictions and omissions hence, he sought for acquittal of the accused.

14. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is the evidence of

P.W.1 that he purchased an extent of Ac.0-03 ¾ cents of land from one

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty covered in survey numbers 825, 826 of

Gudur village for the plot No.11 for consideration of Rs.20,000/- under an agreement of sale deed attested by P.W.3 and L.W.4-Ramudu which was drafted by P.W.4 document writer. The said attester i.e., P.W.3 deposed supporting the evidence of P.W.1 that on the request of P.W.1, he and L.W.4-

Ramudu signed as an attesters on the sale agreement between P.W.1 and 6

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty drafted by P.W.4-document writer. P.W.4 document writer deposed supporting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 that on the request of L.W.4-Ramudu, he drafted an agreement of sale deed between Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty and P.W.1 on which, L.W.4-

Ramudu and P.W.3 signed as attesters. As per the above evidence, there is no dispute in respect of execution of sale agreement between P.W.1 and

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty. Moreover, as per evidence of P.W.4, A1 and A2 were not present at that time which itself clearly shows that A1 and

A2 have no knowledge about execution of sale agreement.

15. It is further evidence of P.W.1 that he several times demanded A1 for the registration of the plot for which, A1 promised that he would do the same and after some time, he along with Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty went to the house of A1 who was present at the house of A2 and demanded for the registration of the plot for which, A1 requested some more time.

Admittedly A1 and A2 were not present at the time of sale agreement between P.W.1 and Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty. It is further admitted fact that A1 not executed agreement of sale deed in favour of P.W.1 nor attested the agreement of sale deed executed by Nayakanti Venkata

Ramana Setty in favour of P.W.1. Moreover, P.W.1 is admittedly not attested the agreement of sale deed between A1 and Nayakanti Venkata Ramana

Setty. It is further admitted fact that there is no document proving that A1 promised P.W.1 that he would register the property in favour of P.W.1.

Moreover, admittedly P.W.1 not issued any legal notice either to A1 or to

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty. Further admittedly P.W.1 did not file civil suit against Venkata Ramana Setty seeking specific performance of contract. P.W.2 who is attester of agreement of sale deed between

Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty and A1 deposed supporting the evidence of P.W.1 that A1 sold away plot in favour of Nayakanti Venkata Ramana

Setty under an agreement of sale deed on which, he and L.W.2-Vadla

Ramakrishnaiah signed as attesters but, later the said Nayakanti Venkata 7

Ramana Setty failed to get registration of the property due to financial problems and later A1 sold away the same to P.W.1. Admittedly the said

Venkata Ramana Setty is no more. Further there is no evidence showing that the said Venkata Ramana Reddy got issued legal notice to A1 during his life time seeking registration of the property.

16.Further the attesters of sale deed between A1 and A2 i.e., P.Ws.5 and 6 deposed before the court. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that no transaction was taken place between Nayakanti Venkata Ramana Setty and A1 in his presence and that police not examined or recorded his statement. It is the evidence of P.W.6 that on the request of A2, he signed on some white blank paper, but he does not know its contents. P.Ws.5 and 6 did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile, though the learned APP was permitted to cross examine P.Ws.5 and 6, nothing was elicited during their cross examination except marking of their statements recorded under

Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code as Exs.P2 and P3. The prosecution also examined P.W.7 who is document writer between A1 and A2. It is the evidence of P.W.7 that he drafted ExP5-sale deed and the parties got registered the same. The prosecution also examined P.W.8 who is Sub-

Registrar. It is the evidence of P.W.8 that A1 sold away an extent of Ac-0.03 ¾ cents of land in the name of A2 under Ex.P5-registered sale deed in his presence. Though P.Ws.5 and 6 did not support the execution of sale deed by A1 in favour of A2, the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 discloses about the execution of Ex.P5-sale deed between A1 and A2. Herein the present case, the prosecution has to prove that A1 executed sale deed in favour of A2 with a malafide intention to cheat P.W.1.

17.In order to prove the same, P.W.1 deposed that on 19-10-2013, A1 intentionally registered the land in the name of A2 and he came to know the same through document writer i.e., L.W.11-S.Abdul Shukur and then he questioned A1, but he replied arrogantly hence, he got filed Ex.P1-Private complaint before the court. P.W.9-Investigating Officer deposed that basing 8 on court endorsement; he registered a case in Crime No.28/2014 of Gudur

P.S., for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and issued Ex.P4-FIR. He also deposed that on 12-09-2014 during course of investigation, he seized Ex.P5-Certified copy of registered sale deed from registrar office, Gudur in the presence of L.W.11-S.Abdul Shukur and

L.W.12-Abu Bakkar. On perusal of Ex.P5-Certify copy of sale deed dated 19- 10-2013, the recitals are clearly showing that A2 purchased the schedule land from A1 for consideration of Rs.1,09,000/-. Except Ex.P5-Certified copy of sale deed between A1 and A2, the prosecution did not place any material

before the court showing that A1 and A2 intentionally colluded with each

other and thereby deceitfully got registered the property by cheating P.W.1.

Without seeking relief before an appropriate court of law, P.W.1 filed this private complaint. Moreover, there is no material placed before the court showing that he issued legal notice to A1 or the Venkata Ramana Setty seeking registration of the property. As per entire evidence on record, it appears that the case is civil nature and the parties ought have taken steps

before an appropriate court of law. This court is no way concerned to decide

the civil rights of the parties over the immovable property without adducing cogent and reliable evidence showing that A1 cheated P.W.1. As discussed above and the evidence available on record is not at all sufficient to convict the accused for which, the accused are charged. Therefore this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove their case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and the accused are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The 9 unmarked Non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, Corrected and

pronounced by me through video conference, this the 28th day of April, 2021

Sd/-Smt.MVN.Padmaja

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Kurnool

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: PW1:K. Venkateswarlu None PW2: J. Murali Rao PW3: P. Ramachandra Reddy PW4: S. Nazeer Ahammed PW5: M. Adivappa PW6: P. Jashuva PW7: K. Prabhakar PW8: S. Hanuma Naik PW9: U. Sunil Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Complaint of P.W.1 Ex.P2 : Under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of P.W.5 Ex.P3 : Under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of P.W.6 Ex.P4 : FIR Ex.P5 : Certified copy of document No.1608/2013

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil

M.Os. MARKED

Nil

Sd/-Smt.MVN.Padmaja

JFMC/Spl.MC,

Kurnool // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile court, Kurnool 10

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

CALENDER CASE NO.2028/2019

1. Date of offence prior to: 08-04-2019

2. Date of complaint or report: 08-04-2019

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 08-04-2019

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : 08-04-2019

5. Date of commencement of trial: 25-03-2021

6. Date of close of trial: 26-04-2021

7. Date of sentence or Order: 30-04-2021

8. Explanation of delay if any:Due to non-production of witnesses by the Prosecution

COMPLAINANT:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur P.S., in Crime No.107/2019

ACCUSED:

Bandari Tailor Nikhil, S/o B.T.Narasimhulu, Age 21 years, YSRCP worker, Vasanthvihar Near Masa Majid, Kurnool District

Offences :- Bribery; Illegal payments in connection with elections; Disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant, if such disobedience causes obstruction, annoyance or injury to persons lawfully employed. Section of Law :- Under Sections 171-E, 171-H, 188 of IPC Finding of Court :- Found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 171-E, 171-H & 188 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted of the same under Section 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. Ex.P3 i.e.,

Rs.2,000/- of FDR shall be confiscated to the state after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt M.V.N. Padmaja,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Kurnool Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Principal Asst. Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Dis. No. ________Dated________ // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile court, Kurnool.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

PRESENT: Smt. M.V.N. PADMAJA,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

Friday, the 30 th day of April, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No.2028/2019

Between:

State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Atmakur Police Station . . . Complainant

A N D

Bandari Tailor Nikhil, S/o B.T.Narasimhulu Age 21 years, YSRCP worker, Vasanthvihar Near Masa Majid, Kurnool District . . . Accused

This case came before me on 27-04-2021 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the prosecution and of Sri D.Madhusudan Reddy, Advocate for the Accused through video conference and after hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.107/2019 for the offences punishable Under Sections 171-E, 171-H and 188 of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

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

On 08-04-2019 at 9-00 a.m., while P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 4 were present at SPG Palem being flying squad during general elections to prevent untoward incidents, they found group of persons and one person was keeping cash and voters slip in his hands who tried to escape on seeing them, hence they caught hold of him. On enquiry, they came to know his identity particulars as accused herein who voluntarily confessed that he came to distribute amount to the voters at SPG Palem to cast their votes on behalf of YSRCP. After informing the grounds of arrest, they seized an amount of Rs.2,000/- and voters slips from the possession of accused under cover of special report and handed over him along with seized properties at police station.

3

3.Basing on the special report, P.W.3 registered a case in Crime

No.107/2019 of Atmakur P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections 171-E, 177-H and 188 of Indian Penal Code. During course of investigation,

P.W.3 examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and served

Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code notice to the accused. On completion of investigation, P.W.3 filed charge sheet in this case.

4. After perusal of charge sheet and other material on record, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 171-E, 171-H and 188 of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents on which, the prosecution relied was supplied to the accused as contemplated under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure code.

6.The accused was examined Under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure code. The substance of accusation read over and explained to him in

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

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

8.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of incriminating evidence is read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the same as false and stated that there is no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard arguments on both sides through video conference. Perused the record. Considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4; coupled with Exs.P1 to

P3 and other material on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt for the offences

punishable Under Sections 171-E, 171-H and 188 of Indian Penal Code

against the accused beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

4

11.On perusal of the record, it is the case of prosecution as per contents of charge sheet that on 08-04-2019 at 9-00 a.m., while P.W.1 along with

P.Ws.2 and 4 were present at SPG Palem being flying squad during general elections to prevent untoward incidents, they found group of persons and one person was keeping cash and voters slip in his hands who tried to escape on seeing them, hence they caught hold of him, on enquiry, they came to know his identity particulars as accused herein who voluntarily confessed that he came to distribute amount to the voters at SPG Palem to cast their votes on behalf of YSRCP and after informing the grounds of arrest, they seized an amount of Rs.2,000/- and voters slips from the possession of accused under cover of special report and handed over him along with seized properties at police station. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. P.W.1 is the

Defacto-complainant. P.Ws.2 and 4 are police constables. P.W.3 is

Investigating Officer.

12.The learned APP argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 are cogent, corroborating with each other and prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt hence, she prays the court to convict the accused according to law. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 are suffered with material contradictions and omissions hence, he sought for acquittal of the accused.

13.In respect of the alleged offence, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to

4. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he was deputed as flying squad during general elections, on that, he along with police constables went to SC colony of Atmakur on 08-04-2019 on the information that amount was distributing illegally and then, they caught hold of one person who was accused herein and the accused confessed voluntarily that he is a tailor by profession and studying polytechnic and he came to distribute cash to the voters by inducing them to cast their votes on behalf of YSRCP. P.Ws.2 and 4 who are police constables categorically deposed that on 08-04-2019, they 5 accompanied with P.W.1 and reached SPG Palem of Atmakur during general elections and they caught hold of the accused basing on his confessional statement that he came to distribute money to the voters to cast their votes on behalf of YSRCP. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 further categorically deposed that after informing the grounds of arrest, they seized an amount of

Rs.2,000/- and voters slips from the possession of accused under cover of

Ex.P1 special report.

14. Supporting the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, P.W.3-investigating officer deposed that on 08-04-2019 at 9-00 a.m., he received Ex.P1-special report from P.W.1 who came along with P.Ws.2 and 4 to the police station and produced the accused along with cash of Rs.2,000/- and voters slips and then, he registered a case in Crime No.107/2019 of Atmakur P.S., and issued Ex.P2-FIR.

15. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, though P.Ws.1 and 2 were present at the time of arrest-cum-seizure, they deposed before the court that they could not identify the accused. In regard to the preparation of Ex.P1-special report, P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 deposed during their chief examination as if Ex.P1-special report was prepared by P.W.1 at the scene of seizure. During cross examination of P.W.1, he deposed as if Ex.P1-

Special report was prepared at police station and the same was typed by writer. P.W.3-Investigating Officer deposed that he does not know who typed special report. There is no corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 at where Ex.P1-special report was prepared and by whom.

16. Further admittedly P.W.1 did not secure the presence of village elders or any other independent witness at the time of seizure. On this point, the learned counsel for accused relied on a decision reported in 1996 (2) ALT (Criminal) 252 (AP), between K.Boosaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the public prosecutor High court of A.P, Hyderabad, wherein the Hon’ble court held that “the evidence that mediators were not

available and also could not be secured is highly doubtful in the

6

circumstances of the case. Hence, it is not safe to accept their evidence

in the absence of corroboration by independent witnesses, and the

accused/appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt". The learned counsel for accused also relied on a decision between Chadalavada Subba Rao Vs.

Kasu Brahmananda Reddy and others, wherein the Hon’ble court held that

“clear and positive proof is required to make out a case of corrupt

practice. In the absence of affirmative and unequivocal evidence, the

allegations of corrupt practices have to be rejected as baseless and the

election upheld. It cannot be overlooked that, it is for the person, who

impugns the election on the ground of corrupt practices to establish the

commission of such practices beyond a reasonable doubt”.Herein the present case, P.W.1 or police men could not succeed to get mediators or not explained that why they could not get mediators at the time of alleged seizure.

17. Admittedly, no complaint received by P.W.4 from the public. It is further admitted fact that P.W.1 did not secure any mediator, while arresting the accused and seizing the cash, though the place of arrest-cum- seizure is located in busy area. Further the investigating officer did not choose to examine any independent witness present, at the time of incident, to prove their contention in the charge sheet. Without examining the persons present in the locality, though the accused is convicted basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who are interested witnesses to the case of prosecution, it may leads to mis-carriage of justice. Moreover, the accused suggested during cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 4 that P.W.1 not seized any property from his possession which itself clearly shows that the accused is not claiming the alleged seized cash in this case. The alleged seized voter’s slips not filed before the court.

18. Further according to Section 100 (4) of Criminal Procedure Code, the investigating officer has to secure two independent mediators at the time of seizure of property and if any person refused to act as mediator, he can 7 take action against him according to law. In the present case, the prosecution failed to give explanation for non-securing independent mediator at the time of arrest-cum-seizure. Therefore in the absence of corroborative evidence of Ex.P1-special report, the contents are in- admissible in evidence as the confession given to the police officer is hit by

Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act and the accused cannot be convicted basing on the sole evidence of investigating officer as it may leads to mis-carriage of justice. Further when the prosecution came up with certain allegations against the accused; it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the contention with cogent evidence. Here in the present case, the prosecution failed to prove their case with cogent evidence. Further the evidence of investigating officer clearly goes to show that the prosecution not came with true facts of the case and he did not follow the procedure as laid down under the law. As discussed above and the evidence available on record are not at all sufficient to convict the accused for which, the accused is charged. Therefore this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove their case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 171-E, 171-H & 188 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted of the same under Section 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. Ex.P3 i.e.,

Rs.2,000/- of FDR shall be confiscated to the state after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, Transcribed and typed by him; corrected

and pronounced by me through video conference, this the 30th day of April, 2021

Sd/-Smt.MVN.Padmaja

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Kurnool 8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1 :G.A.J. Jocelyn None PW2 : R. Shaikshavali PW3 : V. Ramesh babu PW4 : U. Madhusudhana Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Special report Ex.P2 : F.I.R. Ex.P3 : F.D.R of Rs.2,000/-

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil

M.Os. MARKED

Nil

Sd/-Smt.MVN.Padmaja

JFMC/Spl.MC,

Kurnool // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile court, Kurnool.

9 // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile court, Kurnool.

10 11

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

PRESENT: Smt.M.V.N.PADMAJA

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

Thursday, the 30 th day of September, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No.46/2020

Between:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluk Police Station . . . Complainant

A N D

1. Syed Nanne Basha, age 32 years S/o S.Hussain Miah, H.No.8-143 Polakal Village, C.Belagal Mandal Kurnool District, AR PC 1974

2. Koppale Ramanjaneyulu, age 50 years S/o K.Mallaiah, H.No.4-3-2-52 Balaji Nagar, Kurnool, PC-1890 Kurnool IV Town P.S. . . . Accused

This case came before me on 30-09-2021 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the prosecution and of Sri M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for all the Accused and after hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluk P.S., has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.307/2019 for the offence punishable Under Section 384 of Indian

Penal Code against the A1 and A2.

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

On 10-10-2019, P.W.1 went to ring road near VJR Convention to celebrate his birthday party along with his friends. While he was cutting the cake at flyover bridge, Police came there. Three Police men were present in the vehicle. Out of them, A1 and A2 behaved indecently with P.W.1. Then, P.W.1 and his friends disclosed their identity as House Surgeons. On that, the accused told that they would taken them to the Police Station to involve in a brothel case as they present at the mid night hours on the road. Since there was no mistake with P.W.1, the accused expected for illegal gratification of money from P.W.1 and his friends. On that, A1 and A2 2 demanded Rs.10,000/-. P.W.1 transferred an amount of Rs.8,000/- from his mobile number to the mobile number of P.W.3 through Phonepay App. Later

P.W.1 informed the same to the Police. On that, P.W.3 again refunded

Rs.8,000/- to P.W.1 on the advise of A1 and A2 on 12-10-2019 at 03-52 p.m., through phone pay app.

3.Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.4 registered a case in Crime

No.307/2019 of Kurnool Taluk P.S., for the offence punishable under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code on 15-10-2019 at 7-30 p.m. During the course of investigation, P.W.4 examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3.

He visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch. He arrested A1 and A2 near D.S.P. office of Kurnool Town on identification; sent them to the

Court and got remanded them. On completion of investigation, P.W.4 filed charge sheet in this case.

4.After perusal of charge sheet and other material on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 384 of Indian

Penal Code against A1 and A2.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents on which, the prosecution relied were supplied to the accused as contemplated under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure code.

6.The accused were examined Under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code. The contents of Charge sheet read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Charge Under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code against accused have been framed. The contents of Charge read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

8.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of 3 incriminating evidence is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the same as false and stated that there is no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record. Considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.P1 to P6 and other material on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the

offence punishable Under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code

beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

11.On perusal of the record, it is the case of prosecution as per contents of charge sheet that on 10-10-2019, while P.W.1 along with his friends were celebrating his birth day party on Fly Over Bridge near VJR convention, A1 and A2 being Police officials, threatened them and took Rs.8,000/- through

Phonepay App to the phone of P.W.3 and after knowing that P.W.1 and friends are medicos, the accused directed P.W.3 to refund the same to the account of P.W.1 and P.W.3 refunded the said amount through his Phonepay

App. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant. P.W.2 is Police

Constable who accompanied with accused at the time of alleged incident in patrolling duty. P.W.3 is the person who allegedly received amount through

Phonepay app from P.W.1 and refunded the same to P.W.1. P.W.4 is the

Investigating Officer.

12.The learned A.P.P. argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 are cogent, corroborating with each other and the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt hence, she prays the court to convict the accused according to law. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 are suffered with material contradictions and omissions and P.Ws.1 and 3 did not support the case of prosecution hence, he sought for acquittal of accused.

4

13.In respect of the alleged incident, the prosecution firstly examined

P.W.1 who is the defacto-complainant herein. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that at two years back on one night between 10-30 p.m., to 11-00 p.m., while he along with friend were going on two motorcycle, Police had stopped them near VJR convention hall and asked about their presence there and then, the Police have obtained his signature on white blank papers, but, he does not know its contents. Contrary to his evidence, P.W.4-

Investigating Officer deposed that on 15-10-2019 at 7-30 p.m., P.W.1 came to the Police Station and presented Ex.P4-written report to him, basing on it, he registered a case in Crime No.307/2019 of Kurnool Taluk P.S., for the offence punishable under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code against the unknown offenders and issued Ex.P5-FIR.

14.To support the case of the prosecution, P.W.2 deposed that on 10-10-2019, while he along with A1 and A2 were doing high way patrolling duty, he slept due to ill health and between 1-00 a.m., to 2-00 a.m., he woke up for urinals and found A1 and A2 who were talking with two girls and two boys and asked them for that, they told that they were present obstructing the road and again he slept on the back seat of jeep due to ill health. He further deposed that on the next day, he came to know through the staff at Police Station that A1 and A2 threatened medicos at night and took Rs.8,000/- through Phonepay App by demanding Rs.10,000/- and after knowing that they are medicos, the accused again transferred the said amount to P.W.1. P.W.3 who is the material witness in this case did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. It is the evidence of

P.W.3 that he does not know the facts of the case and that no incident was happened in his presence and that Police not examined or recorded his statement. P.W.1 who is the defacto-complainant also did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile. P.W.1 further deposed that he does not know the facts of the case and that he did not give report to the Police and that Police not examined or recorded his statement. Though 5

P.W.2 deposed some extent, as per the his evidence, the alleged incident was happened on 10-10-2019 between 1-00 a.m., to 2-00 a.m. As per the material on record coupled with the evidence of P.W.4-Investigating Officer, he received Ex.P4-written report from P.W.1 on 15-10-2019 at 7-30 p.m.

Though there is delay in giving report to the Police, P.W.4 registered the case against the unknown offenders. Moreover, no delay is mentioned in column No.8 of Ex.P5-FIR. No valid reasons assigned by the prosecution for the delay caused in giving report to the police, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

15.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, they did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused and they turned hostile. The learned APP sought permission of this court to treat the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 as hostile. Permission grantedafter perusal of the record and evidence of the witnesses. Further the learned A.P.P. was permitted to put the questions in the nature of cross-examination to P.Ws.1 and 3. In such cross-examination, the learned APP failed to elicit any incriminating evidence against the accused except giving suggestions and marking of P.W.1’s signature on Ex.P4-report and marking of the statements of P.Ws.1 and 3 recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code as

Exs.P1 to P3. Though P.W.2 deposed some extent, his evidence discloses that he is hearsay witness. The material witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 and 3 are not supported the case of prosecution. Moreover, no document is placed before the court showing that P.W.1 or his friends deposited an amount of

Rs.8,000/- to the account of P.W.3 on the demand of A1, A2. Basing on sole evidence of P.W.4-investigating officer, A1 and A2 cannot be convicted which may leads to miscarriage of justice unless there is sufficient other corroborating evidence in support of his evidence. The evidence of other material witnesses is also not much useful to connect A1 and A2 with this crime.. Therefore on perusal of the record, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, which is deposed by the prosecution 6 witnesses. Hence the evidence available on record is not at all sufficient to convict the accused for which, the accused are charged. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the light of hostile evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 3, the accused are found not guilty.

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of September, 2021.

Sd/-.M.V.N.Padmaja

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Special Mobile Court,

Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: PW1: G.V.Saikrishna None PW2: K.Krishna Sagar PW3: V.B.Ramakrishna PW4: Ch.Khaja Vali

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W1Nil Ex.P2 : Under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3 : Under Section 161 Cr.PC statement of P.W.3 Ex.P4 : Written report Ex.P5 : F.I.R. Ex.P6 : Rough sketch M.Os. MARKED NilSd/-.M.V.N.Padmaja // True Copy //JFMC/Spl.M.C, Kurnool.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile court, Kurnool.

7

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL

CALENDER CASE NO.46/2020

1. Date of offence prior to: 10-10-2019

2. Date of complaint or report: 14-10-2019

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 16-10-2019

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : 21-10-2019

5. Date of commencement of trial: 29-09-2021

6. Date of close of trial: 29-09-2021

7. Date of sentence or Order: 30-09-2021

8. Explanation of delay if any: --

COMPLAINANT:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluk P.S., in Crime No.307/2019.

ACCUSED: 1.Syed Nanne Basha, age 32 years, S/o S.Hussain Miah, H.No.8-143 Polakal Village, C.Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District, AR PC 1974.

2.Koppale Ramanjaneyulu, age 50 years, S/o K.Mallaiah, H.No.4-3-2-52 Balaji Nagar, Kurnool, PC-1890, Kurnool IV Town P.S.

Offences :- Punishment for extortion. Section of Law :- Under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code Finding of Court :- Found not guilty Sentence/Order:

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Sd/-.M.V.N.Padmaja

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Kurnool.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Principal Asst. Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Dis. No. ________Dated________ // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile court, Kurnool.