Medicharla Venkata Sesha Prabhakar

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

Present

Sri M.V.S. PRABHAKAR,

Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class.

Friday, the 27th day of April 2018.

M.C.No.26/2017.

Between:

1. Pothula Dhanalakshmi, W/o. Pulla Rao, Hindu, female, aged 30 years, r/o. Rallapudi, Kukkunoor Mandal, W.G.Dt.

2. Pothula Bhavana Preethi, D/o. Pulla Rao, Hindu, female, aged 7 years, mother’s protection, r/o. Rallapudi, Kukkunoor Mandal, W.G.Dt.

(2nd petitioner being minor, represented by mother and natural guardian i.e. 1st petitioner) …Petitioners.

And

Pothula Pulla Rao, S/o. Sathrugnudu, Hindu, male, aged 35 years, Lorry Driver, r/o. Kukkunoor, W.G.Dt.

… Respondent.

This case is coming on 25.04.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri U. Yesubabu, counsel for the petitioners and of Sri M. Mohan Rao, counsel for the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This application has been filed by the petitioners against the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance of

Rs.8,000/- per month to each of the petitioners 1 and 2 besides costs.

2.The brief facts of the petition are that the 1st petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed in the year 2007. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 1st petitioner have given Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent towards dowry, gifted 5 sovereigns of gold, Rs.30,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and also gave

Rs.30,000/- to the parents of the respondent towards marriage expenses.

Immediately after marriage, the 1st petitioner has joined the respondent to

Page 1 of 10

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

lead marital life along with household articles worth Rs.30,000/-. During wedlock, the couple were blessed with the 2nd petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent used to harass 1st petitioner both physically and mentally demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents’ house on the instigation of his family members and driven out the petitioners from the marital house in September 2015. The petitioners have no means and they have been eking out their livelihood on the mercy of mother of the 1st petitioner. The respondent is working as lorry driver and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and having own house worth Rs.4,00,000/- in his village. The respondent is also doing money lending business and earning money and he is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners and pray to allow the petition.

3.On the other hand, the respondent has filed counter denying the material averments specifically mentioned in the petition and submitted that no formalities were followed at the time of marriage and he bore all the formalities and married the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner has developed disinterest towards the respondent and did not take care of him and she lived with the respondent only for three months. The 1st petitioner herself left the company of the respondent voluntarily and the efforts made by the respondent for their reunion went in vain. The respondent is not having any movable and immovable properties and he is a daily labour and earning

Rs.150/- per day and he has to look after the welfare of his old aged mother.

He further submits that his left leg was fractured in an accident and now he is not attending to any work. The 1st petitioner is having RCC building in her village and she is doing private job and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. As the 1st petitioner has voluntarily left the company of respondent, the petitioners are not entitled for any maintenance and prays to dismiss the petition.

Page 2 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

4.On behalf of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner herself was examined as

PW-1 and examined PW-2 and no documents were marked on their behalf.

On behalf of the respondent, the respondent himself was examined as RW-1, examined RWs-2 and 3 and no documents were marked.

5.Now the points for determination are?

1. Whether the respondent has willfully neglected the petitioners?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance as prayed for?

6.P O I N T No.1:To prove the case of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner herself was examined as PW-1 and reiterated all the contents mentioned in the petition. She further stated that during wedlock, she was blessed with the 2nd petitioner. She further deposed that at the time of marriage, her parents have given Rs.1,00,00/- to the respondent towards dowry, Rs.30,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and also presented 3 sovereigns of gold jewellery. She further deposed that after the birth of 2nd petitioner, the respondent started harassing her to bring additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/- and when she expressed her inability, the respondent beat her and poured kerosene and tried to kill her. The mother of the respondent instigated the respondent and about two years back, the respondent necked out her from the marital house without providing proper food and raiment and as there is no other go, she is residing with her parents.

7.In the cross-examination, she admitted that her parents have got no assets and she has got two elder sisters and two elder brothers. She has further admitted that she has no proof of document for the dowry given to her parents in law and she has resided with the respondent for only three years. From the admission of PW-1 that she has not filed any document in respect of dowry and other paraphernalia, her evidence to that extent

Page 3 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

cannot be believed, more particularly, when she admitted that her parents have got no assets.

8.When the evidence of PW-2, who is third party is perused he also deposed that the marriage of 1st petitioner with the respondent was performed at Lord Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala as per

Hindu Customs and Rites and he attended the marriage. The respondent was addicted to drinking alcohol and beat the 1st petitioner and demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents’ house and tried to kill the 1st petitioner by pouring kerosene. In November 2015, the respondent beat the 1st petitioner black and blue and necked out from the marital house, resulting which, she is residing with her parents. He further deposed that he along with one P. Babu, Mutyala Rao convened meeting and tried to facify the dispute but the respondent did not turn up. He further deposed that at the time of marriage, the father of the 1st petitioner gave

Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent and also gave 3 sovereigns of gold jewellery, Rs.30,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and household articles worth Rs.30,000/-.

9.In the cross-examination, he admitted that he was not present when marriage talks were going on between the parents of the 1st petitioner and respondent. He cannot say the exact date of mediation. This witness was suggested that due to ill health, the respondent is unable to attend any work and at the instance of 1st petitioner, he is deposing falsehood and he has no knowledge with regard to facts of the case. Of course, the witness has denied the same. Even though the witness has stated with regard to dowry and other paraphernalia, as admitted by PW-1, there is no proof of document for the same and as such the evidence of this witness to that extent cannot be believed.

10.On the other hand, to disprove the contention of the petitioners, the respondent himself was examined as RW-1 and deposed that no dowry was

Page 4 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

given to him and for the last one year, he is not attending to any work as his knee was fractured in an accident and he never demanded any additional dowry from the 1st petitioner and he was never addicted to vices. As he has no means to pay separate maintenance to the petitioners, he prays to dismiss the petition and further stated that the 1st petitioner is earning

Rs.150/- per day as daily wage labour. This witness was suggested that at the time of marriage, his parents in law have given Rs.1,00,000/- dowry,

Rs.30,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams to his sister and Rs.30,000/- to him towards household articles and that he demanded the 1st petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and neglected the petitioners. Of course, the witness has denied all the suggestions.

11.To support the contention of the respondent, RW-2, who is his grandmother was examined. She deposed that no dowry was given to the respondent by the parents of the 1st petitioner and the 1st petitioner used to reside 20 days in her parents’ house even after her marriage and the respondent is unable to attend for any work as he met with an accident.

She admitted in the cross-examination that she cannot say the date of accident. She denied a suggestion that at the time of marriage of 1st petitioner, her parents have given dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, 5 sovereigns of gold jewellery, Rs.30,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and household articles worth Rs.30,000/- and the respondent owns a lorry and doing money lending business and earning Rs.50,000/- per month.

12.To support the case of respondent, his mother was examined as RW-3 and she also deposed in the same lines almost as that of RW-2. In the cross- examination, this witness was suggested that at the time of marriage of the respondent, the parents of the 1st petitioner have given Rs.1,00,000/- dowry, 5 sovereigns of gold jewellery, household articles worth Rs.30,000/- and

Rs,.30,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and the respondent owns a lorry and doing money lending business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month

Page 5 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

and without providing proper food, they have driven out the petitioners from the marital house. Of course, the witness has denied all the suggestions.

13.When the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 on one side and the evidence of

RWs-1 to 3 on the other side is perused, it is oath against oath. One fact is proved that the 1st petitioner and her parents have failed to prove that dowry and paraphernalia was given to the respondent and his parents as there was no such documentary proof. The contention of the 1st petitioner is that she was driven out from the marital house. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that the 1st petitioner herself left his company. No married woman will leave the company of her husband unless there was untold misery subjected by her husband. Even assuming for a moment, the contention of the respondent is true that the 1st petitioner herself left his company without reasonable ground, the recourse left to him is to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. But, in the case on hand, admittedly, the respondent has maintained silence all the while till the petitioners filed this case seeking maintenance. Hence, it can safely be presumed that due to negligence of the respondent only, the petitioners are constrained to reside away from the company of the respondent.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

14.P O I N T No.2: The 1st petitioner contends that the respondent owns a lorry and doing money lending business. But, to that extent, the petitioners have not filed any proof of document. The 1st petitioner is unable even to depose about the lorry number owned by the respondent. Hence, the evidence of the petitioners that the respondent owns a lorry cannot be believed. Even though, the 1st petitioner has deposed that the respondent is doing money lending business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month, there was no proof of document for that also and as such the contention of the petitioners on that aspect cannot be believed. Even though the respondent

Page 6 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

deposed that the 1st petitioner is attending for coolie work and earning

Rs.150/- per day, there was no evidence to that extent. Hence, his version cannot be accepted.

15.The next serious contention of the respondent is that he met with an accident and unable to attend for any work. If that was so, the respondent ought to have file X-Ray at least to that extent. But except his oral evidence, there was no proof of document or he examined any medical officer to establish his contention. Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned counsel

for the petitioners, the contention of the respondent that he met with an

accident is a story created for the purpose of this case. Hence, the version of the respondent on this aspect cannot be believed. Even though, it is a fact that the petitioners have failed to prove that the respondent owns any assets, it is duty of the respondent to provide some maintenance to the petitioners, since his negligence has been established towards the petitioners. The very purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution but not to penalize the respondent. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent has not paid even a single pie to the petitioners after filing of this petition. Hence, he is liable to pay some maintenance to the petitioners from the date of filing of the petition. Considering financial status of both parties including the income of the respondent, this court is of the view that the following amount would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, this point is also answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

16.In the result, the petition is allowed in part and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1500/- per month to the 2nd petitioner towards their maintenance from the date of filing of this petition i.e. from 25-07-2017 besides costs of Rs.1,000/-.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of April 2018.

Page 7 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDYGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: - FOR RESPONDENT:-

PW-1:P. Dhanalakshmi. RW-1:P. Pulla Rao.

PW-2:S. Rama Rao.RW-2:M. Subbamma.

RW-3:P. Ramadevi.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS : -NIL.

FOR RESPONDENT : -NIL.

J.M.F.C. JRG.

Page 8 of 7

M.C.No.26/2017, JMFC, JRG

Page 9 of 7

C.C.No.776/2016, JMFC, JRG

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

C.C.No.776/2016

Date of OffenceComplaiApprehensiReleaseCommenceClose ofSentenc nt oron ofd on bail-triale or reportaccusedment ofOrder trial 12-10-05 12-10-0512-10-0528-10-11-01-1823-04-1825-04-18 05

Between:

State: The Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, Jangareddigudem. … Complainant.

And

Description of the accused:

S.No.Name ofFather/AgeCallingReligionResidenceMandal theHusbandYears accusedname

1.Gummala Satya30CoolieHinduJangareddiJangared RambabuNarayanaGudemdi gudem

2.Chava Nageswara40CoolieHinduReddy Buttai Suresh RaoGanapagudem (separateVaram

d)

Offence: Possession, sale, purchase, transportation and manufacture of Liquor an offence punishable Under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Plea of the accused: Not guilty. Finding of the Court : Not guiltySentence or order : A-1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months. M.Os.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The case against A-2 is separated and numbered as C.C.262/2018 as he could not be apprehended. Explanation for the delay : This case was taken on file on 22-06-2016 and numbered as above C.C. After furnishing copies of documents, the accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. on 06-09-2016. As there is delay in producing the witnesses by the prosecution, PW-1 was examined on 11-01-2018 and the evidence of the prosecution was closed on the same day. The accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 01-02-18. Trial was closed and arguments were heard on 23-04-18. On 25- 04-2018 judgment was delivered. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-M.V.S. PRABHAKAR

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jangareddigudem

// TRUE COPY//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

Copy submitted to

The Honourable First Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Page 1 of 5

C.C.No.776/2016, JMFC, JRG

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

Present: - Sri M.V.S. PRABHAKAR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

Wednesday, the 25th day of April 2018.

C.C.No.776/2016

Between:

State: Represented by the Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, Jangareddigudem. …. Complainant

And

1. Gummala Rambabu.

2. Chava Suresh.

(The case against A-2 is separated and numbered as C.C.262/2018).

…. Accused

This case is coming on 23.04.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri K.

Rambabu and Sri A. Srinivasa Rao, Advocates for A-1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, Jangareddigudem has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.303/2005-06 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet is that on 12-10-2005 at 10-45 a.m. PW-1 along with staff were conducting patrolling and when they reached near Old Bridge, Byneru Canal,

Jangareddigudem to Koyyalagudem road in Jangareddigudem, found the accused in possession of 39 bottles of non duty paid liquor and on enquiry, the accused revealed their identity and also stated that they purchased the contraband from an unknown person to sell it in loose for profit. He registered the special report as a case in Cr.No.303/2005-06 for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, sent the accused to court for judicial

Page 2 of 5

C.C.No.776/2016, JMFC, JRG custody and forwarded the sample for analysis. After receipt of analysis report, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance of offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act was taken against the accused.

4. On their appearance, the accused were furnished with copies of documents and examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. They denied the accusation. Charge under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to establish the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3 and M.Os.1 to 4. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6. After closure of evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which they once again denied the accusation.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is: –

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against A-1 for

the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond

reasonable doubt?

9. P O I N T : In this case, the prosecution has cited as many as 3 witnesses but examined only PW-1 since the other witnesses were given up by the learned APP.

10. Coming to the evidence of PW-1, who is working as Inspector,

Prohibition and Excise Station, Jangareddigudem he deposed that on 12-10- 2005 at 10-45 a.m. he along with staff were conducting patrolling and when they reached near Old Bridge, Byneru Canal, Jangareddigudem to

Koyyalagudem road in Jangareddigudem, found the accused in possession of 39 bottles of non duty paid liquor and on enquiry, the accused revealed their identity and also stated that they purchased the contraband from an

Page 3 of 5

C.C.No.776/2016, JMFC, JRG unknown person to sell it in loose for profit. He registered the special report as a case in Cr.No.303/2005-06 for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP

Excise Act, sent the accused to court for judicial custody and forwarded the sample for analysis. After receipt of analysis report, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

11. PW-1 has admitted in the cross-examination that the scene of offence is busy locality. At this juncture, when the purport of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. is perused, it denotes as follows:

Before making a search, the officer or other person about to

make it shall call upon two or more independent and

respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be

searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant

of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to

the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an

order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

12. From the above section of law it is crystal clear that the prosecution has to call for two respectable inhabitants of the locality when seizure was made to create confidence in the minds of the public in general that their act is inconsonance with law. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution, it has not done so, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

13. Further, the offence in this case was occurred on 12-10-2005 and the sample was analysed on 24-11-2005 and there was a delay of about 44 days in getting the sample analysed. Therefore, there is every possibility for the prosecution to tamper with the sample in the meanwhile or the sample may loose its original shape. Further, the prosecution could not account for the remaining contraband. This is also one of the circumstances to disbelieve the story of prosecution. As already discussed, the evidence of

PW-1 is insufficient to find the accused guilty, since his evidence is on the confession of the accused, which is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

14. In the result, I found A-1 not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Page 4 of 5

C.C.No.776/2016, JMFC, JRG

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months. M.Os.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The case against A-2 is separated and numbered as C.C.262/2018 as he could not be apprehended.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, the 25 th day of March 2018.

Sd/-M.V.S. PRABHAKAR

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

APPEDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1:B. Srinivasa Rao.-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1/12-10-2005 : Special Report.

Ex.P.2/12-10-2005 : F.I.R. in Cr.No.303/2005-06.

Ex.P.3/24-11-2005: Analysis Report.

FOR DEFENCE:- Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTCS MARKED:

M.O.1:-Sample bottle. M.O.2: -Sample bottle. M.O.3:-Sample bottle. M.O.4:-Sample bottle. ILD/-M.V.S.P

J.M.F.C.

JRG

// true copy//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

Page 5 of 5

C.C.No.785/2017, JMFC, JRG

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

C.C.No.785/2017

Date of OffenceComplaiApprehensiReleaseCommenceClose ofSentenc nt oron ofd on bail-triale or reportaccusedment ofOrder trial 13-12-16 13-12-16----23-01-1823-04-1825-04-18

Between:

State: The Sub Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, Jangareddigudem.… Complainant.

And

Description of the accused:

S.No.Name ofFather/AgeCallingReligionResidenceMandal theHusbandYears accusedname

1.Eppe Nageswara23CoolieHinduJangareddiJangared RameshRaoGudemdi gudem

Offence: Possession, sale, purchase, transportation and manufacture of Liquor an offence punishable Under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Plea of the accused: Not guilty. Finding of the Court : Not guilty. Sentence or order : The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation for the delay: This case was taken on file on 17-04-2017 and numbered as above C.C. After furnishing copies of documents, the accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. on 06-11-2017. As there is delay in producing the witnesses by the prosecution, PW-1 was examined on 23-01- 2018 and the evidence of the prosecution was closed on the same day. The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 08-02-18. Trial was closed and arguments were heard on 23-04-18. On 25-04-2018 judgment was delivered. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-M.V.S. PRABHAKAR

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jangareddigudem

// TRUE COPY//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

Copy submitted to

The Honourable First Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Page 1 of 5

C.C.No.785/2017, JMFC, JRG

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

Present: - Sri M.V.S. PRABHAKAR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

Wednesday, the 25th day of April 2018.

C.C.No.785/2017

Between:

State: Represented by the Sub Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, Jangareddigudem. …. Complainant

And

Eppe Ramesh.…. Accused

This case is coming on 23.04.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri G.Ch.

Rambabu, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, Jangareddigudem has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.86/2016-17 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet is that on 13-12-2016 at 7 p.m. PW-1 along with staff were conducting patrolling and when they reached near Nirmala Hospital, Jangareddigudem, found the accused in possession of 10 bottles of OAB VSOP Brandy of 180 ml each and on enquiry, the accused revealed his identity and also stated that he purchased the contraband from an unknown person to sell it in loose for profit. She registered the special report as a case in Cr.No.86/2016-17 for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, set free the accused as he complied with the notice issued u/s. 41-A of Cr.P.C. and forwarded the sample for analysis. After receipt of analysis report, she filed charge sheet against the accused.

Page 2 of 5

C.C.No.785/2017, JMFC, JRG

3. Cognizance of offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act was taken against the accused.

4. On his appearance, the accused was furnished with copies of documents and examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. He denied the accusation. Charge under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to establish the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3 and M.O.1. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6. After closure of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which he once again denied the accusation.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is: –

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the

accused for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act

beyond reasonable doubt?

9. P O I N T : In this case, the prosecution has cited as many as 2 witnesses but examined only PW-1 since the other witness was given up by the learned APP.

10. Coming to the evidence of PW-1, who is working as Sub Inspector,

Prohibition and Excise Station, Jangareddigudem she deposed that on 13-12- 2016 at 7 p.m. she along with staff were conducting patrolling and when they reached near Nirmala Hospital, Jangareddigudem, found the accused in possession of 10 bottles of OAB VSOP Brandy of 180 ml each and on enquiry, the accused revealed his identity and also stated that he purchased the contraband from an unknown person to sell it in loose for profit. She registered the special report as a case in Cr.No.86/2016-17 for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, set free the accused as he complied

Page 3 of 5

C.C.No.785/2017, JMFC, JRG with the notice issued u/s. 41-A of Cr.P.C. and forwarded the sample for analysis. After receipt of analysis report, she filed charge sheet against the accused.

11. PW-1 has admitted in the cross-examination that the scene of offence is busy locality. At this juncture, when the purport of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. is perused, it denotes as follows:

Before making a search, the officer or other person about to

make it shall call upon two or more independent and

respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be

searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant

of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to

the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an

order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

12. From the above section of law it is crystal clear that the prosecution has to call for two respectable inhabitants of the locality when seizure was made to create confidence in the minds of the public in general that their act is inconsonance with law. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution, it has not done so, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

13. Further, the offence in this case was occurred on 13-12-2016 and the sample was analysed on 19-01-2017 and there was a delay of about 38 days in getting the sample analysed. Therefore, there is every possibility for the prosecution to tamper with the sample in the meanwhile or the sample may lose its original shape. Further, the prosecution could not account for the remaining contraband. This is also one of the circumstances to disbelieve the story of prosecution. As already discussed, the evidence of

PW-1 is insufficient to find the accused guilty, since his evidence is on the confession of the accused, which is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

14. In the result, I found the accused not guilty for the offence under

Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of

Page 4 of 5

C.C.No.785/2017, JMFC, JRG

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, the 25 th day of April 2018.

Sd/-M.V.S. PRABHAKAR

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

APPEDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1:R. Satyavathi.-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1/13-12-2016 : Special Report.

Ex.P.2/13-12-2016 :. F.I.R. in Cr.No.13/2016-17.

Ex.P.3/19-01-2017: Analysis Report.

FOR DEFENCE:- Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTCS MARKED:

M.O.1:-Sample bottle.

ILD/-M.V.S.P

J.M.F.C.

JRG

// true copy//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

Page 5 of 5

C.C.No.307/2017, JMFC, JRG

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

C.C.No.307/2017

Date of OffenceComplaiApprehensiReleaseCommenceClose ofSentenc nt oron ofd on bail-triale or reportaccusedment ofOrder trial Prior to 03-04-16----24-04-1824-04-1827-04-18 03-04-16

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station.… Complainant.

And

Description of the accused:

S.No.Name of theFather/AgeCallingReligionResidencMandal accusedHusbandYearse name

1.Kunapamula Siddayya35BusinesHinduJangareddJangaredd Venkateshsii Gudemgudem

Offence :Staling and retransmitting of Network Channels without having any license or authority punishable u/s. 63 of Indian Copy Right Act. Plea of the :Not guilty. accused inding of the Court :Not guilty. Sentence or order :The accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.63 of Indian Copy Right Act and he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

Explanation for theThis c This case was taken on file on 28-02-2017 and numbered: delayas above C.C. After furnishing copies of documents, the accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C on 29-04-17. As there is delay in producing the witnesses by the prosecution, PWs-1 to 3 were examined on 24-04-18 and the evidence of prosecution was closed on the same day, trial was closed and arguments were heard. On 27-04-2018 judgment was delivered. Hence, the delay. `

Sd/- MVS PRABHAKAR

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jangareddigudem

// TRUE COPY//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to:

The Honourable First Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Page 1 of 4

C.C.No.307/2017, JMFC, JRG

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDIGDUEM

Present: - Sri M.V.S. PRABHAKAR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Friday, the 27th day of April 2018.

C.C.No.307/2017

Between:

State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station. …. Complainant

And

Kunapamula Venkatesh..…. Accused

This case is coming on 24.04.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri U. Yesu Babu, counsel for the accused and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.95/2016 for the offence u/s. 63 of

Indian Copy Right Act, 1957.

2.The brief facts that emanates from the charge sheet are that the accused is Proprietor of J.C. Cable Network, Jangareddigudem. He has been unauthorisedly staling and retransmitting the ETV Network Channel through their HITS Platform through M/s. Noida Software Technology Park Limited (JAIN HITS) from March 2016. On 03-04-2016 at 9-30 a.m. on a report given by PW-1, A. Ananda Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem has registered the same as a case in Cr.No.95/2016 for the offence u/s. 63 of

Indian Copy Right Act, 1957 and investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs-1 to 3 and

K. Hanumantha Kumar. Subsequently, M. Kesava Rao, Sub Inspector of Police,

Jangareddigudem Police Station has took up further investigation and he set free the accused as he complied with the notice issued u/s. 41-A of

Page 2 of 4

C.C.No.307/2017, JMFC, JRG

Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance of offence under section 63 of Indian Copy Right Act was taken against the accused.

4.When the accused appeared before Court, he was furnished with copies of documents and examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. He denied the accusation.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs-1 to 3 were examined and Exhibits

P-1 to P-4 were marked. On behalf of the defence no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

6.As there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, examination of the accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for determination is: -

Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the

accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s.63

of Indian Copy Right Act?

9.P O I N T : In this case, the prosecution has cited as many as 6 witnesses but examined only PWs-1 to 3, since the evidence of other witnesses was given up by the learned A.P.P.

10.When the evidence of PW-1, who is the defacto complainant, is perused he testified that he does not know the accused and anything about facts of the case. Though Ex.P-1 is his signature, he stated that he does not know its contents and at the instance of police, he signed on it.

11.When the evidence of PWs-2 and 3 is perused, they have categorically deposed that they do not know the accused and anything about facts of the case. As PWs-1 to 3 have resiled from their earlier versions, they were declared as hostile by the learned APP and were cross-examined at length.

But nothing was elicited in her cross-examination to advance the case of prosecution. As the main witnesses have resiled from their earlier versions,

Page 3 of 4

C.C.No.307/2017, JMFC, JRG they were declared as hostile by the learned APP and were cross-examined at length. But nothing was elicited in her cross-examination to advance the case of prosecution. Hence, the learned APP has given up the evidence of other witnesses, as no purpose would be served by examining them. Even assuming for a movement, if they were examined, there would be no progress in the case of the prosecution. From the evidence of PWs-1 to 3, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence under Section 63 of Indian

Copy Right Act.

12.In the result, I found the accused not guilty for the offence u/s.63 of

Indian Copy Right Act and he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of April 2018.

Sd/- M.V.S. PRABHAKAR

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JANGAREDDYGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: - FOR ACCUSED:- PW-1:N. Sivaramakrishna. -None- PW-2:P. Ganesh. PW-3:B. Venkata Ramana.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Ex.P-1:-: Signature of PW-1 on report given to police. Ex.P-2:-: Portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-1. Ex.P-3:-: Portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2. Ex.P-4:-: Portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-3.

Page 4 of 4

C.C.No.307/2017, JMFC, JRG

FOR ACCUSED: - NIL.

ILD/-M.V.S.P.

J.F.C.M.,

JRG

// TRUE COPY //

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

Page 5 of 4

C.C.No.307/2017, JMFC, JRG

Page 6 of 4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: JANGAREDDIGUDEM

PRESENT: Sri M.V.S.Prabhakar,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem

Wednesday, this the 25th day of April, 2018

Calendar Case No.860 of 2007

Between :

State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Jangareddgiudem Circle (Sub Inspector of Police, Lakkavaram Police Station)…Complainant.

and

Andra Anamaiah, S/o.Kunkullamurthy, 28 years, Chirala Mandal. (A-3 in CC.No.318/1995)… Accused.

( The case is filed originally against A-1 to A-3 in CC.No.218/1994, thereafter the case against A-3 is separated from CC.No.218/1994 and numbered as

CC.No.11/2013 and the said case was transferred from II AJFCM, Kovvur to Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem as per Orders of Hon’ble Chief JUdl.

Magistrate,W.G.Dist., Eluru in Dis.No.176, Dt.23-03-2007 and numbered as

CC.No.860/2007 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of I Class Court, Jangareddigudem)

This case is coming on 25-04-2018 before me for hearing in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem circle has filed charge sheet against the accused (A-1 to A-3) in Cr.No.19/1993 for the offences Under

Section 394 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on the night of 17-05-1993 on

Devulapalli-Lakkavaram road at a distance 1 K.M., to the village near 1/6 K.M., stone, where in some unknown offenders, age group of 25 to 30 years, clad in cut drayers armed with Iron rods and sticks, way laid Tadikamella Gangaraju while he was coming on his Scooter AHY 1154 along with Vandanapu Narasaiah and beat

Gangaraju with Iron rods and sticks and forcibly robbed away two gold rings, one alwyn gold colour wrist watch and cash of Rs.2,000/- and all worth of Rs.6,400/- from

Gangaraju and decamped with the booty. On his report a case in cr.No.19/1993 was registered and investigated into. After completion of investigation, Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On appearance of the accused, they are furnished with copies as per

Sec.207 CrPC and they were examined U/Sec.239 CrPC and charge U/Sec.394 IPC has been framed against them, read over and explained in Telugu. To which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such their statements are records.

4.On behalf of the prosecution l P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P-1 to P-8 and

M.O.1 were marked. On behalf of accused no oral or documents evidence is adduced in CC.No.218/1994.

5.The case against A-3 is separated from CC.No.218/1994 due to pending of NBW against him.

6. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, the accused were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they once against denied the accusation and after hearing of both sides. Judgment pronounced in

CC.No.218/1994 on 05-05-1996 in the result A-1 and A-2 found not guilty for the

offence U/Sec.394 IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C., and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 shall be returned to P.W.1 after disposal of the case against A-3 in CC.No.318/1995 (860/2007)

7.Since the separation of the case against A-3 vide CC.No.860/2007.

NBW not served against him.

8. At this stage on 25-04-2018, Death Certificate of A-3 filed. The same is recorded. Hence case against A-3 is abated.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25th day of April, 2018.

For/-M.V.S.Prabhakar,

Sd/-J.Srinivasa Rao,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side in CC.No.860/2007.

Id/-For/-M.V.S.Prabhakar,

Sd/-J.Srinivasa Rao,

JMFC,JRG.

//TRUE COPY//

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM