Maddiboyina Sailaja

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT TIRUVUR

Present: Sri S.Damodara Rao, M.A.LL.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tuesday, this the 28th day of June, 2016.

O. S. No. 209 of 2011

Between:­

Boddu Navamani Raju s/o Israel, 60 years,Hindu, R/o Cheemalapadu in A.Konduru Mandal, Presently Residing at Bapulapadu in Bapulapadu Mandal. …Plaintiff.

And

1.Janga Daveedu s/o Pullaiah, aged 30 years, R/o Cheemalapadu, A.Konduru Mandal, Tiruvuru 2.Janga Israel, s/o Dharmaiah, aged 50 years, R/o Cheemalapadu, A.Konduru Mandal, Tiruvuru

...Defendants.

This suit is coming on 14.6.2016 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri U.Nagaprasad, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri A.Prabhakarareddy, Advocate for the Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1)This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for Permanent Injunction restraining the 

Defendants, their men and agents from ever interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner what so ever; costs of the suit and among other reliefs.

2) The brief facts of the Plaint are that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of 

Ac.0­60 cents in R.S.NO.733/2 and Ac.0­64 cents in R.S.No.733/4 of 

Cheemalapadu village and the same is described in the plaint schedule as items 1 and 2. The plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of plaintiff. The plaintiff got the schedule property in the oral partition which is taken place about 40 years back towards his share. Plaintiff is given pattadar pass book and title deed pass book by the revenue officials, and he has been paying land revenue due to the Government on the land. As the plaint schedule property is wrongly classified as A.W.D in revenue records the plaintiff was given “D” form patta by the revenue officials after discussing the matter before assignment committee during 1973. plaintiff also raised mango garden in the plaint schedule property and the same is now aged about 40 years. The ''D'' form patta and ryot enjoyment (pattadar pass book) issued in the name of plaintiff are mis­placed. The plaintiff was also given ryot pass book on 30.10.1979 by the then revenue officials. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property in his own right. He further submitted that the defendants are nothing to do with the plaint schedule property but they are making attempts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property. The defendants are having their land on the 

East and South of item No.1 of plaint schedule property. The defendant No.2 is 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

2 having his land on the West of item No.2 of the schedule property. The defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff applied for survey by paying challan dt.11.3.2008 and the Mandal Surveyor came and measure the plaint schedule property. The defendants are kept quite for all these years and on 13.11.2011 they plucked survey stones at item No.1 of plaint schedule property and took away the same and again they are making attempts to encroach in to plaint schedule property on 16.11.2011 but for the timely intervention of plaintiff, they left from the place. 

Hence, this suit. 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

3

3) Summons were caused on Defendants and defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement, and they denied all the material averments in the plaint and submitted that the first item of the suit schedule land which is an extent of 0­ 60 cents has been in possession and enjoyment of the first defendant since thirty years. The first item of the schedule land belongs to the Government, the first defendant occupied the land about thirty years back and after that he converted the land into cultivable land by spending amount and he planted mango trees about 25 years back and now 14 mango trees are present in the said land. It is submitted on southern side to the first item of the plaint schedule, the land of D1, which is an extent of Ac.1.01 cents was present and there is no boundary bund between these two items. The first defendant further submitted that he gifted the 1st item of plaint schedule land in favour of Janga Kishore Kumar s/o Pullaiah R/o 

Cheemalapadu through a registered gift deed dt.3.2.2009, the said registered gift deed was accepted by donee and now he is in possession and enjoyment of first item of the suit schedule land and the said Janga Kishore Kumar is in possession and enjoyment of the land and he is raising dry crops like Greengram and redgram. The government of Andhra Pradesh was accepted the possession of the first item of the schedule land and issued D­form patta in favour of 1st defendant in the year 2005 and also issued pattadar pass book. Defendant No.1 paid land valuation to the Government. The boundaries to the first item of the plaint schedule land is not correct. The western boundary to the first item of the plaint schedule land is not correct. The correct boundary is canal and not the land of 

Patapanchala Koteswararao. The Northern boundary to the first item of the plaint schedule land is Budugu Venkaiah and not Boddu Israel as alleged in the schedule. 

It is further submitted that the second item of the plaint schedule land which is an extent of 0­64 cents of land was in possession and enjoyment of 2nd defendant, since 35 years. The item No.2 of plaint schedule land belongs to 

Government, 2nd defendant occupied the said extent about 35 years back and converted the land into cultivable land by spending amount. After that 2nd 

Defendant planted mango trees in the second item of the plaint schedule land about 30 years back. The said land is not suitable for cultivation. Three mango trees are alive in the land. 2nd defendant using the second item of the plaint schedule land as pasture land. The Government of Andhra Pradesh accepted the possession of Defendant No.2 in second item of plaint schedule land and issued ''D''­form patta in the year 2005. The revenue records shown the possession, right and enjoyment of the 2nd defendant in second item of the plaint schedule land. It is further submitted that Janga Kishore Kumar, who is in possession and enjoyment of the first item of plaint schedule land, mortgaged the land in favour of PACS, Cheemalapadu village and obtained loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ and 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

4 purchased an auto. The revenue records shown the possession and enjoyment of the first item of the plaint schedule property of the first defendant till 3.2.2009 and after that possession of Janga Kishore Kumar. There is no cause of action to file this suit, and plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land and he never resided in Cheemalapadu village. Hence they prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. 

4) After hearing the counsel for both parties, basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed by my predecessor in Office for determination: 

i) Whether the Plaintiff' is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled permanent injunction against the

defendants as prayed for?

iii) To what relief?

5) Heard both Counsel. 

6) The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff having land in R.S.No.733/2 an extent of Ac.0.60 cents, and in R.S.No.733/4 in an extent of Ac.64 cents of Chemalapadu village. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property inherited from his fore father, after abolition of 

Jamindari system. The land was surveyed in the year 1960 in those days mistakenly the revenue authorities classified said property as AWD land, since there is no other go to rectify the mistake of the revenue people, subsequently issued ''D''­form patta to the plaintiff in the year 1979 and also issued Ryothvari  enjoyment pattadar pass book, from that day onwards the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The defendants, who are no way concerned with the plaint schedule property, they tried to occupy the same and also Ex.B5 gift deed executed by first defendant in favour of one Israel by creating the entires of ''D''­form patta in his favour, which is not alienable, except enjoy the same under D­form patta. He further argued that the defendants claiming their right only in R.S.No.733/4, but not in R.S.No.733/2 and patta whichever placed by defendant No.2 is inserted his name by re­written after wipe out the old name, 

So it is not genuine document and defendant No.2 also has no right and possession over the plaint schedule property in item No.2 of the property and prayed to pass Injunction orders in favour of the plaintiff.

7) The learned counsel for the defendants has argued that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and they partitioned their properties at about 40 years back and it was wrongly classified as AWD land and 

Government issued patta to the plaintiff and it was misplaced by him are all not correct. He further argued that the plaintiff is no way concerned to the plaint 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

5 schedule property and his brother is also who is examined as Pw.2 is not cultivating said land. Even if the plaintiff placed the documents as the 

Government issued ''D''­form patta in the name of the plaintiff, he never chooses to cultivate the land and violated the conditions of the patta issued to him. 

Thereafter, the Government authorities issued ''D''­form patta to the defendants, thereafter the plaintiff did make any appeal against ''D''­form patta issued to the defendants and also plaintiff has been residing at Vijayawada, he never cultivated the said land and not in his possession from the date of alleged ''D''­form patta. He further argued that the plaintiff is an employee worked as teacher, the 

Government employee is not entitled to obtain ''D''­form patta and also the first defendant executed a gift deed for the said property in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in the name of J.Kishore Kumar, the said Kishore kumar is not a party to the suit and suit is bad for non­joinder of necessary party.

8) He further argued that the evidence of pws.1 and 2 are not revealed the cause of action. According to Pw.2 the plaintiff gave Power of Attorney on that he cultivating the plaint schedule property, but said Power of Attorney was not filed by Pw.2. According to Mandal Revenue Officer, who examined as Pw.3 one 

J.Daveedu(D1) name was available in 1­B register for item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. So the plaintiff failed to establish his case against the defendants and even if the ''D''­form patta issued for the same property in the name of the defendants, the plaintiff did not approach to the higher revenue authorities by raising his objections. In such circumstances the equitable relief of injunction cannot be granted in favour of plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the suit.

9) In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as Pw.1 and Ex.A1 to A10 are marked. The brother of plaintiff is examined as Pw.2, and Mandal Revenue Officer examined as Pw.3. on behalf of defendants First defendant examined as Dw.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 are marked. 

Second defendant examined as Dw.2 and marked Exs.B6 to B9.

10) Coming to the evidence of plaintiff, the plaintiff examined as Pw.1 deposed by supporting his contention of his pleadings that he is an absolute owner of an extent of Ac.0.60 cents dry land in R.S.No.733/2, and Ac.0.64 cents in R.S.No.733/4 a mango garden is available in the plaint schedule property. 

Plaint schedule property is the Ryothvari land, it is wrongly classified as AWD land in the Revenue records, after noticing the same by concerned authorities they issued ''D''­form patta in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1973 and pattadar pass book issued in the year 1979 and also Ryoth pass book in his name. The second defendant, who is having his land on the East of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and also West of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, though they are nothing to do with the plaint schedule property by taking advantage of 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

6 his absence in the village, in the year 2008 they are making attempts to encroach into plaint schedule property, he paid chalana to the surveyor he measured and affixed the survey stones, but the defendants plucked out the same timely intervening of the villages, they are challenging to the plaintiff's, the plaintiff converted said land as cultivable land even though the defendants deposing that they converted the same as cultivatable land.

During his cross examination it was revealed that the plaintiff is resident of 

Bapulapadu and he did his served as a teacher for 30 years in different places of said Mandal now he is retired. It was further revealed that earlier they resided at 

Chemalapadu at about 50 years back along with his parents and brother, now the house of his brother is not available at Chemalapadu village. According to Pw.1 his father worked as Pastor and he acquired property Ac.4.00 cents at Kanumolu, 

Bapulapadu Mandal, their joint family properties was partitioned at about 10 years back by executing registered deed. It was further revealed that their land available at Chemalapadu an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in R.S.No.733/2 and to an extent of Ac.0.64 cents in R.S.No.733/4, but he did not remember the boundaries of said land, as he has no need to visit the land except his brother Yohan used to work on that land, his brother also worked as teacher and retired as teacher from his service and residing at Vijayawada. But he did not know, whether his brother 

Yohan residing at Chemalapdu or not.

11)It is the version of the plaintiff the plaint schedule property is the ''D''form patta land, his brother looking said land. The father of the plaintiff having Ac.2.50 cents adjacent to the plaint schedule property at Cheemalapadu, till the said land is in his possession and he does not know the direction of their property to an extent of Ac.1.24 cents of his land since the said property was acquired by his father. According to the evidence of pw.1 he never proceeded to the plaint schedule property except his brother Yohan looking of those things. According to pw.1 item No.1 of the plaint schedule property consisting Mango garden aged about 40 years in an extent of Ac.0.60 cents of land, the said trees planted by his brother. He denied the rest of the suggestions posed by the learned counsel for the defendants and also he denied the suit schedule property is the Government land.

12)According to pw.1 during lifetime of his father at about 50 years back he resided at Chemalapadu, thereafter he never resides at that place. It was further revealed that after issuance of D­form patta to the defendants his brother made an application to the revenue authorities to cancel the D­form patta issued in favour of the defendants and he does not know subsequent events.

13) The Pw.2, who is the brother of Pw.1 deposed by supporting the contention of the plaintiff according to him their land situated in R.S.No.733/1, 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

7 733/2 and 733/4 total extent is Ac.2.50 cents they have no house at 

Chemalapadu, Pw.2 have been residing at Vijayawada from the year 1972 onwards. Pw.2 further, deposed that he do not know whether their ancestral property documents to an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in R.S.No.733/2 and an extent of Ac.0.64 cents in R.S.No.733/4 of Chemalapadu is available or not and it was further revealed according to revenue records the said land is Government land and classified as AWD land. They did not file any suit before the court to say that said land is not a the Government land. Admittedly the plaintiff and Pw.2 worked as teachers and retired from their services and they left over from Chemalapadu in the year 1972, in those days around 1973 the Government issued ''D''­form patta to his father and in favour of plaintiff and his father raised dry crops in the year 1975. The evidence of Pw.2 revealed that his brother preferred an appeal 

before Revenue Divisional Officer under ROR Act stating that fake 'D'­form patta 

issued in the name of defendants and prayed to cancel the said ''D''­form patta issued in the year 2005. The said appeal preferred by the plaintiff in the year 2010 and the same is still pending. He further deposed that said 13 to 14 Mango trees consisting in an extent of Ac.0.60 cents of land in item No.1 of plaint schedule property and 3 or 4 of Mango trees in item NO.2 of plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiff it was pleaded that they are raised the Mango trees in the ''D''­form patta issued in the name of their father and plaintiff.

14) The first defendant examined as Dw.1 according to him the item No.1 of plaint schedule property belongs to Government and he occupied the same and converted into cultivable land by spending amount and planted Mango trees, the revenue authorities issued ''D''form patta by recognizing him and he is in possession of the said property to that effect he placed Ex.B1 to B5 documents.

15)The second defendant examined as Dw.2, he deposed that the item No.2 of plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.64 cents is in his possession and enjoyment since 35 years, originally it was belongs to the Government, he occupied the said property and covered into cultivable land by spending some amount by recognizing the same the revenue authorities issued D­form patta in the name of defendant No.2.

16)During the cross examination Dw.1 it was revealed that the concerned revenue authorities not issued legal notice to him under Section 7 of Land 

Encroachment Act, calling him why should not be evict from the land. Dw.1 admitted that he did not pay the cist to that land according to him his name was inserted in the year 2008, but prior to 2009 there is no documentary proof, he made an application to the revenue authorities for issuance of patta in his name. 

After 6 months of his application the revenue authorities issued patta in his favour in the year 2005, after filing of this suit Dw.1 came to know that the plaintiff was 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

8 given a Ryoth pass book in the year 1979 for the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. He admitted that the Ex.A1 itself appears for R.S.No.733/2 and 733/4 the plaintiff was given title deed, pattadar pass book and in column No.5 of Ex.A1 shows as Anuvamsikam. After came to the knowledge about Ex.A1 he did not made application before Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of Ex.A1. 

According to pw.1 the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is belongs to second defendant, the second defendant is occupied Ac.0.64 cents of land in item 

No.2 of the plaint schedule property. The evidence of P.W.1 further revealed that the cheemalapadu village is earlier Zamindar village, after cancellation of 

Zamindari system the survey and settlement operations was conducted in that area in between 1958­60. it was further revealed that D.W.1 does not know item 

No.1 & 2 of plaint schedule property was obtained by the plaintiff from his predecessor by paying Nazarana to the then Zamindar. He admitted that if the land covered in R.S.No.733/2 is Government land, there is no facility to executing a registered instrument, but he executed Ex.B5 in favour of one Kishore Kumar stating that the said property is his ancestral property and patta land without referring the ''D''form patta. He admitted that Ex.B2 is not disclosing the boundaries of land alloted in R.S.No.733/2 and surveyor did not come to their village and deliver the possession of the said land covered under Ex.B2. According to Dw.1 after registering the Ex.B5 in favour of his younger brother, he did not take any care of said land covered under Ex.B5 in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property.

17) During the cross examination of Dw.2 it is revealed that he is an illiterate and he further admitted that his name available on Ex.B6 patta seems to be over written by wipe off the earlier name on it., and also he denied the rest of the suggestions posed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

18) As seen from the evidence of both parties pw.1 contended that it is belongs to his ancestral property, but he admitted that the said property was shown as AWD land according to him ''D''­form patta was issued in the name of plaintiff, but said ''D''­form patta was not placed in this suit proceedings except 

Ex.A1 title deed pass book and Ex.A2 certified copy of Adangal and land receipt dt.9.3.2007 and 25.12.1995 and also he filed the Adangal Pahani for the Faslies 1422, 1423 for the item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property, for the same schedule property is the first defendant obtained ''D''form patta in the year 2005, after came to the knowledge of the same to the plaintiff he did not approach to the Revenue Authorities to cancel ''D''form patta issued to the defendant No.1 or the defendant No.1 not approached to the concerned revenue authorities to cancel the D­form patta earlier issued to the plaintiff.

19)The both parties are claiming that they are having possession of the plaint 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

9 schedule property by placing the cist receipts and admittedly the plaintiff is not residing in the village where the suit schedule property is situated. According to pw.1 his brother is looking after the property on his behalf, but his brother, who examined as Pw.2 also deposed that he worked as teacher and retired from service and residing at Vijayawada, but not at Chemalapadu. So, the evidence of Pw.1 and 2 all intuit itselfobvious that either the plaintiff or to his elder brother, who examined as Pw.2 are not residing their village where the property is situated.

20) It is the contention of the plaintiff is that after he obtained D­form patta he got job and worked in different places of Bapulapadu Mandal during his absence the defendants tried to occupy their land by placing false documents. 

Where in the defendants stating that they made it suitable to the cultivation of said land and planted the Mango trees, on application made by them the 

Government recognized their possession and issued D­form patta in their favour. 

During the cross­examination of Dw.2 and on close scrutinizing the documents placed by the defendants, it is obvious that Ex.B1 is the pass book issued by 

Mandal Revenue Officer, A.Konduru in R.S.NO.735/1 to an extent of Ac.1.01 cents which is not disputed by the plaintiff, but not to the schedule property situated in 

R.S.No.733/2 and 733/4. The Ex.B1 itself revealed that in R.S.No. 733/2 is the dry land in an extent of Ac.0.60 cents shown in Ex.B1 and it was closed by roundup, wherein Ex.B2 itself shows that it was issued in the name of 1st defendant, but the boundaries of the property was not revealed in Ex.B2. 

According to Dw.1 after 6 months of his application the Revenue Authorities issued D­form patta in the year 2005, he made an application to the Mandal 

Revenue Officer for delivery of the possession of the said land covered under 

Ex.B2, but the surveyor did not come to their village and deliver the possession of the land. So, the possession handed over by the Revenue Authorities basing on 

Ex.B2 to an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in R.S.NO.733/2 is doubtful. But he placed 

Ex.B3 and B4 cist receipts for the Fasali 1416 i.e for the year 2006. Ex.B5 itself shows that the first defendant executed a registered gift deed in favour of his brother Janga Kishore Kumar for item No.1 of the suit schedule property, stating that said property was inherited from his fore fathers. Wherein Ex.B2 itself shows it is D­form patta land.

21)it is not the out of place to note it that Under section 5 (2) of the A.P 

Assigned land (Prohibition and Transfers) Act 1977, Not withstanding anything in the registration act 1908, no Registering Officer shall accept for registration of any document relating to the transfer of or creation of any interest in any assignee lands, except after obtaining prior permission of the Collector or any other authorised officer not below the rank of a Mandal Revenue Officer, under section 5(1) of the act. It is not the case of the first defendant that he obtained permission 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

10 from authorized revenue officer under section 5(1) of the A.P Assigned land (Prohibition and Transfers) Act 1977 to transfer the item No.1 of plaint schedule land to the Kishore Kumar under Ex.B5 registered gift deed.

22) The Dw.2 placed relevant document i.e. Ex.A6 to show that he is in possession of the said property in R.S.No.733/4 to an extent of Ac.0.64 cents, in his cross­examination he admitted that his name was re­written on concerned column, on close scrutinizing the Ex.A6 it is obvious that the name of 2nd defendant Israel was appears re­writing after wiped off the earlier name available in that column. He placed Ex.B7 cist receipt of Faslies 1397­1398, i.e. for the year 1987­88 as he paid the cist for R.S.No.733/4, 734,748 and 736/6, but where in Ex.A6 itself issued in the year 2005. So Ex.A6 D­form patta itself seems to be manipulated. As seen from Ex.B8 cist receipt belongs to in the year 1990 the name of 2nd defendant was mentioned by strut out the earlier name on the receipt. 

The Ex.B9 concerned it was issued dt.8.3.1990, but it seems to be in R.S.733/4 was added later the said variation appearing in the writing of ink. So Government issued patta to 2nddefendant to an extent of Ac.0.64 cents in R.S.No.733/4 is doubtful.

23) Now coming to the documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff he placed Ex.A1 is the title deed issued in the name of the plaintiff in R.S.NO.733/2, 733/4 to an extent of Ac.0.60 cents and Ac.0.64 cents respectfully. It was issued on 31.12.2001 and he placed the Ryoth pass book issued by the then Revenue 

Inspector for the same R.S Numbers, the same is admitted by the defendants and it was not marked, Since the learned counsel for the defendants raised objection said Ryoth pass books are not in existence from long back and after existence of pattadar pass books they are not issuing. In view of the oral objection as said ryoth pass books are not in existence presently, it was not marked and available in the file and it cannot be looked into. Exs.A2 and A3 fair Adangal copies itself shows that the name of the plaintiff in R.S.NO.733/1, in the name of B.Israel, who is the father of the plaintiff, in R.S.NO.733/2 and 733/4 in the name of the plaintiff B.Nava Mani Raju to an extent of Ac.0.60 cents and Ac.064 cents respectively. The Ex.A4 is the cist receipt for the Fasalies 1411 to 1416 i.e. 2001 to 2006. Ex.A5 is the cist receipt for the fasalies 1402 to 1405 i.e. for the 1992 to 1995 and Ex.A6 is the Adangal Pahani obtained through M­seva which shows the name of the plaintiff in R.S.NO.733/2 to an extent of Ac.060 cents i.e. item No.1 of the plaint schedule property the same is revealed in Ex.A6 Adangal Pahani for the Fasali 1422 which shows the name of the plaintiff as enjoyer to an extent of 

Ac.0.60 cents in R.S.NO.733/2 the same is disclosed in Ex.A7 for the Fasali 1423 and Ex.A8 for the Fasali 1420 and in Ex.A9 for the Fasali 1421, but the 

R.S.NO.733/4 is concerned not whispered in Exs.A6 to A9.

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

11

24) If the plaintiff having right over the property in R.S.733/4 as contended by him and his patta was canelled by the Revenue Authorities why he did not make any representation to the concerned authorities by way of appeal or made 

Revision before concerned authorities till today is unexplained by him, but during the cross­examination of pw.1 it was revealed that his brother made an appeal where in pw.2 deposed that the pw.1 appealed before Revenue authorities and the same is pending till today, but the proof of the said pending proceedings was not filed by either pw.1 or pw.2 to say that they proceeded to the higher Revenue 

Authorities for cancellation of their patta and issued in the name of the first defendant.

25) As seen from the documents placed by the plaintiff Exs.A1 to A3 disclosing the both R.S. Nos.733/2 and 733/4 that the property was given to the plaintiff and his father where in Ex.A5 cist receipt itself disclosing patta No.1284 said patta 

No.1284 was revealed in the Ex.A2 and A3 fair Adangal copies as it belongs to plaintiff in R.S.Nos.733/2,733/4. The Exs.B7 to B9 is also disclosing the patta 1284, so the defendant No.2 seems to be created Exs.B7 to 9 with ante­dates and years and after tampered the name column on Ex.A6.

26)Admittedly it is the Government land the plaintiff did not make any appeal or Revision before concerned authority. As per material available on record the revenue authorities are not issued notice to either of the party u/s.7 of A.P Land 

Encroachment Act,1905 or before canceling the D­form patta of plaintiff stating that he violated the condition number 1 & 2 of D­form patta and not cultivating the land and also the plaintiff is a teacher in those circumstances, even if the D­ form patta issued to the plaintiff during his unemployment period as pleaded by the plaintiff, after he got teacher job, it is for the concerned revenue authorities to take necessary steps, but no further steps taken by the then revenue people, the reasons best known to them and it is left over to the revenue authorities.

27) In order to clear off the ambiguous clouds the plaintiff examined Pw.3 

Mandal Revenue Officer, according to the evidence of MRO she filed Ex.A11 compared copy of notice dt.10.3.2015 issued to one B.Yohan by the pre­decessor in office of pw.3 and also filed the said notice copy issued to Sub­Registrar dt.8.5.2012 it is marked as Ex.A12 and also on 24.9.2012 the M.R.O office received a letter from the District Registrar, Vijayawada said compared copy marked as Ex.A13, the another letter addressed by their office to the office of 

R.D.O Nuzvid on 1.3.2013 said compared copy is marked as Ex.A14, and the copy of 1­B register related to patta No.1585 filed and marked as Ex.A15, itself shows that one J.Daveedu (D1) is the pattadar in respect of item No.1 of plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.060 cents in R.S.733/2 of Chemalapadu and the evidence of pw.3 further revealed that 1­B register patta No.1712 which ever 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

12 produced from the office of Tahsildar is kept blank marked as Ex.A16. In­cross examination of pw.3 it was revealed as per the record the patta No.1512 and 1518 are AWD lands, the revenue department have all powers over the AWD land. 

As per their records R.S.No.733/2 to an extent of Ac.0.60 cents issued D­form patta in favour of 1st defendant. As per the record, she cannot say whether the patta No.1712 given to D­form patta to any person or not. So, the R.S.No.733/4 to an extent of Ac.0.64 cents is no clarity in 1­B register, but as per Ex.B6 which appears as tampered the name column by wiping off earlier name and name of 2nd defendant appears. As discussed supra this court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that Ex.B6 D­form patta is seems to be name column wiped off and name of 2nd defendant is inserted.

28) It is admitted fact that as per the contentions of both parties the said property covered under R.S.Nos.733/2 and 733/4 are the AWD land the 

Government is paramount owner. As seen from Ex.B6 onwards it seems to be tampered by defendant No.2 by claiming right of Ac.64 cents over the property covered in R.S.NO.733/4 i.e. item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. Wherein 1st defendant claiming the property over the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in R.S.NO.733/2 of Cheemalapadu village. 

After came to the knowledge of plaintiff about the issuance of Ex.B2 patta by concerned revenue authorities and after execution of Ex.B5 registered gift deed by 1st defendant in favour of Kishore Kumar, the plaintiff did not approach to the revenue higher authorities or did not make any application to the issuing authorities about the Ex.B5 registered gift deed.

29)Admittedly the plaintiff is not attending to cultivate the land. In order to show the possession of the D­form patta holder he has to cultivate the said land within 3 years from the date of its issuance and also it should not be alienate to any others except enjoy the same by him and his children, and also the D­form holder has to pay the ground rent imposed by revenue authorities timely. The plaintiff evidence itself reveals that he is not attending the agricultural operations in the land covered under R.S.No.733/2 and 733/4 in such circumstances the 

Mandal Revenue Officer is the competent authority to order resumption in case of breach of conditions of D­form patta.

30) According to Section 4 of A.P Assigned lands (POT) Act 1977 the collector or authorized officer not below the rank of Mandal Revenue Officer is the competent to Resumption the assigned lands, if the Assignee committed breach of conditions mentioned therein section 3 of the act, after issuance of written notice and can be reassign said resumed land to other eligible land less poor person.

31) If a person is in possession of the land for more than 30 years prior to commencement of the Act he acquires perfect title by adverse possession against Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

13 the Government, but in this suit before commencement of the A.P Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977, none of the parties having possession of suit schedule property more than 30 years. Under Section 4 of A.P Assigned lands(Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977, the Mandal Revenue Officer can take possession of assigned lands in case of transfer under clause (1) of Section 3 of the Act, after evicting the person in possession and restore the same to the original assignee or his legal heir in this suit.

32) Even though Pws.1 and 2 stated that they made appeal before higher revenue authorities, said appeal is pending, but no proof is placed by them to say that appeal is pending. On the other hand the defendants also not placed any proof that there is no appeal pending before higher Revenue authorities and also the first defendant not obtained permission from the Collector or any authorized revenue officer to transfer the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in favour of one Kishore Kumar by way of Ex.B5 registered gift deed. It is the duty of the revenue officials to take action against the persons having 'D'­form patta by the time of transferred or sold away said property to others, it was left to the revenue authorities, but there are no orders from the higher revenue authorities filed by either of the party, if said orders placed by either of the party this court cannot pass injunction orders in favour of the plaintiff, but none of the parties placed any orders in this suit proceedings from revenue appellate authority or revenue officer having power of revision.

33)In this suit either plaintiff or defendants are not seeking any relief against the Government. Admittedly it is D­form patta land, but the plaintiff is not cultivating the said land from the long back and it is appears that the defendant 

No.1 occupied and obtained D­form patta in his favour, Ex.B6 is the D­form patta placed by the first defendant is doubtful. Since the name column of Ex.B6 is rubbed off and name of the 2nd defendant is re­written and cist receipt placed by defendant No.2 is unbelievable and said receipts also seems to be tampered by mentioning the patta number in the old receipts and placed before this court and also the plaintiff did not place any orders from the revenue authorities or revenue delusional authorities to say that his earlier patta was restored in his name. In such circumstances till the orders of competent revenue authorities placed by either of the party the plaintiff cannot ask the injunction order against 1st defendant and 2nd defendant concerned the documents placed by him are tampered. The Ex.A11 to A14 correspondence itself obvious that the Mandal revenue officer recommended for canceling the Ex.B5 gift deed, but whether 

Ex.B5 canceled or not is in ambiguity. In those circumstances this court has no other go to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief against 1st defendant for the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and he is 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

14 entitled for relief against 2nd defendant for item No.2 of the plaint schedule property until orders passed by the competent revenue authority, on application made by either of the party. Accordingly, issues 1 to 3 are answered.

34)In the result, suit is partly decreed by way of granting injunction in favor of 

Plaintiff against the Defendant No.2, their men, agents and henchmen, from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of item No.2 of plaint schedule Property, till concerned revenue authority taken appropriate steps against the item I & II of plaint schedule property. The suit against 1st defendant in respect of item No.1 of plaint schedule property is dismissed. In view of circumstances of this suit, both parties are directed to bear their own costs. 

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

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of June, 2016.

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tiruvuru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW­1: Sri.Boddu Navamani Raju, DW­1:Sri. J.Daveedu, 

PW­2: Sri.Boddu Yohan, DW­2:Sri.Janga Isreal,

PW­3: Smt.D.Prasanthi, Mandal Revenue officer.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex. A1 Title deed pass book. Ex. A2 Certified Copy of Fair Adangal. Ex. A3 Certified copy of another fair adangal. Ex. A4 Land revenue receipt dt.9.3.2007. Ex. A5 Land revenue receipt dt.21.12.1995. Ex. A6 Pattadar Pahani for the fasali 1422 for Item No.1 of schedule property. Ex. A7 Pattadar Pahani for the fasali 1423 for Item No.1 of schedule property. Ex. A8 Pattadar Adangal Pahani for fasali 1420 for Item No.1 of schedule property. Ex.A9 Adangal pahani for the fasali dt.9.9.14 for Item No.1 of schedule property. Ex.A10 Adangal pahani for the fasali 1421 dt.26.7.14. 

Ex.A11 Endorsement under RTI Act dt.10.3.15. 

Ex.A12 compared copy of letter dt.8.5.12 from Tahsildar to Sub­registrar Mylavaram.

Ex.A13 compared copy Letter from District Registrar dt.24.9.12 to Tahsildar A.konduru.

Ex.A14: Reply letter dt.1.3.2013 from Tahsildar, A.Konduru to RDO Nuzividu.

Ex.A15 Patta No.1585, 1­B Registered compared copy.

Ex.A16 Patta No.1712, 1­B Registered compared copy.

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

15

For Defendants:­

Ex.B1: Pattadar pass book,

Ex.B2: D­form patta dt.6.9.2005.

Ex.B3: Cist receipt dt.22.2.2007.

Ex.B4: Cist receipt dt.22.2.2007.

Ex.B5: Certified copy of Registered gift deed Dt.3.02.2009.

Ex.B6: D­form patta dt.26.12.2015.

Ex.B7: The land revenue receipts dt.21.1.1989.

Ex.B8: The land revenue receipts dt.25.9.90.

Ex.B9: The land revenue receipts dt.8.3.1990.

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tiruvuru.

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ.TVR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TIRUVURU

Present : Sri S.Damodara Rao,M.A.LL.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Friday, This the 24th day of June, 2016

C.C.No. 321/2015 (OLD C.C.398/2013)

Between:­

The State, Sub­Inspector of Police, Tiruvuru Police Station, 

Krishna Dist....Complainant

And

Bandaru Seshaiah s/o Late Venkateswaralu, Aged 32 years, Banigandlapadu village, Yerrupalem, Mandal,

Khammam District....Accused

This case coming on to day i.e.24.6.2016 before this Court for hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant and Sri. T.Ramarao, learned Counsel for the Accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruvuru Police Station filed charge sheet in 

Cr.No.235/12 against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.498­A, of IPC r/w 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:­ The Sub­Inspector of Police, Tiruvuru 

Police station filed charge sheet against accused alleging that Bandaru Rajani (Lw.1)stated that she was given in marriage with accused on 1.5.2008 at Sri 

Venkateswara Swamy temple, Yerrupalem Mandal, Jamalapuram village. At that time of marriage her parents given cash of Rs.40,000/­ to accused as dowry and also given gold ornaments to complainant. Later she led marital life with her husband at her parents in­ law house. Her husband looked her happily for two months only. Later he addicted to vices and began to harass her by mentally and physically and insisted her to bring 

Rs.60,000/­ from her parents. Her mother­in­law and brother­in­law also harassed her for more money. When ever while she is talking with her relatives over phone, the accused suspected her and harassed her. In the year 2008 September her mother was suffered from ill­health she went to the house of her mother at Vijayawada. Later she informed about the harassment of the accused to the elders, but in vain. On the night of 25.10.2008 they beat her indiscriminately, then her husband dropped her at her parents house and demanded her for more money of Rs.60,000/­ from her parents house. Basing on the complaint given by complainant(Lw.1), The Asst. Sub­Inspector (Lw.7) registered 

FIR as case in Cr.No.235/12 U/s. 498­A of IPC r/w 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. After completion of his investigation the investigating officer filed charge sheet accused u/s. 498­A of IPC r/w 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

3. This case was taken on file by my predecessor in office against the accused for the offence under sections 498­A of IPC r/w 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents was supplied to accused as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C for the offence Under section 498­A of 

IPC r/w 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, charges framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu and the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6. During Trial, prosecution has examined PW1 to 5 and also marked Ex P1 and

P.2. The learned A.P.P given up 

Lw.2(Ch.Narasimharao);Lw.6(K.Nageswararao);Lw.7(M.R.Singh) from the list cited witnesses.

7. After closure of the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of the prosecution, Accused denied the same. And reported No defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments. 

9. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under Sections 498­A of IPC r/w 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, beyond all 

reasonable doubt ? 

10.POINT: The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has argued that the accused is the husband of the defacto­complainant, their marriage was held in the year 2008 by the time of their marriage her father observed all formalities to the marriage of his daughter. 

After their marriage pw.1 and accused resided happily for two months and at the instance of his family members the husband of pw.1 used to insult the defacto­complaint as she is short and black guy, on that her complex deficiency the accused insisted her to bring some more additional amount from her parents and demanded Rs.60,000/­. While the 

Pw.1 is in the hospital in connection with her second pregnancy got treatment it was aborted at Tirvuru hospital, in spite of they sent a word to the accused, he did not turn up, thereafter she filed Maintenance case, during the pending of that case, on counseling the accused allowed pw.1 into his marital fold, took her on his motor cycle towards 

Agiripalli with pretext that they are going to offer pray to god. In the meanwhile he tired to kill P.W.1 by pressing her neck. P.W.1 escaped from the clutches of the accused and lodged a report to Agiripalli police. Thereafter, she turned to her parents house. The family members of the accused also harassed pw.1 both physically and mentally. The parents of accused age old persons, residing separately, after obtained permission from 

Sub­Divisional Police officer the names of the parents of accused was deleted and filed the charge sheet against the accused only. The prosecution established it's case beyond all reasonable doubt by examining pws.1 to 5, hence prays to convict the accused. 

11. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution came with exaggerated version and improvements by the time of their evidence without stating the same before police at first instance and also the investigating officer not examined the neighbours or elders from her in­laws village and from the village of the accused and all prosecution witnesses are family members of the pw.1. In order to establish the physical harassment the doctor, who treated pw.1 is not a list cited witness, and the doctor who treated the pw.1 by the time of her abortion for her second pregnancy was not examined, no rough sketch was prepared at scene of offence and also did not ascertain the phone number to say the accused telephoned made harassment to pw.1. The harassment at her work place concerned either their Mastery or persons who worked along with them also not examined. The earlier marriage of accused was performed with one woman, after her death his marriage was performed with pw.1. The accused having one son, who borne through his first wife residing along with accused. Pw.1 insisted to leave him, unless the pw.1 refused to reside with the accused in that context pw.1 turned to her parents house and lodged report against the accused. There is no physical and mental harassment established by the prosecution witnesses by examining the list cited witnesses. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused, and prayed to acquit the accused.

12. Now coming to the evidence of prosecution, prosecution party examined 5 witnesses, Pw.1 is the defacto­complainant. The P.W.1 deposed that her marriage was performed with the accused in the year 2008 at Jamalapuram village, by the time of her marriage her father given Rs.45,000/­ as dowry to her husband and adorned gold buttalu, gold ring and also observed other formalities according to their caste custom, immediately she joined with accused at her in­laws house at Banigallapadu village and resided happily for 2 months. The elder brother of her husband, her husband and mother­in­law insisted her to bring additional amount from her parents and they commented pw.1 as she is the short and black personality. Her husband and his elder brother made restrictions that not to speak with others while she attending to collie works. The elder brother of her husband used to beat her in the presence of her husband and also insulted her and stated that pw.1 is the short and black chap, in the meanwhile she conceived second pregnancy came to her parents house, as she is not doing well, while her parents getting treatment in the hospital, due to her health troubles her pregnancy was aborted at Tiruvuru hospital. Inspite of a word sent to her husband, he did not turn up. The Pw.1 along with her junior and Senior paternal uncles went to her in­laws house to lead her martial life after having converse with her junior and senior paternal uncles and her in­ laws refused to allow the pw.1 into their house, and proposed whenever she meet their demands they will allow into martial fold, then they returned. Once she proceeded to her in­ laws house on her own, her husband allowed for one day and beat her and dragged out, hence she a filed private complaint. After registering the case against the accused attended to the court the accused came to compromise and asked her to join with him, stating that he will lead marital life amicably. Believing his words pw.1 accompanied with him from the court itself they traveled on his bike till out skits of Sagguru village, the accused stopped the bike and tried to caught hold the neck of pw.1 and also beat her by squeezing her neck. Then she escaped from the clutches of her husband and reached to the Agiripalli police station and lodged a report. During her cross examination it was revealed that prior to her marriage with the accused, he has first wife blessed with a son, after death of his first wife the accused married pw.1 said fact was known to pw.1 after her marriage. Prior to their marriage accused seen her after gave consent only,their marriage was performed. According to her, they lead their marital life for 8 months. It was further revealed that there are no photos or videos drawn by them by the time of dowry amount given to the accused, that type of practice was not prevailed in their community.

13. The another contention of the accused is that the pw.1 lodged report against the parents of accused, after making enquiry the police deleted their names as they are old aged. Pw.1 in her cross examination admitted their mother­in­law is aged about 70 years and residing separately, so the deletion of the parents of the accused is seems to be justifiable, according to pw.1 their in laws confined her in their house for 8 months by making demands of additional dowry of Rs.60,000/­ to that effect none of the persons surroundings to her in­ laws house was examined by the prosecution party and the surroundings people of her in­laws house are not a list cited witnesses, the same is revealed in the evidence of Investigating Officer. It is admitted fact that except the official witnesses the rest of the list cited witnesses belongs to her parents village i.e. 

junior and senior paternal uncles and her brother.

14. The another contention of the accused is that he has one son borne through his first wife, after her death he married pw.1. The pw.1 insisted to leave his son borne through his first wife, unless she makes inconvenience to his family life, to that effect the learned defence counsel tried to cross examine to P.W.1 to extract the said fact, but pw.1 deposed that she has responsible to take care of son of her husband borne through his first wife. She also deposed that said son was not shown to her. She denied that she has no interest to look after the mother of accused and also the son borne through his first wife and insisted the accused to leave those persons to lead her life with him.

15. P.W.2. (Mr.Ch.Satyanarayana) who is junior paternal uncle of pw.1 deposed by supporting the version of pw.1 and also he deposed that pw.1 carrying second month and bleeding sensation she was joined in the Government hospital, subsequently during the treatment her pregnancy was aborted, they sent a word to the accused though he did not turn up. Pw.2 also, deposed that they filed a Maintenance Case, the accused came to comprise and agreed to allow her in to his marital fold and took her to Sagguru village of 

Agiripalli mandal on motor cycle and also attempted to kill her by squeezing her neck, on hearing cries of pw.1, the passers on the road interfered and she escaped. During cross examination it was revealed that by the time of his marriage the accused gave consent to marry pw.1 and also admitted on the date of harassment made by the accused by beating her, she did not give report to the police. The Pw.2 denied that pw.1 never looked after the welfare of the son of the accused borne through his first wife and used to beat the child, when the accused questioned her she filed this case against the accused.

16. P.W.3. (Ch.Venkateswrarao), who is the brother of pw.1 deposed by supporting the version of pw.1 in respect of all material aspects and also he deposed that once the accused came make it believe the pw.1 as he is allowed her into his marital fold and also he deposed about the incident held at Agiripalli. During his cross examination except denial of the chief examination no useful material extracted by learned defence counsel.

17. Pw.4(B.Gopala Rao) who is one of the elder of their village cum senior paternal uncle of pw.1 deposed that he convened panchayath as the accused is not allowed pw.1 into his marital fold, he also accompanied with pw.1 to the house of accused at about 2 years back, the accused refused to allow pw.1 then they returned, thereafter pw.1 lodged a complaint against accused. In cross his examination it was revealed that there is some other elders for both villages, while he accompanied with pw.1 to the house of accused by that time of said panchayath he informed to the junior paternal uncle of accused, even though the accused paid deaf ear. As per the evidence of pw.4 they tried to join pw.1 at her in­laws house, but their efforts are in vain.

18. The Investigating Officer (B.Venkateswara rao) examined as Pw.5 according to him after receipt of complaint from the court u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C he registered FIR, thereafter he investigated the mater after completion of his investigation, he arrested the accused and sent to the court. The parents name of the accused was deleted by obtaining permission from the S.D.P.O, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. 

During his cross examination it was revealed that according to him they resided happily for 2 months only. He did not examine the neigbhours and elders from Kokilampadu village and he did not shift the defacto complaint to the hospital to show the injuries on her body and doctor who treated pw.1 by the time of her ill­health, aborted second month pregnancy due to physical harassment made by the accused was also not examined and doctor is not a list cited witnesses in this case. The Investigation Officer admitted that he did not examine the neighbours or villagers or elders of her in­laws village i.e. 

Banigadlapadu of Errupalem Mandal and he also did not record the statements of elders in whose presence dowry amount was hand over to the accused by the parents of pw.1. He did not prepared rough sketch at scene of offence and he did not ascertain the phone number to whom the pw.1 telephoned for causing harassment by the accused. He did not record the statement of co­workers and mastry, where the pw.1 had worked and attended as a coolie.

19. The evidence of Investigating Officer itself obvious that the dowry given by the parents of pw.1 concerned no proof placed by them and also causing abortion to her second month pregnancy due to physical harassment made by the accused is not established, but, as per the evidence of pw.1 and other witnesses itself revealed that the accused himself harassed pw.1 by way of taunting in respect of her personality height and colour of the body etc, which makes some humiliation against the pw.1. Making restrictions to pw.1 not to speak with others while attending to collie works concerned, the discourse between pw.1 and accused and no other proof can be placed by any of the persons that the discussion whichever in between wife and husband.

20.The another incident deposed by pw.1 and revealed in the evidence of other witnesses that, while Maintenance Case is pending before court, he expressed consent 

before court to allow her into his marital life and took her on his two wheeler to Agiripali 

area with a pretext that they have to offer prays to God and made physical attempt against her to do some harm, she escaped form her husband and lodged report at 

Agiripalli police station. The learned counsel for accused cross­examined to P.W.1 that said case was ended with acquittal, Even though said allegation was not established 

before concerned court as argued by the learned defence counsel. The prosecution 

evidence itself shows the willful conduct of the accused to cause some injury or danger to the life or health of the pw.1 and also even though the physical harassment not established through the evidence of prosecution witnesses by placing support of medical evidence, but the evidence of prosecution witnesses itself proves that the accused made some mental harassment to the pw.1 by taunting with some pretext or other or by way of demand of any valuable security from her care takers. In such circumstances this court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution established its case against the accused for the offence punishable u/s.498­A of IPC r/w 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly this point is answered. 

21.In the result, this court found that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable under section 498­A of IPC and he is convicted u/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C.

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

by me in the open court on this the 24th day of June, 2016.

sd/­ Sri S.Damodararao

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

 Tiruvuru. 

22. Accused questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed. He pleaded mercy on the ground that he has son borned through his first wife & family members and he is only person to see his son and his welfare and requested to take lenient view as first offence.

23. By considering the facts of the case, the benefits of either Probation of Offenders Act or u/s.360 of Cr.P.C are not extended to the accused and he is deserves punishment.

24. However, in view of the circumstances prevailed in this case, the mercy pleaded by the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, this court feel that sentencing the accused following will meet the ends of Justice.

25.In the result, this court found that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable under section 498­A of IPC, and he is convicted for the same and sentenced to under go 

S.I. for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/­ (Rupees one thousand only), in default, Simple Imprisonment of 1 (one) month, in terms of Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of 6 months from the date of this judgment, as contemplated under section 437­A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non­valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

by me in the open court on this the 24th day of June, 2016.

 sd/­ Sri S.Damodararao

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

 Tiruvuru. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1.Smt.Bandaru Rajani, None P.W.2.Sri.Ch.Satyanarayana PW.3:Sri. Ch.Venkateswararao PW.4:Sri. B.Gopalarao PW.5:Sri. B.Venkateswararao, SI of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED 

FOR: THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P.1.Private complaint Nil Ex.P.2.First Information Report.

sd/­ Sri S.Damodararao

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

//True copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru

1. Tiruvuru.

2. T 3.

4.Tiruvuru.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT TIRUVURU

CALENDER CASE NO. 321/15 (OLD C.C.398/2013)

1.Offence: 20.8.2012 2.Complaint: 14.12.2012 3.Apprehension of accused: 14.3.2013 4.Commencement of Trail: 19.2.2016 5.Close of Trail: 6.5.2016 6.Judgment: 24 .6.2016 7.Complainant

The State, Sub­Inspector of Police,Tiruvuru P. S, Krishna Dist.

8.Name of the Accused

Bandaru Seshaiah s/o Late Venkateswaralu, Aged 32 years, Banigandlapadu village, Yerrupalem, Mandal, Khammam District.

9. Offence : U/s.498­A of IPC 10.Plea of Accused : NOT GUILTY 11.Finding: Found guilty 12.Result :In the result, this court found that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable under section 498­A of IPC, and he is convicted for the same and sentenced to under go S.I. for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/­ (Rupees one thousand only), in default, Simple Imprisonment of 1 (one) month, in terms of Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of 6 months from the date of this judgment, as contemplated under section 437­A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non­valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

13. Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 17.8.2013 the prosecution evidence started on 19.2.2016 and closed the evidence on 6.5.2016. The Judgment was 

pronounced on 24.6.2016. Hence the delay. 

sd/­ Sri S.Damodararao 

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru. Copy submitted to:­

2. The Hon'ble First Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

3. The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Machilipatnam.

5. The Assistant Public Prosecutor. //True copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

1. Tiruvuru.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TIRUVURU,

Present:- Sri S.DAMODARA RAO,M.A.,LL.M.,

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge. Tiruvuru.

Thursday, this the 30th day of June, 2016.

C.C.No.50/2016 (Old C.C.169/2013 )

Between:-

State represented by Sub-Inspector of police Tiruvuru police station. …Complainant.

And

1. Bonthu Sudhakar, S/o.Appa Rao, Aged 28 years, Kamma, Chittela Village, Driver of Tractor AP16 TC 3881 Trailor AP-16 TC 386

2. Bonthu Ravi Kumar, S/o.Seetharamaya, Aged 32 years, Kamma, Chittela Village, Driver of Tractor AP04 X2707, Trailor No.AP-04X 2708

3. Munagala Rama Rao, S/o. Venkata Narasaiah, Aged 50 years, Kamma, Chittela Village, Driver of Tractor AP16 AM 5986, Trailor AP-16 AM 5985

4. Thumallapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Janakiramayya, Aged 38 years, Kamma, Chittela (V), Driver cum owner of tractor AP16TC7847,trailer AP16 TC 7846

5. Abburi Subhadara, W/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged 50 years, Kamma, Kavithanagar, Khamma, Owner of tractor of A1.

6. Bonthu Seetharamayya, S/o.Raghavaiah, Aged 70 years, Khamma, Chittela Village, Owner of tractor of A2.

7. Munagala Baby Sarojini, W/o.Rama Rao, Aged 45 years, Chittela Village, Owner of tractor of A3. …Accused.

This case is coming on to day i.e. on 27.6.2016 for final hearing before this court in the presence of learned APP and Sri R.Srinivasa Rao, learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This case emerges out of a Police report filed by the S.I of police, Tiruvuru police station in Cr.No.121/2012 for the offence punishable Under Section 379, 426 IPC and sec.27, 35(2) 38 &Rule 23 of WALTA Act.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:- The accused are the resident of

Chittela Vilage, Tiruvuru Mandal and they are the drivers of tractors and A4 is the driver cum owner of said tractor, A5 to 7 are owners of tractors. The offence took place at Lakshmipuram village, which is within the jurisdiction of this court. The

Complainant is the Tahsildar, Tiruvuru, and Lw.2 is the VRO in charge of

Lakshmipuram village and Lw.1 is VRA. On 31.5.2012 at about 5.00 a.m, while the above accused transporting the sand illegally in the tractors, VRO with the help of VRA chased them, but A2, A4 escaped with the tractors and A1 was caught hold and seized his tractor and when questioned, A1 stated that the names of the

A2 to A4 and also stated that they are illegally transporting the sand. In this connection, on a report from the complainant a case in Cr.No.121/2012 U/s. 379, 426 IPC and sec.27, 35(2) 38 &Rule 23 of WALTA Act was registered at Tiruvuru

 Corr:­

PJCJ,TVR.

2

PS and investigated in to. During investigation Investigating officer visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses, and on 2.6.2012 at 8.00 hrs, arrested the above accused 1 to 4 at the road side at Chitttela village and seized the tractors of A2 to A4, brought them to the Police Station and produced before the court with remand report. A5 to 7 obtained anticipatory bail.

3. This case was taken on file by my predecessor in office against the accused for the offence under sections Section 379, 426 IPC and sec.27, 35(2) 38 & Rule 23 of WALTA Act.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were supplied to accused as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C for offence Under Section 379, 426 IPC and sec.27, 35(2) 38 & Rule 23 of WALTA Act , the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6.During Trial, prosecution has examined PW 1 to 3 and Ex P1 and Ex.P2 were marked. The learned APP given up the (Lw.3) Shaik Nagul Meera from list cited witnesses.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the Accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, Accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard arguments.

9. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 379, 426 IPC and sec.27, 35(2) 38 & Rule

23 of WALTA Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.POINT:- The learned A.P.P has submitted that P.W.1 is the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Pw.2 is the Village Revenue Officer and Pw.3 is the Sub-

Inspector of police, the evidence of P.W1 to 3 coupled with documents Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2 establishing the case of prosecution against the accused, hence prayed to convict the accused as per Law.

11.The learned-defense-counsel submitted that the alleged offence u/s.379, 426 of IPC and Section 27, 35(2), 38 and Rule 23 of WALTA Act, and there is no report from the villagers stating that the accused are lifting the sand illegally from the stream at Lakshmipuram. The rough sketch prepared by the Investigating

Officer and the evidence of complainant was not fixed the scene of offence, from

 Corr:­

PJCJ,TVR.

3 where the accused illegally lifted and transporting the sand. The prohibited notified areas by the Government was not revealed in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No property was seized by the complainant or the Investigating officer and if seized it was not sold away by way of public auction and paid to the

Government by way of chalana or property was not marked in this case. More over, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses nothing property was seized by him except caught holding the tractor available in the village and foisted the case against the accused persons who are having tractors in that village, for statistical purpose and if the sand was seized it has to be established by way of seizure report in the presence of two respective mediators from that locality said legal formalities was not completed by the prosecution party. The evidence of prosecution witnesses does not reveal the seizure of the sand, while they transporting the said sand from the Lakshmipuram area. In those circumstances the prosecution failed to establish its case, against the accused persons and prayed to acquit the accused by extending benefit of doubt.

12. Now, coming to the evidence available on record, according to Pw.1

Tahsildar Tiruvuru, deposed that he is the complainant herein, on 31.5.2012 at about 5.30 am he received phone call through reliable person that one tractor transporting the sand at Chittela Revu, in turn he instructed the Village Revenue

Officer to proceed to Chittela Revu and also sent V.R.A of said area, they tried to caught hold 4 tractors, but they escaped from that place and only one tractor caught hold by his staff. The Village Revenue Officer recorded the statement of one person on the spot, and remaining three persons names also revealed through that person, those persons unloaded the sand and ran away.

In his cross examination it was revealed that by the time of said offence, there is no regular Village Revenue Officer available to Chittela village, except in- charge and he did not give any written instructions to his subordinates, except oral instructions through phone. The Pw.1 admitted that he never identified the names of the persons from that village and agricultural fields of that village is situated nearby Kattileuu Vagu of said village. It was further revealed that the accused are having agricultural lands in their village as well as tractors on their own. There is no complaint from the villagers stating that particular persons carrying sand from Katteleru Vagu and also it was revealed that he did not seize the sand, whichever carrying by the accused and did not hand over any papers to say that the accused carrying the sand from particular place of Kattileru Vagu.

Pw.1 further admitted that he received information that sand is carrying by 4 tractors, he lodged report against the accused, but not seized the sand on the spot

 Corr:­

PJCJ,TVR.

4 and also not secured said sand. It was further revealed that there is existence of one village in between Lakshmpuram cheruvu and Chityala Kattileruvagu vagu.

13. Pw.2 is the in-charge Village Revenue Officer, according to him on 31.5.2012 at about 5.00 am he caught hold the tractor at Lakshmipuram road along with Pw.3, on their enquiry the particulars of said person was revealed as

Bonthu Sudhakar s/o Apparao of Chityala village on their questioning the said person informed that he is lifting the sand from Padamata vagu and the tractor bearing No.3188 caught hold by them and shifted to their Mandal Revenue Office.

In his cross examination it was revealed that no written complaint received by them either from Chityala or Lakshmipuram villages stating that the sand is illegally transporting from that locality. According to him after caught hold the tractor they did not inform to Tiruvuru police, even by phone and did not ask the police people to come to Lakshmipuram village and also did not give any report to

Tahsildar in writing that on phone information they proceeded to Lakshmipuram village and caught hold the tractors. According to pw.2 when they caught hold the tractor it is an empty and also Lakshmipuram road is Highway road there is every possibility to pass on the tractors on other workers. Pw.2 admitted that in their statement given to the police it was not revealed that the tractor is traveling with sand from Padamata vagu.

14.Pw.3, who is the Sub-Inspector of police, Tiruvuru, deposed about his investigation that on the report received from Tahsildar he registered a case in

Cr.No.121/12 u/s.379,426 of IPC and Section 27,35(2),38 Rule 23 of WALTA Act and took up investigation and said FIR is marked as Ex.P2, and he arrested the accused No.1 to 4 and rest of the accused obtained anticipatory bail. He seized the tractor and hand over the same to the Tahsildar. Pw.1 Tahsildar deposed that he did not seize the sand, whichever carrying by the accused, in his cross- examination it was revealed that specific place where the sand is lifting in Kattileru vagu was not mentioned in the report of Tahsildar and also the sand where it is available is not photographed and not marked in this case proceedings.

15.So, on close scrutinizing the evidence available on record, it is obvious that except empty tractor, no sand was seized and said tractor also not produced during the trial and sample of the sand also not produced and where the accused lifting the sand, particularly scene of offence was not fixed by the Investigating

Officer or defecto-complainant. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 does not reveal the seizer of the sand and if seizure is occurred in whose presence of local respectable persons were also not revealed and the mediators report was not prepared. In such

 Corr:­

PJCJ,TVR.

5 circumstances the raid by the defecto-complainant and seizure of the sand seems to be doubtful. The notified areas list by Mines and Minerals Department was also not filed. The over exploited the ground water or sand effecting the existing sources of irrigation was not revealed. It is not the case of the prosecution party, that the accused violated the norms contemplated in Rule 23 of A.P. Water, land and trees Rule 2004 and seizure of the property was not established. In those circumstances this court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that the plea of the accused is probablizing that the case is registered against the accused for statistical purpose, and the accused No.1 to 7 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

16.In the result, this Court found that the Accused Nos.1 to 7 are not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.379,426 of IPC, Secs. 27, 35(2), 38 and Rule 23 of

WALTA Act, and they are acquitted in terms of Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as contemplated U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. The vehicles whichever returned for interim custody to their respective owners was made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant on Computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of June, 2016.

sd/- Sri S.Damodararao

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1.Sri K.Nageswararao (Tahsildar),None

P.W.2.Sri.M.Suryanarayana(V.R.O),

PW.3: Sri B.Venkateswararao(S.I of Police).

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR: THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P.1. Signature of Pw.1 on Report, Nil

Ex.P.2. First Information Report. sd/- Sri S.Damodararao

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

// True copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru.

 Corr:­

PJCJ,TVR.

6

 Corr:­

PJCJ,TVR.

7

 Corr:­

PJCJ,TVR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TIRUVURU,

Present:-Sri S.DAMODARA RAO,M.A.,LL.M.,

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge. Tiruvuru.

Thursday, this the 30th day of June, 2016.

C.C.No.68/2016 (Old C.C.505/2013 )

Between:-

State represented by Sub-Inspector of police Tiruvuru police station. …Complainant.

And

Chimata Nageswara Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged 35 years, Yadava, Munukulla Village, Tiruvuru, Driver of tractor No.AP16 DG 1978, trailor No.AP20 G6015. …Accused.

This case is coming on to day i.e. on 30.6.2016 for final hearing before this court in the presence of learned APP and Sri R.Srinivasa Rao, learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.This case emerges out of a Police report filed by the S.I of police,

Tiruvuru police station in Cr.No.122/2012 for the offence punishable Under

Section 379, 426 IPC and sec.27, 35(2) 38 &Rule 23 of WALTA Act.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:- The accused is the resident of

Munukulla Village, Tiruvuru mandal and he is the driver of tractor AP.16 BG 1978, trailer No. AP 20 G 6015 at the time of incident. The offence took place at

Chintalapadu village within the jurisdiction of this Court. The complainant (Lw.1) is the Tahsildar of Tiruvuru and Lw.2 is VRO and Lw.3 is the VRA of

Chintalapadu village. On 31.5.2012 at about 1.30 hrs, while the above accused illegally transporting the sand from Kattaleru vagu, then VRO & VRA (Lw.2 & 3) chased the tractor of the accused noted above, but the accused escaped from the spot by leaving the tractor with sand. The VRO seized the tractor of accused. The accused with the instructions of A2, who was died, the owner of tractor illegally transporting the sand by violated the WALTA Act. In this connection, on a report from the complainant (Lw.1), the SI of police, Tiruvuru (Lw.4) registered a case in CR.No.122/2012 U/s.379, 426 of IPC and sec.27, 35(2) 38 & Rule 23 of WALTA Act, and investigated in to by I.O. The Sub-

Inspector of police visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses and arrested the accused on 2.6.2012 at 10.00 hrs and sent him to Judicial custody, after completion of investigation filed charge sheet U/secs.379, 426

IPC and secs.27, 35(2) 38 & Rule 23 of WALTA Act.

3. This case was taken on file by my predecessor in office against the accused for the offence under sections 379, 426 IPC and sec.27, 35(2) 38 &

Rule 23 of WALTA Act.

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

2

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were supplied to accused as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C for offence Under Sections 379, 426 IPC and sec.27, 35(2) 38 & Rule 23 of WALTA Act, the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6.During Trial, prosecution has examined PW 1 to 3 and Ex P1 and Ex.P2 were marked. The learned APP given up (Lw.3) Shaik Nasar Saheb from list cited witnesses.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, Accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard arguments.

9. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 379, 426 IPC and sec.27, 35(2) 38 &

Rule 23 of WALTA Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.POINT:-The learned A.P.P has submitted that P.W.1 is the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Pw.2 is the Village Revenue Officer and Pw.3 is the Sub-

Inspector of police, the evidence of P.W1 to 3 coupled with documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 establishing the case of prosecution against the accused, hence prayed to convict the accused as per Law.

11.The learned-defense-counsel submitted that the alleged offence u/s.379, 426 of IPC and Section 27, 35(2), 38 and Rule 23 of WALTA Act, and there is no report from the villagers stating that the accused is lifting the sand illegally from the stream at Katteleru vagu. The rough sketch prepared by the

Investigating Officer and the evidence of complainant was not fixed the scene of offence, from where the accused illegally lifted and transporting the sand.

The prohibited notified areas by the Government was not revealed in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No property was seized by the complainant or the Investigating officer and if seized it was not sold away by way of public auction and paid to the Government by way of Chalana or property was not marked in this case. More over, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses nothing property was seized by him except caught holding the tractor available in the village and foisted the case against the accused person who is the driver of tractor available in that village, for statistical purpose and if the sand was seized it has to be established by way of seizure report in the presence of two respective mediators from that locality said legal formalities was not completed by the prosecution party. The evidence of prosecution witnesses does not reveal

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

3 the seizure of the sand, while he transports the said sand from the Kattaleru

Vagu area. In those circumstances the prosecution failed to establish its case, against the accused persons and prayed to acquit the accused by extending benefit of doubt.

12.Now coming to the evidence available on record, the Village Revenue

Officer examined as P.W.1 according to him on 31.5.2012 at about 1.30 am he received information about the sand was illegally transporting from

Chintalapadu, being the Village Revenue Officer of said village along with

V.R.A, he proceeded to the scene of offence by intimating the same to the

Tahsildar, after they arrived to Vagu he noticed that a tractor is coming from their opposite direction, on noticing their presence, he left the said tractor and ran away. Pw.1 seized the tractor and shifted to Tiruvuru and handed over to the police. Tractor bearing No.16 BG 1978 trailer No.AP 20 G 6015, the

Tahsildar lodged report against the accused.

In his cross-examination it was revealed that except he mentioned in

Chintalapadu Vagu, the scene of offence was not fixed at a particular place from where the accused lifting the sand. He denied that he never proceeded to the scene of offence as deposed in his chief-examination and denied the rest of the suggestions posed by the learned defence counsel. According to pw.1 he did not examine the surrounding land holders of Chintalapadu Vagu and his complaint is not disclosing as he seized the sand with tractor.

13.The Pw.2, who is the Tahsildar of Tiruvuru, deposed that on 31.5.2012 mid night he received phone call from Chintalapadu that one tractor is carrying sand illegally and said information was furnished by pw.1, the pw.1 proceeded to Kattileru Vagu caught hold the tractor bearing No.AP 16 TC 1879, so the tractor, whichever stating by the pw.1 is different from tractor number deposed by pw.2. It was further revealed that Village Revenue Officer informed that the tractor driver ran away by leaving the tractor, after enquiry they traced out the owner of said tractor i.e one Chimta Nageswararao, he lodged Ex.P1 report to the police.

In his cross examination it was revealed that basing on the report of

Pw.1, he lodged a report to the police, he handed over the tractor to the police along with sand. Wherein the Pw.3 Sub-Inspector of Police examined and deposed that he handed over the sand to the Tahsildar, till to day where about the sand is not revealed either in the evidence of P.W.1 VRO, P.W.2 Tahsildar or P.W.3 Investigating Officer, however said sand was not marked in this case.

The evidence of pw.2 further revealed that there is no sand was handed over by the police to him by the time of releasing tractor to concerned owner.

Admittedly there is no written complaint received to their office from any of the villagers stating that the sand is illegally transporting from Kattileruvagu. Said

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

4 vagu is at a distance of 15 km from Tiruvuru and it was traveled 15KM within the jurisdiction of Tiruvuru Mandal. Pw.2 evidence further revealed that he mentioned in his complaint the offence taken place at Kattileruvagu, but the specific place where the accused collecting the sand was not mentioned in his report. The rest of the suggestions posed by the learned defence counsel was denied by Pw.2.

14. Pw.3 is the Investigating Officer deposed about his investigation and registering the Ex.P2 First Information Report, arrested the accused and sent him to the court along with remand report, after completion of his investigation he filed charge sheet.

In his cross-examination it was revealed that there is no report against the accused that he is transporting the sand from Kattileruvagu and scene of offence was not fixed at specific place from where the accused has been lifting the sand and illegally transporting, the same is not mentioned by the

Investigating Officer. According to him he seized the sand and handed over to the Tahsildar, but Pw.3 admitted that the statement of Tahsildar was not revealed as Investigating officer handed over the sand to him. So, the evidence of pw.3 itself also not revealing when he handed over the sand and when he received the sand from the complainant, and where about the said sand was not answered.

15.So, on close scrutinizing the evidence available on record it is obvious that except empty tractor no sand was seized and said tractor also not produced during the trial, and sample of the sand also not produced and where the accused lifting the sand particularly the scene of offence was not fixed by the Investigating Officer or complainant. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 does not revealed the seizer of the sand and if seizure is occurred in whose presence of local respectable persons was not revealed and also mediators report was not prepared. In such circumstances raid by the defecto-complainant and seizure of the sand is seems to be doubtful. The notified areas list by Mines and

Minerals Department was not filed. The over exploited the ground water or sand effecting the existing source of irrigation was not revealed. It is not the case of the prosecution party that the accused violated the norms contemplated in Rule 23 of A.P. Water Land and Trees Rule 2004 and seizure of the property was not established. In those circumstances, this court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that the plea of the accused is probablizing that the case is registered against the accused for statistical purpose and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

16.In the result, this Court found that the Accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.379, 426 of IPC, Secs. 27, 35(2), 38 and Rule 23 of

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

5

WALTA Act, and he is acquitted in terms of Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of 6 months from the date of Judgment as contemplated U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. The vehicle whichever returned for interim custody to the owner was made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of June, 2016.

sd/- Sri S.Damodararao

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1: Sri M.Venkateswararao (V.R.O),None

P.W.2: Sri.K.Nageswaraaro(Tahsildar),

P.W.3: Sri B.Venkateswararao(S.I of Police).

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR: THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P.1: Signature of Pw.2 on Report, Nil

Ex.P.2: First Information Report.

sd/- Sri S.Damodararao

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

// True copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

6

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

7

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TIRUVURU

Present : Sri S.Damodara Rao,M.A.LL.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Wednesday, This the 22nd day of June, 2016

C.C.No. 307/2015 (OLD C.C.192/2013)

Between:-

The State, Sub-Inspector of Police, A.Konduru Police Station, Krishna Dist.

...Complainant

And

Eknath Venkat Kranure s/o Venkat, 32 years, Vadi Village, Umargav Taluk Usmanbad District,Ph.NO.9403498138 Driver of Lorry MH 25 U 7963

...Accused

This case coming on this day i.e.22.6.2016 before this Court for hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant and Sri. M.Nagendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the Accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, A.Konduru Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.173/12 against the Accused for the offence punishable

U/s.304-A of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- The Sub-Inspector of

Police, A.Konduru Police station filed charge sheet against accused alleging that on 2.11.2012 at 6.30 pm the deceased Kola Srinivasarao proceeding by walk on the western side road margin of NH 221, at

Atlaparagada village the accused being the driver of lorry MH 25 U 7963 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed and the left side front side run over the head of the deceased which was crushed and brain matter came out resulting the instantaneous death of the deceased at the spot. Basing on the complaint given by father of the deceased, the

Sub-Inspector of police, registered the same as FIR IN Cr.No.173/12 u/s.304-A of IPC. After completion of his investigation filed charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on file by my predecessor in office against the accused for the offence under sections 304-A of IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents was supplied to accused as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

2

5. The accused was examined by my predecessor in office u/s 251

Cr.P.C for offence Under sections 304-A of IPC, read over and explained to him in Telugu and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During Trial, prosecution has examined PW1 to 7 and also marked Ex P1 to P.12. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 to 7, the learned

APP given up Lw.2(K.Nageswararao), Lw.3(K.Somaiah),Lw.4(K.Laksh maiah), Lw.10(S.MuraliKrishna), Lw.11(K.Nagaraju), Lw.12 (N.U.N.S.

Srinivas) and Lw.13 (K.Krishna Kishore); from the list cited witnesses.

7. After closure of the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of the prosecution, Accused denied the same. And reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments.

9. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

10.POINT: The learned APP has argued that, the case may be disposed off as per the material available on record.

11. The learned counsel for accused has submitted that Pw.1 is the defacto-complainant and rest of the witnesses are direct eye witnesses and mediators for the scene observation report and inquest report did not support the prosecution case. Moreover they are not identified the driver of the said crime vehicle by the time of this case incident. Even though the incident is not disputed by the accused herein. Admittedly the son of pw.1 is met with an accident and he died, but none of the witnesses identified the accused is the driver of the said crime vehicle by the time of this case incident and also it was not revealed negligence on the part of the accuse and caused this case incident. In those circumstances it cannot be said that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and caused to this case incident. Hence prayed that benefit of doubt my be given to the accused, and acquitted him.

3

12. In order to establish the case of the prosecution witnesses they examined 7 witnesses and Ex.P1 to P12 are marked.

13. Admittedly this incident occurred at the alleged scene of offence, the MVI report is marked as Ex.P12 it self reveals that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of crime vehicle, Ex.P4 itself reveals that the deceased Kola Srinivasarao died in the road accident on the alleged accident. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses, Pw.1 is no other than the father of the deceased deposed that the deceased is his son this case incident was occurred at about 3 years ago at 7.00 pm as the deceased was walking on the road margin at A.Konduru, the lorry came and dashed to his son in a negligent manner and he died on the spot. By that time he was present at his house on receipt of information he reached to

Tiruvuru hospital and noticed that his son was died, dead body was handed over to him. So pw.1 is not an eye witness.

14. Pws.2 and 3 are eye witnesses to this case incident they deposed that Kola Srinivasarao died in a road accident with a lorry after the said incident they shifted him to Government hospital. According to pws.2 and 3 after the case incident they reached to the spot and seen the deceased. The lorry kept a side of the road and they did not notice it's number. Pw.2 deposed that he did not see, who is the driver of the crime vehicle. The evidence of Pw.3 reveals that he returned at about 11.00 pm from the marriage function, he came to know this case incident was occurred, except he does not know anything about this case.

15. Pw.4 is the mediator for inquest report and scene observation report, he acted as one of the mediator for Panchanama, according to him police prepared inquest report and scene observation report in his presence and he signed on those report. He identified his signatures, except nothing was revealed.

16.Pws.5 and 6 are also eye witnesses they deposed that Pw.5 did not see the incident. Pw.6 deposed that he does not know anything with regard to this case. Pw.7 is the Investigating Officer deposed about his investigation.

17. As seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses obviously this case incident was occurred at A.Konduru and the deceased Srinivasarao lost his breath in the lorry accident, but the evidence of prosecution does not reveal the identification of the driver of the crime vehicle by the time of this case incident and rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and also the prosecution party failed to mark the trip sheet of the said crime vehicle. In those circumstances there is no evidence available

4

on record to say that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle by the time of this case incident and to prove the vehicle drove in rash and negligently and caused to death of the deceased Kola Srinivasarao.

Hence the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly this point is answered.

18.In the result, this Court found that the Accused is not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.304-A of IPC, and he is acquitted in terms of Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of 6 months from the date of Judgment as contemplated U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of June, 2016.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1.Sri.Kola Jaganadharao,None P.W.2.Sri. N.Yedukondalu,

PW.3:Sri. D.Venkata Peraiah,

PW.4:Sri.G.Abraham,

PW.5:Sri.Pallepogu Bhaskararao,

PW.6: Sri.M.Umamaheswararao,

PW.7:Sri. N.Venkateswararao.SI of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR: THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P.1: Police Report given by Pw.1. Nil Ex.P.2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2. Ex.P.3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3. Ex.P.4:Signature of Pw.4 on inquest report. Ex.P.5:Signature of Pw.4 on scene observation report. Ex.P6:161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5. Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.6. Ex.P8: First Information Report. Ex.P9: Scene Observation Report. Ex.P10: Rough sketch. Ex.P11: Inquest report. Ex.P12: M.V.I report.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT TIRUVURU

CALENDER CASE NO. 307/15 (OLD C.C.192/2013)

1.Offence: 2.11.2012 2.Complaint: 2.11.2012 3.Apprehension of accused: 6.11.2012 4.Commencement of Trail: 27.11.2015 5.Close of Trail: 10.6.2016 6.Judgment: 22.6.2016 7.Complainant The State, Sub-Inspector of Police,A.Konduru P. S, Krishna Dist.

8.Name of the Accused Eknath Venkat Kranure s/o Venkat, 32 years, Vadi Village, Umargav Taluk Usmanbad District,Ph.NO.9403498138 Driver of Lorry MH 25 U 7963

9. Offence : U/s. 304-A of IPC 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act 10.Plea of Accused : NOT GUILTY 11.Finding: Not Guilty.

12.Result : In the result, this Court found that the Accused is not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.304-A of IPC, and he is acquitted in terms of Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the Accused shall stand canceled after expiry of 6 months from the date of Judgment as contemplated U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C.

13. Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 16.5.2013 the prosecution evidence started on 27.11.15 and closed the evidence on 10.6.16. The Judgment was pronounced on 22.6.2016. Hence the delay.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru. Copy submitted to:-

1. The Hon'ble First Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

2. The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Machilipatnam.

4. The Assistant Public Prosecutor.