Kum M Vijaya Rameswari

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

KURUPAM

Present:Kum.M.Vijaya Rameswari, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram FAC/Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Kurupam

Monday, this the 10th day of June, 2019

C.C.No. 59/2017 Between :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Elwinpeta Town Police Station. ….… Complainant

And :

Biddika Ranjit Kumar, S/o.late Ramarao, Aged 18 years, ST Jathapu by caste, MPDO quarters, Elwinpeta village and panchayat, Gummalaxmipuram mandal. ….… Accused

This case is coming on 03-06-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the

Complainant State represented by the Police and Sri N. Srinivasa Rao,

Learned Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of police, Elwinpeta Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused person for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as 'IPC' for the sake of brevity) in Cr. No.2/2017.

02.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 11/12.2.2017 while LW.1 has been sleeping in his house at about 5.00 hours LW.11 came to his house and stated that Ganta Danial

S/o.late Haripani, Biddika Lokesh, S/o.late Ramarao, Biddika Ranjit Kumar,

S/o.late Ramarao, were went to Tadikonda village with view of celebrate the village goddess festival on bike bearing No.AP 35 AG 0940 and after completion of festival while returning from Tadikonda village to

Gummalaxmipuram the bike driver Biddika Ranjit kumar drove the bike in rash and negligent manner with over speed when they nearly reched at 2 mattigoyya fields which is located one kilometer away from the Tadikonda village at about 3.30 hrs dashed to the tamarind tree as a result Ganta

Danial and Biddika Lokesh were sustained injuries and died at the spot. The accused Biddika Ranjit Kumar also sustained injuries and shifted the injured to government hospital, Bhadragiri, hence he reported to the police for taking necessary action. Basing on the report of LW.1 on 12.2.2017 at about 9.00 hrs LW.16/N.Sankararao registered a case in Cr.No.2/2017 under section 304-A IPC of Elwinpeta PS and investigated into. Hence, the charge sheet.

03.On receipt of charge sheet, the case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under sections 304-A of IPC.

04.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as 'Cr.P.C' for the sake of brevity).

05.The accused is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., and the sum and substance of the charge sheet under Section 304-A of IPC is read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W's.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.19 are marked.

07.On closure of the evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material found against them, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

08. Heard both sides.

09.Perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is that:

1) Whether the prosecution able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

11. Prosecution case in nutshell: On 11/12.2.2017 at about 5.00 hours LW.11 came to LW.1 house and stated that Ganta Danial S/o.late

Haripani, Biddika Lokesh, S/o.late Ramarao, Biddika Ranjit Kumar, S/o.late

Ramarao, were went to Tadikonda village with view of celebrate the village goddess festival on bike bearing No.AP 35 AG 0940 and after completion of festival while returning from Tadikonda village to Gummalaxmipuram the bike driver Biddika Ranjit kumar drove the bike in rash and negligent manner with over speed when they nearly reached at mattigoyya fields which is located one kilometer away from the Tadikonda village at about 3.30 hrs dashed to the tamarind tree as a result Ganta Danial and Biddika Lokesh were sustained injuries and died at the spot.

12. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-19. Pws 1 to 3 are relatives, PW.4 to 6 are direct eye witnesses to the accident, PW.7,10 to 13 are the mediator, PW.8 is

Civil Assistant Surgeon, PW.9 is MV.Inspector, PW.13 is Investigation officer.

13. PWs 1 to 3 came to know about the accident and later they visited the scene of offence.

14. PW4-Butaka Ramarao testified in his evidence that he visited the accident spot to see the deceased person. He do not know the case of death of deceased persons. He further deposed that on 12.12.2017 deceased along with accused went to Thadikonda yathra on bike bearing No. AP 35 AG 0940 pulser, the deceased by name Daniel and Lokesh are the pillion riders, and when they reached Thadikonda village of GL.Puram the accused drove in a bike in a rash and negligent manner and dashed one tree thereby both the deceased received severe head injuries and died.

15. PW.5 who is the eye witness of the incident, he deposed that he do not know the cause of death of deceased persons. He is not aware of other details of the case. On 12.12.2017 deceased along with accused went to

Thadikonda Yathra deceased along with accused went to Thadikonda yathra on bike bearing No. AP 35 AG 0940 pulser, the deceased by name Daniel and 4

Lokesh are the pillion riders, and when they reached Thadikonda village of

GL.Puram the accused drove in a bike in a rash and negligent manner and dashed one tree thereby both the deceased received severe head injuries and died there.

16. PW.6 who is the eye witness of the case he deposed that he do not know the revolution passed by the panchayatdars. The paper shown to him do not contain his signature. He deposed that he was present at the time of conducting inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased Daniel and that the inquest panchayatdars resolved that both the deceased persons died due to head injurious caused in the accident.

17. PW.7 who is the mediator of the case. He did not go to the accident spot. The paper shown it contains his signature. He deposed that police drafted the physical features of scene of offence place on all four sides and that the scene of offence place is situated 1 km to the western side of scene of offence place and that the police got drafted rough sketch of scene of offence and got photographed the scene of offence place and seized the crime vehicle under the cover of scene observation report.

18. PW.8 who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon of the case. On 12.2.2017 at about 3.40 pm he conducted postmortem examination. 1) Exirtaxis marks present, 2) 2x1 cm laceration on left side of the forehead, 3) Contusion 15x10 cm over left side of the scalp, 4) Closed fracture of left femer at the lower 1/3rd, 5) Closed facture of upper end of both tibia and fibula of left leg.

17. The testimony of PW.4 to PW.9 reveals that the deceased bike met with standing tree, the accident spot is one km, away from Thadikonda. The testimony of PW.14 reveals that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

18. Here the point for consideration whether accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and caused accident to deceased or not.

19. The evidence of PW.4 reveals that he identified the accused as the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. During the cross examination 5 of PW.4, the counsel for accused elicited that he was present at the time of conducting inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased Daniel and Biddika Lokesh and that the inquest panchayatdars resolved that both the deceased persons died due to head injurious caused in the accident.

Police also obtained his signature on the inquest report of both the deceased and he know the contents of inquest panchanama. The crime vehicle bearing

No. AP 35 AG 0940. For contra PW.9 who is the MVI Inspector deposed in his evidence that he has inspected the crime vehicle bearing registration No.AP 35 AG 0940

20. To appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses, PW1,PW2,PW3 came to know about the accident. They are not the direct eye witnesses to the accident. They came to know about the accident, subsequently they reached the scene of offence. The above said prosecution witnesses though not direct witness to the accident, they deposed in their chief examination that deceased met with accident. According to PWs 1 to 3 they came to know about the accident.

21. PW.6 is who acted as mediator for scene observation report, witness identified the signature on Ex.P4 scene observation report.

22.Except PW.4, none of the prosecution witnesses deposed about the crime vehicle, identification of accused, how accident occurred. Though

PW.4 deposed incriminating evidence against the accused, he admitted in his cross examination that he heard the sound later he visited the scene of offence and he was not the direct eye witness to the accident. More over he deposed the crime vehicle No. AP 35 AG 0940 but according to PW.14 accused did not have any valid license, helmet and he was the rider and they are two pillion riders of crime vehicle. Evidence of PW1 to PW14 establishes that deceased met with an accident and died. But none of the prosecution witness deposed how accident occurred, and there was rash and negligent on the part of the accused while driving the crime vehicle. The investigation officer failed to explain how he connected accident with accused.

6

23. A precise reading of section 304-A of Indian penal code 1860 , it is learnt that to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under the said proviso stated supra, the prosecution needs to prove:

1. Involvement of crime vehicle.

2. Identification of accused.

3. Accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of occurrence.

4. He drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at the time of occurrence.

24. The prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of sec. 304-

A of IPC that accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and caused accident to the deceased.

25. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated this court holds that the prosecution failed to place sufficient material to show that the accused caused death of deceased. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

26. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.

10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear

before the Appellate Court, if any, appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Out sourcing), corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day June, 2019.

Sd/- Kum.M.Vijaya Rameswari,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of First Class,Kurupam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: Nimmala Santhosh Kumar - None -

P.W.2: Nimmala Sravan Kumar

P.W.3: Nimmala Sarla

P.W.4: Butaka Ramarao 7

P.W.5: Butaka Madavarao

P.W.6: Killaka Sambasivarao

P.W.7: Addakula Gangaraju

P.W.8: D.Venkatarao, C.A.S., Parvathipuram.

P.W.9: N.Srinivasarao, M.V.Inspector.

P.W.10: P.Vidyasagara Rao

P.W.11:V.Paparao, S.I. of Police.

P.W.12: T.Sankara Rao

P.W.13: N.Sankara Rao, ASI of Police, Kurupam PS.,

P.W.14: K.Kiran Kumar Naidu, S.I. of Police, Vizianagaram.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 given to police

Ex.P.2: 161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4

Ex.P.3: 161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5

Ex.P.4: 161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6

Ex.P.5: 161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4

Ex.P.6: Signature on the scene observation report.

Ex.P.7: Postmortem certificate of deceased no.2.

Ex.P.8: Postmortem certificate of deceased no.1.

Ex.P.9: M.V. Inspector report.

Ex.P.10: 161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.10.

Ex.P.11: Scene observation report.

Ex.P.12: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.13: CD along with photographs.

Ex.P.14: Inquest report of deceased no.1.

Ex.P.15: Study certificate.

Ex.P.16: F.I.R.

Ex.P.17: Inquest of deceased no.2.

Ex.P.18: Certificate.

Ex.P.19: Fine receipts.

For Defence:- -Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil –

Sd/- Kum.M.Vijaya Rameswari,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of First Class,Kurupam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST

CLASS : PARVATIPURAM

Present:Kum. M. Vijaya Rameswari I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram

Thursday, this the 28th day of June, 2019

C.C.No. 40/2016

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram circle, Parvathipuram. …… Complainant.

And:

Kutikuppla Srinivasarao @ Kommnapallin Srinivasarao, S/o.late Rajarao, aged 29 years, Kalinga by caste, Venkampeta village, Parvathipuram mandal.

……. Accused

This case has come before me on 26-06-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and in the presence of Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The state represented by its Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram circle,

Parvathipuram laid charge sheet against the accused person in Cr.No.115/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 12/13.6.2015 some unknown culprits gained entry into the house of Lw.1 by removing window grills forcibly broke open the almyriah situated in bed room and committed theft of 1) gold black beeds chain weighing about 32.110 grams, 2) 4 gold bangles weighing about 65.230 grams, 3) Gold harms weighing about 32.210, 4) two gold chains weighing about 43.00 grams, 5) two silver tumblers weighing about 157 grams, 6) silver chembulu weighing about 100 grams, 7) two silver plates weighing about 585 grams, 8) 6-silver deepam kundulu weighing about 109 grams all worth of Rs.2,79,000/- and decamped with the booty.. Basing on the occurrence report a case was registered in Cr.No.115/2015 and the accused was arrested on 30.12.2015, and investigated into. Hence, the charge.

3. The case is taken on file against the accused for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.

2

4. On appearance of the accused case copies were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.,

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for the charge under Sections 457 and 380 alternatively sec. 411 IPC read over and explained to him in

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

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 5 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.5 documents and M.O.1 to MO.8 were marked.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for which, he denied the incriminating evidence leveled against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the points for determination is: Whether the prosecution is established the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 or 411 IPC ?

10. POINT:-The prosecution case is in nut shell that on intervening night of 12/13.6.2015 while PW.1 was sleeping in his house and and on the next day morning he found unknown culprits gained entrance into the house by break open the iron grill of windows and opened the iron and committed theft of silver and gold items.

The court framed the charge against accused under section 457 IPC. In order to prove the offence under section 457 of IPC . The prosecution has to prove that the accused committed lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. Section 457 IPC that “whoever commits lurking house trespass by night or house breaking by night, in order to the committing the any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to five years, and shall also liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the time of imprisonment may be extended to 14 years.

11.While scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW.1 who is the defacto complainant deposed in his evidence that on the intervening night of 12/13.6.2015 while they were slept in their house on the next day morning PW.1 noticed that the lock 3 of the door broke open and he further noticed that the door of the beeruva was opened and found missing of Mos.1 to 8. Later he lodged report before the police.

12.PW.2 is the senior assistant in the Tahasildar office, Korada, previously he worked as VRO of Parvathipuram, he deposed in his evidence that on 13.6.2015 he along with LW.6 went to the house of PW.1 on the request of police where they found the window was broke opened the police seized in their presence. He further deposed that police photographed the scene of the crime and prepared scene observation report Ex.P2.

PW.4 the SI of Police deposed in his evidence that he registered the crime basing on the report lodged by the PW.1. PW.5 is Inspector of Police , Parvathipuram deposed that he received the Fir and visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and prepared

Ex.P2.

13.The evidence of the PW.1,2,4 and 5 reveals that, some unknown persons gained entrance into the house of Pw.1 and committed theft of Mos.1 to 8, but their evidence is not sufficient to prove the ingredients of section 457 IPC to prove that accused gained entrance into the house of PW.1 and committed theft of Mos.1 to 8

The court also framed the charge against accused for the offence under section 380 of IPC. The prosecution has to prove that accused committed theft in a dwelling house. Section 380 IPC speaks that “Whoever commits theft in a any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment or either description or a term which may extended to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

14.The prosecution has to prove that accused lurking house tress pass and committed theft in a dwelling house of PW.1. In the case of hand, the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 reveals that Mos.1 to 8 were stolen from iron safe of the PW.1’s house, but there is no direct eye witness to the theft that accused gained entrance into the house of PW.1 during night hours and break open the doors of house of the PW.1 and committed theft of

Mos.1 to 8. Except the confession of accused, no material placed before the court to prove that accused committed theft of Mos.1 to 8 in the house of PW.1.

4

Where the accused alleged to have committed theft of ornaments of Pw.1 from the dwelling house solely on the basis of the alleged recovery of the stolen articles from the possession of accused. Then the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of section 380 of IPC.

15.The court alternatively framed charge against the accused under section 411 of IPC. The evidence of the PW.3 and 5 is relevant to prove the ingredients of 411 of IPC.

PW.3 testified in his chief examination that on 30.12.2015 at the request of PW.5, he and

LW.9 acted as mediators to the confession and recovery of Mos.1 to 8 from the possession of accused. He further deposed that accused voluntarily confessed before them about the commission of offence and Mos.1 to 8 were recovered from the bag possessed by the accused.

16.According to section 24 to 26 of Indian Evidence Act the confession made

before police and confession made in the custody of police is inadmissible evidence and

cannot be proved against the accused. But according to section 27 of Indian Evidence Act the confession leads to the recovery of material objects the confession is relevant to that extent of the recovery from the possession of accused.

In the instant case according to PW.3 and 5, Mos.1 to 8 were recovered from the possession of accused on 30.12.2015, where as the offence committed on 12.6.2015 approximately there is six months gap in between the theft and alleged recovery of Mos.1 to 8.

17.In order to prove the offence under section 411 of IPC the prosecution has to place the relevant material before the court to prove that recovery is recent to invoke the presumption under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. In the instant case PW.5 recovered the Mos.1 to 8 from the possession of accused after six months of incident, during the cross examination of PW.3 the counsel for accused elicited that PW.3 and

LW.9 are not local mediators to the arrest place. Pw.5 did not prepare seizure list of

Mos.1 to 8 and served the same to accused. During the cross examination PW.3 testified 5 that he signed on confession cum mediators report on the request of the police and he does not know the contents of the report.

18.PW.5 the arrest investigation officer testified incriminating evidence against the accused. During his cross examination he admitted that PW.3 is stock witness to his police station. The evidence of the PW.5 has to be considered on par with the remaining witnesses. His sole testimony is sufficient to convict the accused if it is credible and trust worthy. In the instant case PW.5 failed to conduct test identification parade of property i.e., Mos.1 to 8 with PW.1, there is six months gap in between theft and alleged recovery.

It is not safe to drawn the presumption against the accused under section 114 of Indian

Evidence Act. Basing on the alleged recovery of Mos.1 to 8 from the possession of accused, in the cross examination PW.3 also deposed police obtained their signatures on confession from recovery report. PW.5 also admitted that PW.3 is stock mediator to his police station. Therefore, benefit of doubt is given to the accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C., The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before the Appellate Court, if any, appeal is preferred. Mos.1 to 8 were already given to the PW.1 vide Crl.MP.No.1167/16, dt:6.5.2019 shall holds good and made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (out sourcing), corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- Kum. M. Vijaya Rameswari

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution For Defence

P.W.1: Kaparapu janardhana Naidu - Nil

P.W.2: Singmahanti Srinivasa Gowri Prasadarao 6

P.W.3: Ramba Sasibhusanarao

P.W.4: V.Ashok Kumar

P.W.5: V.Chandra sekhar

Documents Marked

For prosecution For Defence

Ex.P.1 : Report - Nil- Ex.P.2 : Scene observation report Ex.P.3 :Relevant portion of confession statement Ex.P.4 : original FIR Ex.P.5 : Rough sketch

Material Objects

M.O.1 : Gold chain with black beeds

M.O.2 : Four gold bangles

M.O.3: Gold harm

M.O.4: Two gold chains.

M.O.5: two silver glasses

M.O.6: two silver chembulu.

M.O.7: Two silver plates

M.O.8: Six Silver kundulu

Sd/- Kum. M. Vijaya Rameswari

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST

CLASS, PARVATIPURAM.

Present :Kum. Vijaya Rameswari I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram

Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019

C.C.No. 707/2017

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram rural Police Station.

......Complainant

And

Vaddi Thavitiraju, S/o.late Satyanarayana, business, aged 50 years, caste by Vysya, D.No.124/14, MR.Nagaram village, Parvathipuram mandal.

....... Accused

This case coming on 25-06-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police,

Parvathipuram rural Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.114/2017 for the offence punishable u/s. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and under section 270, 273 of I.P.C., alleging that

On receipt of reliable information, himself along with his staff HC- 812, PC-1629 were rushed to MR.Nagaram village of Parvathipuram mandal, and conducted raids over the accused as Vaddi Thavitiraju, S/o.late

Satyanarayana pan shops and seized the IMFL bottles i.e., Officers choice-10,

Imperial blue-14, Manson house-3, MC whisky-8 and bears-5 total bottles 40 nos and also seized khainy and gutkhas i.e., Meeraj-1 packet, RK.deluxe-4 packets, Gokul deluxe-6 packets, Safari-1 packets, Deluxe mixer-1 packets and bung-1 packet. Thereafter police questioned the accused whether having any license, but he failed to produce any proper authorization and further the accused stated that two months back he had purchased wine bottles at

Narsipuram wines at Narsipuram village of Parvathipuram mandal and five bears from chowdary wine shop at Belagam of Parvathipuram town and he purchased the above khainy and gutkhas from Odessa state and khaini and gutkhas are illegal selling are prohibited by the State Government of Andhra

Pradesh, nobody came forward to act as mediators, the SI of Police seized the same under the cover of occurrence report and arrested the accused and served notice under section 41 (a) Cr.P.C., and registered as a case in

Cr.No.114/2017 under Section 270, 273 of I.P.C and investigated into. Hence, charge sheet.

2. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, my predecessor took cognizance of the offence

U/s. 270, 273 of I.P.C against the accused.

3.On appearance of the accused before this court, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/s.207

Cr.P.C.,

4.On appearance and consideration, the accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C., and the sum and substance of the charge sheet under

Section 270, 273 of IPC is read over and explained to him in Telugu by my predecessor for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 and M.O.1 to MO.11, on its behalf and the details of which are mentioned hereunder in Appendix of Evidence.

6. On being closed the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances that appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were explained to the accused u/s. 313(1) (b) Cr.P.C, for which the accused denied the incriminating circumstances from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is –

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP.Execise Act and section 270 and 273 of IPC ?

9.To bring home the guilt of accused the prosecution has examined

P.Ws1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 to M.O.11. P.W.1 is

Constable and who assisted the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.2) who conducted the raid and detected the case. P.W.2 is the SI of Police, and

Investigating Officer who went to the scene of offence on reliable information seized the contraband and Khaini, gutka packets under the cover of occurrence report, affixed the identification slips and seized property, arrested the accused, registered the crime, served the notice under Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and filed charge sheet.

10. PW.2 filed charge sheet against the accused under section 270

IPC. Section 270 of IPC speaks that “Malignant Act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life”: whoever malignantly does any Act which is and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to two years or with fine or with both.

11.The ingredients of section 270 IPC is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, accused is not liable for punishment under section 270 of IPC.

12.PW.2 filed charge sheet against the accused under section 273 of IPC

Section 273 IPC speaks that sale of noxious food or drink “ whoever, sells, or offers or exposes of sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in the state of unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either this petition for a term which may extended to six months, or with fine which may extended to one thousand rupees or with both.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is equivalent to the occurrence report and the charge sheet averments. The gist of the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 is that the Parvathipuram rural Police seized contraband and Khani, Gutka packets from the possession of the accused at M.R.Nagaram village, under the cover of occurrence report. When they enquired with him, he disclosed his identity and confessed about the Khaini and Gutkas. The accused further informed the police that he has no license or permission for selling the same. The police informed that selling of noxious food which is prohibited by the

Government is an offence.

13. During the course of cross-examination of P.Ws1 and 2 admitted that they have not mentioned that they tried to secure their mediators. PW.2 admitted in his cross examination that that he had not impleaded the manufacturer of the gutkha and khaini packets as accused in this case. He further admitted that he had not send the Mos.1 to 11 to FSL for chemical examination. On bare perusal of the Ex.P.1 discloses that the police mentioned in the occurrence that there were no mediators available, they drafted the occurrence report.

14.The prosecution failed to mention the names of persons to whom they requested to act mediators in the occurrence report. The signatures of the staff members are not on the identification slips. The Investing officer bound by law to follow the procedure established for search and seizures. There is no mention of such information either in occurrence report or the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The investigating officer ought to have secured independent mediators to make the case of prosecution trustworthy and reliable. The prosecution heavily relied upon the evidence of police persons, who participated in the raid and no other witnesses examined on their behalf.

All the prosecution witnesses are interested in getting success for prosecution. In the absence of presence of independent mediators makes the prosecution case not reliable. The investigating officer did not prepare separate seizure list also. Adecision reported in 1996(6) Crimes 284 (SC),

Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it was held by their Lordship that:

“When no attempt was made to join independent and respectable witness of the locality, the accused was acquitted giving benefit of doubt”

15. The prosecution has relied on the strength of occurrence report which is in the nature of confession statement. It is well settled law that confession made to the police not to be proved and in-admissible in evidence as per sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, the investigating officer acted as complainant on one hand and investigating officer on the other hand. This is the infirmity in the case of prosecution. A decision report in Mohan Lal Vs State of Punjab dated:16.08.2018 vide

Crl.A.No.1880 of 2011.

“The Honourable Court pleased to observe that the informant and the investigation officer must not be the same person. Justice must not be done, but must appears to be done also. Any possibility of bias or predetermined conclusion has to be excluded”.

16.In view of the above said decision of the Honourable Supreme court I, oblige to follow the observation made by the Lordship, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused and accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 34 (a)of AP.Excise Act and sections 270 and 273

IPC.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act and sections 270, 273 of IPC.

Accordingly, he is acquittedunder section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall execute bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) under section 437-

A Cr.P.C., to appear before the appellate court, if any appeal is filed.

MO.1/King fisher bottle, MO.2/ Officer choice whisky bottle, MO.3/Imperial blue, MO.4/Manson house, MO.5/M.C.whisky bottle, MO.6/1-Meeraj khainy packet, MO.7/4-RK deluxe gutkha packets, MO.8/6-Gokul gutkha packets,

MO.9/1-Safari gutkha packet, MO.10/1-Delux mixer gutkha, MO.11/1-Bung packet, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (out sourcing), corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- Kum. Vijaya Rameswari

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1 : G.Ramakrishna, Head Constable - None - P.W.2 : SK.Frakruddian, S.I. of Police, Vizianagaram rural P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution : For Defence

Ex.P.1: Occurrence report dated: 27.7.2017 - Nil- Ex.P.2: Original FIR in Cr.No.114/2017 of Parvathipuram rural PS.,

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1/King fisher bottle MO.2/ Officer choice whisky bottle MO.3/Imperial blue MO.4/Manson house MO.5/M.C.whisky bottle MO.6/1-Meeraj khainy packet MO.7/4-RK deluxe gutkha packets MO.8/6-Gokul gutkha packets MO.9/1-Safari gutkha packet MO.10/1-Delux mixer gutkha MO.11/1-Bung packet,

Sd/- Kum. Vijaya Rameswari

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST

CLASS, PARVATIPURAM.

Present :Kum. Vijaya Rameswari I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram

Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019

C.C.No. 454/2017

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram town Police Station.

......Complainant

And

Varanasi Ramakrishna, S/o.Venkataraju, aged 38 years, cate by Vysya, business (pan shop), D.No.41-826, Balgudaba village, pedda veedhi Mandal.

....... Accused

This case coming on 07-06-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri M.Nagarjun, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police,

Parvathipuram town Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.139/2017 for the offence punishable u/s. 270, 273 of I.P.C., alleging that –

On 5.7.2017 at about 20.00 hrs LW.3 received reliable information about selling khaina gutka at Parvathipuram village, he along with his staff went to Parvathipuram village and reached occurrence place one person tried to escape with one gunny bag, that on suspicion the police party chased him at a distance, that LW.3 questioned the accused about his identity particulars, he disclosed his identity. He confessed that he purchased khynis and gutkhas packets at Rayaghada from unknown person with a view to sell the same in his village. Then found in his possession i.e., 1) RK.Deluxe jarda patti-27 packets, 2) MKP.Gokul deluxe-6 packets, 3) RKP.Deluxe mix zarda patti-4 packets, 4) Saffran blended safari 2000 new pack-12 packets, 5) Gokul deluxe mix-4 packets all worth of Rs.3,810/- and seized the same by LW.3 under the cover of occurrence report attested as nobody came forward as mediators and arrested the accused after informing the reasons for his arrest and 2 served notice under Section 41 (a) Cr.P.C., and registered as a case in

Cr.No.139/2017 under Section 270, 273 of I.P.C and investigated into. Hence, charge sheet.

2. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, my predecessor took cognizance of the offence

U/s. 270, 273 of I.P.C against the accused.

3.On appearance of the accused before this court, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/s.207

Cr.P.C.,

4.On appearance and consideration, the accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C., and the sum and substance of the charge sheet under

Section 270, 273 of IPC is read over and explained to him in Telugu by my predecessor for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 on its behalf and the details of which are mentioned hereunder in Appendix of Evidence.

6. On being closed the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances that appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were explained to the accused u/s. 313(1) (b) Cr.P.C, for which the accused denied the incriminating circumstances from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is –

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 270 and 273 of IPC ?

9.To bring home the guilt of accused the prosecution has examined

P.Ws1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. P.Ws.1 assisted the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.3) who conducted the raid and detected the case. Pw.2 is the

S.I. police who destructed the case property in the presence of mediators under the cover of Ex.P.1. P.W.3 is the SI of Police, and Investigating Officer 3 who went to the scene of offence on reliable information seized the Khaini gutka packets under the cover of occurrence report, affixed the identification slips and seized property, arrested the accused, registered the crime, served the notice under Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and filed charge sheet.

10. PW.3 filed charge sheet against the accused under section 270

IPC. Section 270 of IPC speaks that “Malignant Act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life”: whoever malignantly does any Act which is and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to two years or with fine or with both.

11.The ingredients of section 270 IPC is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, accused is not liable for punishment under section 270 of IPC.

12.PW.3 filed charge sheet against the accused under section 273 of IPC

Section 273 IPC speaks that sale of noxious food or drink “ whoever, sells, or offers or exposes of sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in the state of unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either this petition for a term which may extended to six months, or with fine which may extended to one thousand rupees or with both.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is equivalent to the occurrence report and the charge sheet averments. The gist of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 is that the Parvathipuram town Police seized Khani Gutka packets from the possession of the accused at Parvathipuram village and Mandal, under the cover of occurrence report. When they enquired with him, he disclosed his identity and confessed about the Khaini and Gutkas. The accused further informed the police that he has no license or permission for selling the same.

4

The police informed that selling of noxious food which is prohibited by the

Government is an offence.

13. During the course of cross-examination of P.Ws1 t and 3 admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. They further admitted that the scene of offence is located in a busy place. PW.3 admitted in his cross examination that that he had not impleaded the manufacturer of the gutkha and khaini packets as accused in this case. On bare perusal of the

Ex.P.2 discloses that the police mentioned in the occurrence that there were no mediators available, they drafted the occurrence report.

14.The prosecution failed to mention the names of persons to whom they requested to act mediators in the occurrence report. The signatures of the staff members are not on the identification slips. The Investing officer bound by law to follow the procedure established for search and seizures. There is no mention of such information either in occurrence report or the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The investigating officer ought to have secured independent mediators to make the case of prosecution trustworthy and reliable. The prosecution heavily relied upon the evidence of police persons, who participated in the raid and no other witnesses examined on their behalf.

All the prosecution witnesses are interested in getting success for prosecution. In the absence of presence of independent mediators makes the prosecution case not reliable. The investigating officer did not prepare separate seizure list also. A decision reported in 1996(6) Crimes 284 (SC),

Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it was held by their Lordship that:

“When no attempt was made to join independent and respectable witness of the locality, the accused was acquitted giving benefit of doubt”

15. The prosecution has relied on the strength of occurrence report which is in the nature of confession statement. It is well settled law that confession made to the police not to be proved and in-admissible in evidence as per sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, the investigating officer acted as complainant on one hand and investigating 5 officer on the other hand. This is the infirmity in the case of prosecution. A decision report in Mohan Lal Vs State of Punjab dated:16.08.2018 vide

Crl.A.No.1880 of 2011

“The Honourable Court pleased to observe that the informant and the investigation officer must not be the same person. Justice must not be done, but must appears to be done also. Any possibility of bias or predetermined conclusion has to be excluded”.

16.In view of the above said decision of the Honourable Supreme court I, oblige to follow the observation made by the Lordship, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused and accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 270 and 273 IPC.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 270, 273 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquittedunder section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall execute bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) under section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before the appellate court, if any appeal is filed. The EX.P.1 is the mediator report prepared by Pw.2 to destruct the case property in the presence of mediators.

Hence no property order is pronounced.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (out sourcing), corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- Kum. Vijaya Rameswari

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1 : T.Sambamurthy, H.C., Parvathipuram town P.S. -

None -

P.W.2 : U.Mahesh, S.I., of police, Parvathipuram town P.S.

P.W.3 : M.Rajesh, SI of Police, Komarada P.S.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution : For Defence

Ex.P.1: Mediators report along with photos and CD.

Ex.P.2: Occurrence report dated: 5.7.2017 - Nil-

Ex.P.2: Original FIR in Cr.No.139/2017 of Parvathipuram PS., 6

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/- Kum. Vijaya Rameswari

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST

CLASS, PARVATIPURAM.

Present :Kum. Vijaya Rameswari I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram

Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019

C.C.No. 338/2016

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram town Police Station.

......Complainant

And

Gembali Durga Rao, S/o.Krishnarao, aged 52 years, caste by Vysya, D.No.22-65 E, business, Baratam veedhi, Parvathipuram town.

....... Accused

This case coming on 25-06-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri S.Uma Maheswara Rao, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police,

Parvathipuram town Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.171/2016 for the offence punishable u/s. 270, 273 of I.P.C., alleging that –

On 5.11.2016 at about 12.30 hrs on information that tobacco products such as pan masala and gutkha packets, which causes danger to human life, are selling, LW.3 along with his staff LWs.1 and 2 when reached railway station, Parvathipuram town and noticed the accused carrying with two bags with his both hands, and on seeing the police party the accused tried to ran away, thereupon excise officials chased and caught hold the accused and questioned his identity particulars as Gembali Durgarao,

S/o.krishnarao. He further stated that he purchased the Maruthi special khaini in Rayaghada and brought the same to Parvathipuram with a view to sell the same in the town and while he was brining the gutkha packets he was caught by the police, when police verified the bags and found i.e.,

Maruthi special khaini 100 packets all worth of Rs.5000/-, nobody came forward to act as mediators, the SI of Police seized the same under the cover of occurrence report and arrested the accused and served notice under section 41 (a) Cr.P.C., and registered as a case in Cr.No.171/2016 under

Section 270, 273 of I.P.C and investigated into. Hence, charge sheet.

2. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, my predecessor took cognizance of the offence

U/s. 270, 273 of I.P.C against the accused.

3.On appearance of the accused before this court, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/s.207

Cr.P.C.,

4.On appearance and consideration, the accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C., and the sum and substance of the charge sheet under

Section 270, 273 of IPC is read over and explained to him in Telugu by my predecessor for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 and P-2 and M.O.1 on its behalf and the details of which are mentioned hereunder in Appendix of Evidence.

6. On being closed the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances that appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were explained to the accused u/s. 313(1) (b) Cr.P.C, for which the accused denied the incriminating circumstances from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is –

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 270 and 273 of IPC ?

9.To bring home the guilt of accused the prosecution has examined

P.Ws1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 and M.O.1. P.W.1 and Pw.2

Constablea who assisted the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.3) who conducted the raid and detected the case. P.W.3 is the SI of Police, and Investigating

Officer who went to the scene of offence on reliable information seized the

Khaini gutka packets under the cover of occurrence report, affixed the identification slips and seized property, arrested the accused, registered the crime, served the notice under Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and filed charge sheet.

10. PW.3 filed charge sheet against the accused under section 270

IPC. Section 270 of IPC speaks that “Malignant Act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life”: whoever malignantly does any Act which is and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to two years or with fine or with both.

11.The ingredients of section 270 IPC is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, accused is not liable for punishment under section 270 of IPC.

12.PW.3 filed charge sheet against the accused under section 273 of IPC

Section 273 IPC speaks that sale of noxious food or drink “ whoever, sells, or offers or exposes of sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in the state of unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either this petition for a term which may extended to six months, or with fine which may extended to one thousand rupees or with both.

The evidence of P.Ws.1to 3 is equivalent to the occurrence report and the charge sheet averments. The gist of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 is that the Parvathipuram town Police seized Khani Gutka packets from the possession of the accused at Parvathipuram village and Mandal, under the cover of occurrence report. When they enquired with him, he disclosed his identity and confessed about the Khaini and Gutkas. The accused further informed the police that he has no license or permission for selling the same.

The police informed that selling of noxious food which is prohibited by the

Government is an offence.

13. During the course of cross-examination of P.Ws1 to 3 admitted that they have not mentioned that they tried to secure their mediators. PW.3 admitted in his cross examination that that he had not impleaded the manufacturer of the gutkha and khaini packets as accused in this case. He further admitted that he had not send the Mos.1 to FSL for chemical examination. On bare perusal of the Ex.P.1 discloses that the police mentioned in the occurrence that there were no mediators available, they drafted the occurrence report.

14.The prosecution failed to mention the names of persons to whom they requested to act mediators in the occurrence report. The signatures of the staff members are not on the identification slips. The Investing officer bound by law to follow the procedure established for search and seizures. There is no mention of such information either in occurrence report or the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The investigating officer ought to have secured independent mediators to make the case of prosecution trustworthy and reliable. The prosecution heavily relied upon the evidence of police persons, who participated in the raid and no other witnesses examined on their behalf.

All the prosecution witnesses are interested in getting success for prosecution. In the absence of presence of independent mediators makes the prosecution case not reliable. The investigating officer did not prepare separate seizure list also. In a decision reported 1996(6) Crimes 284 (SC),

Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it was held by their Lordship that:

“When no attempt was made to join independent and respectable witness of the locality, the accused was acquitted giving benefit of doubt”

15. The prosecution has relied on the strength of occurrence report which is in the nature of confession statement. It is well settled law that confession made to the police not to be proved and in-admissible in evidence as per sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, the investigating officer acted as complainant on one hand and investigating officer on the other hand. This is the infirmity in the case of prosecution.In a decision report Mohan Lal Vs State of Punjab dated:16.08.2018 vide

Crl.A.No.1880 of 2011.

“The Honourable Court pleased to observe that the informant and the investigation officer must not be the same person. Justice must not be done, but must appears to be done also. Any possibility of bias or predetermined conclusion has to be excluded”.

16.In view of the above said decision of the Honourable Supreme court I, oblige to follow the observation made by the Lordship, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused and accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 270 and 273 IPC.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 270, 273 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquittedunder section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall execute bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) under section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before the appellate court, if any appeal is filed. The M.O.1/ Sabka Malik Ek Maruti special khaine 100 packets, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (out sourcing), corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Sd/-Kum. Vijaya Rameswari

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1 : Alluri Atchutarao, Constable - None -

P.W.2 : B.Jagadeesh Constable, Parvathiuram town P.S.

P.W.3 : M.Rajesh, S.I. of Police, Komarada P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution : For Defence

Ex.P.1: Occurrence report dated: 05.11.2016 - Nil-

Ex.P.2: Original FIR in Cr.No.171/2016 of Parvathipuram town PS.,

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1/ Sabka Malik Ek Maruti special khaine 100 packets

Sd/-Kum. Vijaya Rameswari

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram