Smt.M.V.N. Padmaja

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

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

TADEPALLIGUDEM

CALENDER CASE NO.150/2017

1. Date of offence : 28-05-2016

2. Date of complaint or report : 11-06-2016

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 41-A of Cr.P.C. Notice

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial : 21-12-2017

6. Date of close of trial : 09-04-2018

7. Date of sentence or Order : 24-04-2018

8. Explanation of delay if any : -- COMPLAINANT:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pentapadu Police Station in Cr.No.68/2016

ACCUSED:

1.Mallipudi Johar, S/o Achiyya, aged 50 years, Madiga, Arundhathipet, Mudunuru, Pentapadu Mandal

2.Mallipudi kanthamani, W/o Johar, aged 38 years, Madiga, Arundhathipet, Mudunuru, Pentapadu Mandal

3.Mallipudi Anil Kumar @ Babi, S/o Johar, aged 22 years, Madiga, Arundhathipet, Mudunuru, Pentapadu Mandal

4.Mallipudi Kanaka Lakshmi, D/o Johar, aged 26 years, Madiga, Arundhathipet, Mudunuru, Pentapadu Mandal

Offence :- Wrongfully restraint any person and voluntarily caused hurt with Criminal intimidation Section of Law :- Under Sections 341, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code Finding of Court :- Found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

Under Sections 341, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted for the same Under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the 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/-M.V.N.Padmaja

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: TADEPALLIGUDEM

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

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Tuesday, the 24 th day of April, 2018

CALENDAR CASE No.150/2017

Between:

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

A N D

1. Mallipudi Johar, S/o Achiyya, aged 50 years Madiga, Arundhathipet, Mudunuru, Pentapadu Mandal

2. Mallipudi kanthamani, W/o Johar, aged 38 years, Madiga, Arundhathipet, Mudunuru Pentapadu Mandal

3. Mallipudi Anil Kumar @ Babi, S/o Johar aged 22 years, Madiga, Arundhathipet Mudunuru, Pentapadu Mandal

4. Mallipudi Kanaka Lakshmi, D/o Johar aged 26 years, Madiga, Arundhathipet Mudunuru, Pentapadu Mandal . . . Accused

This case coming before me on 24-04-2018 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the prosecution and of Sri K.Prasad Rao, 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, Pentapadu Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.68/2016 against A1 to A4 for the offences punishable Under

Sections 341, 323, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

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

On 28-05-2016 at 10-00 a.m., while P.W.1 was talking with P.Ws.3, 7 and

L.W.4-U.Vara Lakshmi near kirana shop of P.W.3, A1 saw them. He presumed that they were talking about their family. Then he went to the house and informed the same to his family members. Later A1 to A4 wrongfully restrained P.W.1 on the road while P.W.1 was going to the 3 house. They beat her with hands insulting her modesty by abusing her in filthy language. P.W.1 sustained invisible injuries and got treated in the

Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem. On 11-06-2018, she presented report to the police.

3. Basing on it, P.W.8 registered a case in Cr.No.68/2016 of Pentapadu

P.S., on 11-06-2018 at 1-45 p.m., for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. During course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence; observed the same and drafted rough sketch. At the scene of offence, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. As per the statements of the witnesses, he deleted the name of A5. He served notice to all the accused under section 41-A (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. L.W.9-medical officer treated P.W.1 and issued wound certificate opined that the injured person was sustained simple injuries. On completion of investigation, P.W.8 filed charge sheet in this case.

4. After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file against A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

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 251 of Criminal Procedure code for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 of Indian

Penal Code. The substance of accusation read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. The evidence of L.W.4-U.Vara Lakshmi is closed as per the special report filed by the prosecution. The evidence of L.W.9- medical officer is closed as per the special report filed by the prosecution as he died.

8. 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 defence evidence on their behalf.

9. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record. Considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8; coupled with Exs.P1 to P8 and other material on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of all the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 of

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt”?

P O I N T:

11. On perusal of the record, it is the case of prosecution as per contents of charge sheet that on 28-05-2016 at 10-00 a.m., while P.W.1 was talking with P.Ws.3, 7 and L.W.4-U.Vara Lakshmi near kirana shop of

P.W.3, A1 saw them and presumed that they were talking about his family, then he went to the house and informed the same to his family members, later A1 to A4 wrongfully restrained P.W.1 on the road while P.W.1 was going to the house and they beat her with hands insulting her modesty by abusing her in filthy language as a result, P.W.1 sustained invisible injuries and got treated in the Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant. P.W.2 is the father 5 of P.W.1. P.Ws.3 to 7 are the independent witnesses. P.W.8 is the investigating officer.

12. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 8 are cogent, corroborating with each other and the prosecution proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt hence, she prays the court to convict accused according to law. On the other hand, the learned counsel for all the accused argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 are suffered with several contradictions and omissions hence, he sought for acquittal of all the accused.

13. In order to prove the case, the prosecution firstly examined P.Ws.1 and 2 who are daughter and father. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 28- 05-2016 at 10-00 a.m., while she was present in the shop of P.W.3 along with L.W.4-U.Vara Lakshmi and P.W.7, A1 might have observed them and later all the accused came to her house, A2 and A4 abused them hence, she interfered on that, A4 pushed her and had torn her night dress. She further deposed that A2 caught hold her tuft, A2, A4 pushed her down and had beaten her and then, A3 fisted her on her back. She further deposed that the other witnesses interfered and rescued her from the hands of all accused and then, she went to the hospital for treatment. She further deposed that she presented Ex.P1-Written report to the police as the police not registered the case basing on her statement at hospital recorded by the police. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that he rushed to the house of P.W.1 on information about the incident that the accused had beaten his daughter.

He further deposed that A1, A3 abused her daughter in filthy language and threatened her and A1 to A4 had beaten her with their hands as a result, she sustained injuries and then they shifted her to the hospital.

14. In respect of the report, P.W.8-investigating officer deposed contrary to the evidence of P.W.1. It is the evidence of P.W.8 that on 11-06-2016 6 at 1-45 p.m., P.W.1 along with P.W.2 came to the police station and presented Ex.P1-written report and basing on it, he registered a case and issued Ex.P6-FIR. On perusal of Ex.P6-FIR, column No.4, it appears that the investigating officer received written report. On perusal of Ex.P1- written report, the recitals are not disclosing that P.W.1 gave statement to the police at hospital and then the police failed to register the case. The alleged offence was taken place on 28-05-2016 at 10-00 a.m., whereas,

P.W.1 presented Ex.P1-written report to the police on 11-06-2016 at 1-45 p.m. On perusal of Ex.P6-FIR, column No.8, it appears that no delay is mentioned. No valid reasons assigned by the prosecution for the delay caused in giving report to the police which is fatal to the case of prosecution.

15. In respect of injuries sustained by P.W.1, on careful perusal of the entire evidence on record, admittedly P.W.2 was not present at the time of alleged incident. Further P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed during their chief examination that they went to the hospital after the incident. On perusal of

Ex.P8-wound certificate, it appears that P.W.1 admitted into the hospital on 29-05-2016 at 7-00 a.m., and got treated by L.W.9-medical officer. If at all P.W.1 sustained injuries due to beaten by accused persons, what prevented her for taking treatment immediately is no where explained by the prosecution. Further during cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that she got treated at private hospital. No medical certificate filed before the court proving the same. Further it is the case of prosecution that the scene of offence is situated on the road whereas, P.W.1 deposed during her chief examination that the accused came to her house and beat her. P.W.8 deposed that he did not find injuries on the person of P.W.1 and that he did not receive hospital intimation. The ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not supported by medical evidence in regard to the injuries sustained by

P.W.1. Therefore, as per Ex.P8-wound certificate, it cannot be decided that 7

P.W.1 sustained injuries due to beaten by the accused persons. Further there are so many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of material aspects. Further P.W.2 is an interested witness who is father of P.W.1.

16. The prosecution also examined P.Ws.3 to 7 who are alleged to have been witnessed the alleged incident. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that he does not know about the case and that galata was taken place between

P.W.1 and accused on the road and that both were scolding against each other and that accused never had beaten P.W.1 in his presence. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that he came to know about the galata between P.W.1 and accused on the road in which the night dress of P.W.1 was torn and her son brought towel to her and that he did not witness the incident. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that he came to know that galata was taken place but, he does not know the incident. It is the evidence of P.W.6 that he found galata between P.W.1 and accused and he separated them. It is the evidence of P.W.7 that he does not know anything about this case and that accused never beat or threatened P.W.1 in his presence and that police not examined or recorded his statement. The so called eye witnesses i.e.,

P.Ws.3 to 5 and 7 are not supported the case of prosecution that the accused persons restrained P.W.1 on the road and had beaten her and that she sustained injuries. P.Ws.3 to 5 and 7 who are independant witnesses to the case of prosecution are turned hostile. Though the learned APP was permitted to cross examine them, nothing was elicited during their cross examination except marking of their statements recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code as Exs.P2 to 5. P.W.6 though deposed about the occurrence of galata, he did not depose about the manner of incident that the accused persons had beaten P.W.1 and that she sustained injuries. Furthermore, he deposed during his cross examination that he does not know who beat to whom. On perusal of the evidence on record, 8 the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborative with any independant witness in regard to material aspects. P.W.2 who is her father is an interested witness to the case of prosecution.

17. Further no other independent witness supported the case of prosecution that accused threatened P.W.1 and beat P.W.1. The so called independent witnesses i.e., P.Ws.3 to 5 and 7 are turned hostile. Basing on sole evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are interested witnesses to the case of prosecution unless their evidence is corroborated with an independent witness, accused cannot be convicted which may cause injustice to them.

As discussed above, the prosecution failed to prove the case by adducing reliable evidence and the evidence on record is not at all sufficient to convict all the accused for the offences with which they are charged.

Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Sections 341, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted for the same Under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the 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.

Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of April, 2018

Sd/- M.V.N.Padmaja,

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1: K. Kanaka Lakshmi

PW2: G. Peddintlu 9

PW3: K. Ramana

PW4: Sk. John

PW5: Sk. Shabrin

PW6: K. Mariyamma

PW7: K. Simhachalam

PW8: K. Gurrayya-SI of Police

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Written Report of P.W.1

Ex.P2: Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code statement of P.W.3

Ex.P3: Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code statement of P.W.4

Ex.P4: Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code statement of P.W.5

Ex.P5: Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code statement of P.W.7

Ex.P6: First Information Report

Ex.P7: Rough Sketch

Ex.P8: Wound Certificate of P.W.1

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil

M.Os. MARKED

Nil

Id/-M.V.N.P.

I AJFCM, TPG

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

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

TADEPALLIGUDEM

CALENDER CASE No.214/2017

1. Date of offence : 09-01-2017

2. Date of complaint or report: 09-01-2017

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 09-01-2017

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : 09-01-2017

5. Date of commencement of trial: 05-03-2018

6. Date of close of trial: 12-04-2018

7. Date of sentence or Order: 19-04-2018

8. Explanation of delay if any: -- COMPLAINANT: State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nidamarru Police Station in Cr.No.07/2017

ACCUSED:

1. Sanku Naga Seshu, S/o Satyanarayana, A/36, C/Kapu, Gandhi Nagar, Bhuvanapalli Village of Nidamarru (M)

2. Gajula Venkateswara Rao, S/o Bhaskara Rao, A/57, C/Kapu, near Maremma Temple, Ganapavaram (V) & (M)

3. Immadisetti Krishna Mohan, S/o Venkatarao, A/43, C/Kapu, near Ramalayam, Bhuvanapalli (V) of Nidamarru (M)

4. Gajula Ramakrishna, S/o Late Narasimha Murthy, A/45, C/Kapu, near water tank, Chanamilli village of Nidamarru (M)

5. Kothala Srinivasarao, S/o Sanyasirao, A/46, C/K.velama, Srirampuram (Siddapuram) (V) of Nidamarru (M)

6. Sanku Sivaramanujarao, S/o Satyanarayana, A/55, C/Kapu, Satyanarayana- puram, Bhuvanapalli (V) of Nidamarru (M)

Offence :- Playing cricket by betting money through others Section of Law :- Under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act Finding of Court :- Found not guilty Sentence/Order:

In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and they are acquitted for the same Under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of Six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The case properties were deposited vide C.P.No.27/2018 i.e., M.O.1-cash of Rs.28,070/- shall be confiscated to state; M.O.2-52 playing cards and M.O.3-black blanket shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/-M.V.N.Padmaja

I Addl., Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru, in Dis. No.________, Dated _______. //True copy// 2

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: TADEPALLIGUDEM

PRESENT: Smt. M.V.N.PADMAJA

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Thursday, this the 19th day of April, 2018

CALENDAR CASE No.214/2017

Between: State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Nidamarru Police Station . . . Complainant

A N D

1. Sanku Naga Seshu, S/o Satyanarayana, A/36 C/Kapu, Gandhi Nagar, Bhuvanapalli Village of Nidamarru (M)

2. Gajula Venkateswara Rao, S/o Bhaskara Rao A/57, C/Kapu, near Maremma Temple Ganapavaram (V) & (M)

3. Immadisetti Krishna Mohan, S/o Venkatarao A/43, C/Kapu, near Ramalayam, Bhuvanapalli (V) of Nidamarru (M)

4. Gajula Ramakrishna, S/o Late Narasimha Murthy A/45, C/Kapu, near water tank Chanamilli village of Nidamarru (M)

5. Kothala Srinivasarao, S/o Sanyasirao, A/46 C/K.velama, Srirampuram (Siddapuram) (V) of Nidamarru (M)

6. Sanku Sivaramanujarao, S/o Satyanarayana A/55, C/Kapu, Satyanarayanapuram Bhuvanapalli (V) of Nidamarru (M). . . Accused

This case coming before me on 16-04-2018 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the prosecution and Sri Kesireddi Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for all the accused and after hearing both sides, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nidamarru Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.7/2017 against A1 to A6 for the offences punishable Under

Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974.

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

3

On 09-01-2017, on credible information, P.W.2 obtained search proceedings from S.D.P.O., Eluru vide C.No.01/SDO-E/search-Pro/2017. He along with the staff i.e., P.W.1, L.W.2-PC-2301 and L.W.3-Pc-2116 and reached asbestos shed situated to the back side of Panchayath Office,

Bhuvanapalli Village of Nidamarru Mandal belongs to Sanku Naga Seshu and found six persons who were playing gambling with money. On interrogation, they confessed the guilt. On that, P.W.2 arrested A1 to A6 and seized cash of Rs.28,070/-, 52 playing cards and black colour bed sheet from the scene of offence under the cover of special report.

3.Basing on special report, P.W.2 registered a case in Cr.No.07/2017 of

Nidamarru P.S., on 09-01-2017 at 08-00 p.m. During course of investigation, he released the accused persons on self bonds. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

4.After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file against A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act.

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 251 of Criminal

Procedure code. The substance of accusation read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.Os.1 to 3. The learned APP has given up the evidence of L.W.2-Pabba Mangayya, PC-2301 of Nidamarru P.S. and

L.W.4-Kolli Suresh, PC-2116 of Nidamarru P.S.

8.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 4 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 and 2; coupled with Exs.P1 to P3 and M.Os.1 to 3 and other material on record.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of all

the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of

A.P. Gaming Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

P O I N T:

11. On perusal of the record, it is the case of prosecution as per contents of charge sheet that on 09-01-2017 at 08-00 p.m., P.W.2 on credible information, raided on the asbestos shed belongs to A1 and found A1 to A6 who were playing cards by betting with money hence, he arrested them and seized cash of Rs.28,070/-, 52 playing cards and black colour bed sheet under cover of special report. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and

M.Os.1 to 7. P.W.1 is the police constable. P.W.2 is the Investigating Officer.

12. The learned A.P.P. argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are cogent, corroborating with each other and the prosecution proved their case beyond all 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 and 2 are suffered with material contradictions, improvements and omissions hence; he sought for acquittal of accused.

13.In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 who alleged to have been conducted raid. It is the evidence of P.W.1 who is police constable that on 09-01-2017 at 7-00 p.m., as per the instructions of SI of Police, he went to Bhuvanapalli Village to the house of A1 along with SI of Police and other police constables and they found six persons who were playing cards with money on that, police arrested them and 5 seized cash of Rs.28,070/- and 52 playing cards from their possession under cover of occurrence report and obtained the signatures of all accused and returned to the police station. Supporting his evidence, P.W.2 who is investigating officer in this case deposed before the court. He further deposed that basing on Ex.P1-occurrence report; he registered a case and issued Ex.P2-FIR. He further deposed that he drafted Ex.P3- rough sketch at the scene of arrest-cum-seizure.

14.On careful perusal of the entire evidence on record, though the scene of arrest-cum-seizure is located in the area at where panchayat office is situated, P.W.2 did not secure the presence of panchayat secretary or village Assistant or any person from the locality. Further the investigating officer not examined any independent witness near the scene of arrest-cum-seizure. P.W.1 deposed during his cross examination that P.W.2 arrested A1 to A6 in thatched shed as appears in Ex.D1- photographs whereas the case of prosecution is that P.W.2 arrested A1 to

A6 in asbestos shed. Further P.W.1 had no knowledge whether P.W.2 affixed identity slips on seized property. Further P.Ws.1, 2 do not know the ward number of alleged scene of arrest-cum-seizure. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, his presence at the time of alleged arrest-cum-seizure is not believable as he is interested witness to the case of prosecution.

Admittedly P.W.2 not secured the presence of independent witness from the locality. Further he does not know about the presence of houses surrounding the alleged scene of arrest-cum-seizure though admittedly it is located in residential area. He did not enquire about the owner of the said shed and he did not secure any document proving ownership of the shed. P.W.1 deposed during his cross examination that the accused persons have no scope to escape hence, they did not try to escape, whereas it is the evidence of P.W.2 that the accused persons were tried to escape on seeing the police, but, he caught hold them. Further it is the evidence of P.W.1 that they found Rs.18,070/- in the middle of the persons 6 and found Rs.10,000/- in the room, whereas it is the evidence of P.W.2 that the accused persons gave amount from their respective pockets. Further he did not mention the denomination of the cash and not affixed the identity slips on seized property. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that they brought the accused persons to the police station by an auto, whereas, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that they brought the accused persons to the police station by private vehicle. No one deposed about the vehicle number or its owner. Further no receipt filed before the court. There is no corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Except the oral evidence of

P.Ws.1, 2 who are interested witnesses to the case of prosecution, there is no corroborative evidence to prove guilt against all accused. Basing on uncorroborated evidence, accused persons cannot be convicted which may cause injustice to them. Therefore basing on the evidence of interested witnesses and their uncorroborated evidence, the accused persons cannot be convicted unless there is sufficient other corroborating evidence in support of their evidence. The evidence on record is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of all the accused beyond all reasonable doubt hence, the benefit of doubt must be given to all the accused and the accused are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and they are acquitted for the same Under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of Six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure

Code. The case properties were deposited vide C.P.No.27/2018 i.e., M.O.1- cash of Rs.28,070/- shall be confiscated to state; M.O.2-52 playing cards and M.O.3-black blanket shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to dictation by the Typist directly on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of April, 2018

Sd/-M.V.N.Padmaja

I Addl., Judicial Magistrate of I Class, 7

Tadepalligudem

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1: D.Ratna Raju None PW2: M.Veer Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Occurrence report Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Rough sketch

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil

M.Os. MARKED

M.O.1 – Cash of Rs.28,070/- M.O.2 – 52 playing cards M.O.3 – Black blanket

Sd/-MVNP

I AJFCM, TPG

//True copy//

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

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

TADEPALLIGUDEM

CALENDER CASE NO.542/2012

1. Date of offence : 28-02-2004

2. Date of complaint or report: 28-02-2004

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 28-02-2004

4. Date of release on bail of Accused :22-12-2017

5. Date of commencement of trial: 13-04-2018

6. Date of close of trial: 16-04-2018

7. Date of sentence or Order: 19-04-2018

8. Explanation of delay if any: -- COMPLAINANT: State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Town Police Station in Crime No.66/2004

ACCUSED:

1. Reddam Vishnu Prasad, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged 21 years, Kapu, Bharathi CD Zone, Baby centre, Tadepalligudem

2. Yadla Nageswararao, S/o Raminayudu, 23 years, Kapu, 27th ward, Raja Trinadh Street, Seetharampeta, Tadepalligudem

3. Kuppula Kanaka Durga Rao, S/o Apparao, 41 years, Kapu, Indiranagar c/o Reddi Satyanarayana House, Tadepalligudem (case against A2 and A3 is split up) Offence :- Publishing pirated video films Section of Law :- Under Sections 52(A) and 68-A of Copy Right Act, 1957 Finding of Court :- Found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable Under

Sections 52-A r/w 68-A of Copy Right Act and he is acquitted for the same

Under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of A1 shall remain in force for further period of Six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. (case against A2 and A3 is pending).

I Addl., Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru. in Dis. No. ________Dated_______.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TADEPALLIGUDEM

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

I ADDL., JUDL., MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Thursday, the 19 th day of April, 2018

CALENDAR CASE No.542/2012

Between:

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

A N D

1. Reddam Vishnu Prasad, S/o Nageswara Rao Aged 21 years, Kapu by caste, Bharathi CD Zone, Baby centre, Tadepalligudem

2. Yadla Nageswararao, S/o Raminayudu, 23 years, Kapu, 27th ward, Raja Trinadh Street, Seetharampeta Tadepalligudem

3. Kuppula Kanaka Durga Rao, S/o Apparao, 41 years Kapu, Indiranagar c/o Reddi Satyanarayana House Tadepalligudem (case against A2 and A3 is split up) . . . Accused

This case coming before me on 17-04-2018 for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the prosecution and of Sri P.H.V.N.S. Bhupal,

Advocate for 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, Tadepalligudem Town Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.66/2004 against the accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 52(A)(B) & 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957.

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

On 28-02-2004 at 5-00 p.m., L.W.3-S.I. of police along with staff by securing the presence of L.W.1-Ch.Thulasi Krishna and L.W.2-V.Naga

Suresh raised on the Bharathi C.D. Zone shop. Basing on the confessional statement of A1 to A3, he arrested them and seized piracy C.Ds., from their possession under cover of mediators report in the presence of above mediators.

3

3.Basing on mediators report, L.W.3-S.I. of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.66/2004 of Tadepalligudem Town P.S., on 28-02-2004 at 7-00 p.m.

During course of investigation, he sent the accused to the court and got remanded him. On completion of investigation, L.W.3-SI of Police filed charge sheet in this case.

4.After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file against accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 52(A) and 63 of Copy Rights Act. Later, the case against A2 and

A3 is split up.

5. On appearance of the A1, 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.Accused was examined Under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure code. The contents of Charge sheet read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Charge under section 52-A r/w Section 68-A of Copy Right Act against accused has been framed. The contents of charge read over and explained to him in Telugu for which, he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The evidence of L.W.1-Ch.Thulasi Krishna and

L.W.2-Vulli Naga Suresh is closed as per the special report filed by the prosecution and the evidence of L.W.3-A.Chandra Sekhar has given up by the learned APP. The prosecution examined A.S.I.-1344 as P.W.1 by adding as additional witness.

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 4 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.W.1; Exs.P1, P2 and other material on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of A1

for the offence punishable Under Section 52-A r/w Section 68-A of

Copy Right Act against A1 beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

11.On perusal of the record, it is the case of prosecution as per contents of charge sheet that on 28-02-2004 at 5-00 p.m., on receipt of information,

L.W.3-SI of Police along with his staff by securing the presence of mediators raided on Bharathi C.D Zone shop situated at Tadepalligudem and found the accused 1 to 3 and seized Pirated Telugu Films CDs in the presence of above mediators under cover of mediators report. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1. P.W.1 is the Police officer who identified the signature of L.W.3-S.I. of Police.

12.In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 who deposed that L.W.3-S.I. of police conducted raid on Bharathi C.D.Shop, arrested accused persons and seized C.Ds., under cover of Ex.P2- mediators report in the presence of L.W.1-Ch.Tulasi Krishna and L.W.2-

V.Naga Suresh and on 28-02-2004 at 7-00 p.m., L.W.3-S.I. of Police registered a case in Cr.No.66/2004 of Tadepalligudem Town P.S., basing on mediators report dated, 28-02-2004 at 5-00 p.m. and issued Ex.P1-F.I.R.

13.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, admittedly no document placed before the Court showing that he worked under L.W.3-S.I. of police.

Further admittedly he did not accompany with L.W.3-S.I. of police to raid on Bharathi C.D. Shop and he had no personal knowledge about Ex.P2-

Mediators report and about scene of arrest-cum-seizure. P.W.1 did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused. Further the 5 prosecution failed to examine other witnesses though sufficient opportunity has given. Therefore on perusal of the record, there is no incriminating evidence against A1, which is deposed by the prosecution witness. Hence the evidence available on record is not at all sufficient to convict A1 for which, he is charged. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the case against A1 beyond all reasonable doubt. In the light of hostile evidence of P.W.1, A1 is found not guilty.

In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable Under

Sections 52-A r/w 68-A of Copy Right Act and he is acquitted for the same

Under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of A1 shall remain in force for further period of Six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. (case against A2 and A3 is pending).

Typed to my dictation by the Typist directly on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of April, 2018.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1: K.Sambasiva Rao None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PRSECUTION:

Ex.P1: First Information Report

Ex.P2: Mediators report

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil

M.Os. MARKED

Nil

I AJFCM, TPG

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: M.V.N.Padmaja, B.L., I Addl., Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem

Thursday, the 6th day of July, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.51/2015

Between:

Vanguri Siva Nageswara Rao, S/o Peda Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 39 years Dr.No.102, R/o Ravipadu, Pentapadu Mandal . . . Plaintiffs

And

Kotagiri Venkata Srinivasa Devarao S/o Venkata Rama Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years Ravipadu, presently R/o Near Srinivasa Function Hall, Nalla Muttayya Gari Road, Besides SF School Tanuku, permanent R/o Dr.No.12, Ravipadu Village of Pentapadu Mandal . . . Defendant

This suit coming on 05-07-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri M.S.Rao,

Advocate for defendant and this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.99,737/- due on promissory note dated, 01-03-2013 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.81,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

On 01-03-2013, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.81,000/- from the plaintiff for his family welfare and agriculture purpose on execution of promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 12% per annum. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the amount and postponing the same on one pretext or other hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

2

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant appeared before the court and filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint.

In such written statement, he further contended that promissory note was rank forged and fabricated one, not supported by any consideration and it is hit by coercion and undue influence and it is materially altered and barred by limitation. He further contended that the defendant was bedridden as on the date of alleged promissory note and he could not move from the bed. He further contended that during the year, 2009, he borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff on execution of empty signed blank promissory note and the same was discharged in the month of March, 2011 but, the plaintiff did not return the empty signed promissory note and the elders also admonished the plaintiff and the present suit promissory note brought into existence with an intention to gain wrongful gain hence, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit with cost.

4.Basing on the pleadings on both parties, the following issues were framed for trial:-

1) Whether suit Promissory note dated, 01-03-2013 is true, valid and supported by consideration or not?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the suit claimed amount as prayed for or not?

3) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1. One Kotagiri Venkata Srinivasa Deva Rao also examined as P.W.2 on behalf of plaintiff who alleged to have been scribe of suit promissory note. After closure of plaintiff evidence, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked.

6.Arguments treated as heard on both sides. Perused the record.

Considered the pleadings on both sides and the oral, documentary evidence on record.

3

ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:

7.For the sake of convenience and for better appreciation of evidence, issue Nos. 1 and 2 are dealt jointly. On perusal of pleadings, the claim the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.81,000/- from him and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note and thereafter, he failed to repay the said amount. To recover the same, the plaintiff filed the suit. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff filed Ex.A1 promissory note. On perusal of the said promissory note, it discloses that it was executed by defendant for an amount of Rs.81,000/- on 01-03-2013 in the presence of attestors and scribe.

8.In order to prove the claim of the plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and same was taken on file as evidence in chief examination of P.W.1. In such chief affidavit examination, he had reiterated all the averments of the plaint. P.W.2 who alleged to have been scribe of promissory note supported the version of P.W.1 in all material aspects stating that on 01-03-2013, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.81,000/- from the plaintiff on executing a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. He further deposed that the transaction was taken place between plaintiff and the defendant in his presence and he scribed suit promissory note. P.Ws. 1 and 2 denied the suggestions of the defendant during their cross examination.

9.In order to disprove the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 who had reiterated all the contents of written statement in his chief examination affidavit. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not send legal notice to the plaintiff demanding to return of promissory note as contended by him in his written statement.

He also admitted that he did not file any petition before the court seeking to send the suit promissory note to the hand writing expert to examine the 4 signature present on the suit promissory note with his admitted signature.

Further he did not file any document showing that he discharged the amount borrowed from the plaintiff. Further no medical certificate filed

before the court proving that he was hospitalized on the date of execution

of suit promissory note as contended by him in his written statement.

Further he did not choose to issue notice to the plaintiff demanding return of suit promissory note as contended by him in his written statement. To prove the contentions of defendant, he did not adduce any sort of evidence to fortify the written statement contentions. The said circumstances clearly shows that the defendant took such pleas in their written statement for the sake of plea only and there is no truth in it.

10.The plaintiff herein is proved his claim by examining himself and

P.W.2 and by filing suit promissory note. The defendant herein failed to disprove the claim of the plaintiff by adducing cogent and legally acceptable evidence. Thus considering the above discussion and considering the very fact that the defendant failed to adduce any sort of evidence to prove his written statement allegations, the above issue Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be answered against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff holding that suit promissory note is not only genuine one, but also supported by consideration. Having issue Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the plaintiff proves the suit claim and he is entitled to get a decree against the defendant.

ISSUE No.3:

11.In view of my finding in Issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendant as prayed for with costs as per law.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.99,737/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6 % per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.81,000/-.

5

Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by m in the Open court, this the 6th day of July, 2017.

Sd/-M.V.N.Padmaja

I Addl., Judl., I Class Magistrate,

Tadepalligudem

FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tadepalligudem

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs:

P.W.1: Vanguri Siva Nageswara Rao

P.W.2: Vatturi Lakshmi Narshima Murthy

For Defendant:

D.W.1: Kotagiri Venkata Srinivasa Deva Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Original Promissory Note, dated, 01-03-2013 for Rs.81,000/-

For Defendant:

Nil

Id/-MVNP

I AJFCM, TPG

FAC/PJCJ, TPG

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: M.V.N.Padmaja, B.L., I Addl., Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem

Thursday, the 29th day of June, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.120/2016

Between:

The Village Secretary, rep by The Village Panchayat, Arugolanu Tadepalligudem . . . Plaintiffs

And

K.Rama Parvathi, W/o Ravi Prasad Aged 50 years, Business, C/o Manne Gopala Krishna Gokhale, Business Defense apartment No.402, Opp. Uda park East point colony, Visakhapatnam . . . Defendant

This suit coming on 27-06-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant called absent and set ex-parte and this day this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for recovery of arrears of tax amount for the years, 2014 to 2016 for an amount of Rs.1,04,198/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff is the Village Secretary to the Gram Panchayat of

Arugolanu and he is discharging his duties as per the Government rules and he is authorized to collect the taxes from the houses and go- downs and other property owners.

3.The defendant is having go-down in Arugolanu Village and she is liable to pay the taxes to the Panchayat as per the act. The tax was fixed to the defendant at Rs.38,836/- per year during 2014-2015 and 2 she is liable to pay the same to the plaintiff by the end of March every year. The defendant is liable to pay enhanced tax of Rs.65,362/- as per the Government rules by the end of March every year. In the month of

February, 2015, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant and she received the same but not paid tax amount to the plaintiff for the years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. Again the plaintiff issued special notice to the defendant on 12-03-2016 and the defendant not available in the address hence, demand notice affixed on the go-down and she received the same through registered post on 14-03-2016 and later also the defendant failed to pay the tax amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

4.On process, this court issued summons to defendant and the defendant failed to appear before this court and she is set ex-parte.

Later Gram Panchayat Secretary filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of his examination and the same is taken on file as evidence in chief of P.W.1 on oath and he had testified with his pleadings and he got marked Exs.A1 to A3 on plaintiff’s side to prove the suit claim.

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for plaintiff and the oral, documentary evidence on record.

6. The point for determination is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed

for”?

POINT:

7.In order to prove the case, the Gram Panchyat Secretary filed chief examination affidavit in lieu of chief examination and same was taken on file as evidence in chief examination of P.W.1. In such chief affidavit examination, he had reiterated all the averments of the plaint.

3

8.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3, the plaintiff herein proved the claim of plaint that the defendant failed to pay tax amount to the Gram Panchayat. Though the defendant had knowledge, she failed to attend before the court to rebut the presumption arises under Section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. Ex.A1-compared copies of tax receipts successfully established that the defendant has to pay property tax to the Gram panchayat. Ex.P2-office copy of the special notice dated, 12-03-2016 and Ex.P3-acknowledgment successfully established that the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant and the same was received by her. Though the plaintiff issued Ex.A2-Notice to the defendant, she did not choose to repay the tax amount. Further, the defendant failed to attend before the court on receipt of summons through court and also failed to cross-examine P.W.1. Thus, the version of P.W.1 remains unchallenged. In view of the above discussion coupled with reasons the point is accordingly answered holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently established his entitlement to a decree in his favour and against the defendant.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.1,04,198/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.1,04,198/-.

Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by m in the Open court, this the 29th day of June, 2017.

Sd/-M.V.N.Padmaja

I Addl., Judl., I Class Magistrate,

Tadepalligudem

FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tadepalligudem

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs:

P.W.1: V.Venkata Narayana 4

For Defendant:

None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Compared copies of tax receipts 4 in number

Ex.A2: Office copy of Special Notice dated, 12-03-2016

Ex.A3: Postal Acknowledgment dated, 14-03-2016

For Defendant:

Nil

Id/-MVNP

I AJFCM, TPG

FAC/PJCJ, TPG