Meenakshi Sundari Pidathala ADM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KADIRI

Present: Kum. P.Meenakshi Sundari

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri Friday, this the 17th day of January, 2025

Calendar Case No.64 of 2016

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudigubba Police station (Crime No.162 of 2015 of

Mudigubba Police Station)

... Complainant.

And

Nagiri Madhava Naidu, age 30 years, S/o Late N.Jayaramulu, Sai Nagar, Mudigubba Village and Mandal, Driver of Bolero

Pickup Goods Vehicle bearing No.AP02 Y 9639.

... Accused

This case was placed on this day for final hearing before me on 30.12.2024 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri B.Surendra, Advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudigubba Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 304 (A) IPC in Crime No.162 of 2015 of Mudigubba Police Station.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1-

Shaik Moulali is a resident of D.No.1-54-G, Sai Nagar, Mudigubba Village and

Mandal and living by doing driving work. He along with his wife P.W.2-Shaik

Nasreen and his son/deceased Shaik Arshad, aged 3 years residing under the one roof top. The parents and the sister-in-law of P.W.1 are residing beside his house. The accused who is working as the driver to the Bolero Pickup goods vehicle bearing No. AP02 Y 9639 is also residing beside the house of P.W.1.

2

After completion of the driving work, the accused stationing the said Bolero

Pickup goods vehicle infornt of the house of accused. On 01.12.2015 at about 8.30 A.M., P.W.1 took the deceased Shaik Arshad for attending calls of nature to the open place of Chippala Sai Kumar, which is located infront of the house of

P.W.1 and then P.W.1 stand beside the deceased. Meantime, the accused drove the said Bolero Pickup Goods vehicle bearing No.AP02 Y 9639 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without taking any proper precautions while reversing the same and dashed against the deceased Shaik Arshad, who was sat for attending calls of nature at some distance on back side of the said vehicle. As result, the deceased fell down by hue cries, immediately P.w.1 along with P.W.2,

P.W.3 and some other neighbours rushed to the spot and found the deceased

Shaik Arshad by received bleeding injury on back side of the head and also found by coming blood from both ears, nose and mouth and then the deceased died on the spot. After the accident, the accused escaped from the place by left the Bolero Pickup Good vehicle. Later P.W.1 and some others lying down the dead body of the deceased infront of the house of P.W.1 and after informing the same to the relatives, P.W.1 came to the police station and gave a report.

Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, P.W.8 S.Raheem, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.162/2015 U/sec.304(A) IPC of Mudigubba P.S., and investigated into. During the course of investigation inquest held over the dead body of the deceased on 01.12.2015 in the presence of inquest panchayatdars and examined the dead body as well as the witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the body for postmortem examination to

P.W.5 and later he also examined the scene of offence and drafted the rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 10.12.2015 at 10.30 A.M., while LW.13 J.Jaya

Naik, Sub Inspector of Police was present in the police station, the accused 3 appeared before him and he arrested the accused. Later LW.13 released the accused on station bail. P.W.5-K.N.Vijayalakishmi, Civil Asst. Surgeion, Govt.

Area Hospital, Kadiri who held postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased issued postmortem report and opined that the deceased would appear to have been died of injury to brain and the above injure is an anti mortem in nature, possible in road traffic accident. LW.11-Sri Seshadri Chirra

Reddy, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kadiri who inspected the crime vehicle bearing

No. AP02 Y 9639 issued report that the accident was took place not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. Thus, the accused is liable to be punished

U/sec.304(A) IPC. After completion of investigation, LW-13-Sub-Inspector of

Police, Mudigubba Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence under section 304 (A) of IPC against the accused.

4. After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code. He was examined under section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code, and the substance of the accusation for the offence under section 304 (A) of IPC was read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. The evidence of remaining witnesses was given up and closed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

6. After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence appears against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu, for 4 which the accused denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the defence. Perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is:

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

9. POINT:-

To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and Exs.P.1 to

P.7 are marked.

10. P.W.1/Shaik Moulali who is father of the deceased deposed that accused is residing by the side of his house. The deceased Shaik Arshad Ali is his son. The accused is the driver of Bolero vehicle. At about 3 years ago at 8.30 A.M., himself and his wife got the deceased for attending natural calls in open site infront of his house in the meantime, his wife went to bath room, himself went into the house to bring the phone and immediately he came out side the house and he has seen that while accused attending to phone call and took the Bolero vehicle to reverse side in rash and negligent manner and run the vehicle over his son which result, blood was oozing from the ears and nose of his son and his son died on the spot. Then he went to the police station and lodged report to the police. Thereafter he took the dead body of his deceased son to the Government

Hospital, Kadiri. Ex.P.1 is the report. He do not remember the registration number of Bolero vehicle.

11. P.W.1/Shaik Nasereen who is mother of the deceased deposed that accused is driver and her neighbour. On 01.12.2015 at about 8.30 A.M., herself, 5

P.W.1 got her son and sat in open side for attending natural calls infront of her house. During that time she went inside of her house and brought the water.

While she was coming outside she has seen that the accused drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner on reverse side and dashed her son even though space infront of his house. Due to dashed the crime vehicle blood was oozing from the ears and nose and died on the spot. When they lodged report to police by the time, the accused left the place. They brought the dead body of her son to the Government hospital, Kadiri. The crime vehicle is Bolero vehicle. She remember the registration number of crime vehicle as 9639.

12. P.W.3/Shaik Rahamtunnisa deposed that at about 3 years ago P.W.1 and

P.W.2 were sitting their son of 3 years old in open place to attend natural calls, in the meantime, P.W.2 came into the house for bringing water. She do not know what happened later as she went into bathroom to clean the face of her husband as he was paralysis patient. When she came outside from the bathroom, she has seen that her grandson was in pool of blood, immediately herself shifted her grandson to Government hospital, Kadiri. Then the doctor examined her grandson and declared that her grandson was died. She came to know that the accused run over the Bolero vehicle to the body of her grandson by reversing the vehicle without taking any care and caution.

13. P.W.4 and P.W.6 who are eye witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

14. P.W.7 who is the inquest panchayatdar and he deposed that on 01.12.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., he attended inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Sai Nagar, Mudigubba. Due to negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle, the accident was occurred and the deceased was died. He went to the scene of offence and the crime vehicle was at the scene of offence but driver 6 was escaped and he observed that the deceased got head injury and lacerations over his buttocks and he died on the spot. The deceased was died due to accident crime vehicle hit the back side of the deceased. Then, police prepared inquest and signed in the inquest.

15. P.W.5 who is the doctor deposed as per postmortem certificate which is marked as Ex.P.3.

16. P.W.8 who is the Investigating Officer in this case. He deposed that on 01.12.2016 at about 9.30 A.M., while he was present in the police station, P.W.1 came to the police station and lodged Ex.P.1. Basing on that, he registered a case in Cr.No.162/2015, U/sec.304(A) of IPC, Ex.P.6 is the FIR. Then, he visited the scene of offence and conducted inquest over the dead body of Arshad, aged about 3 years and he prepared Ex.P.5. Then, he examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and

LW.4, LW.5 and LW.8 and recorded 161(3) Cr.P.C statements of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.6, LW.4 and LW.5, then he prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence/Ex.P.7. Then he shifted the deceased dead body to the postmortem.

After completion of his investigation, he handed over the C.D file to LW.13.

17. Insite of giving several adjournments, prosecution did not choose to examine LW.4, LW.5, LW.8 and LW.13. Hence, their evidence is closed by this 5

18. On perusal of entire evidence, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 are available. P.W.3 deposed that she did not witness the accident and she do not know the driver of the crime vehicle.

19. The available evidence to the court is P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 admitted in cross examination that he was not present at the time of accident. But in his chief examination he stated that he saw the accident. There is a material contradiction as to the presence of P.W.1 at the scene of offence.

7

20. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.2 in her chief examination she stated that she is in the house. But P.W.1 stated that P.W.2 was in the bathroom at the time of offence. There is no corroboration between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

21. P.W.8 who is the Investigation Officer in this case admitted in the cross examination that he did not examine the owner of the vehicle and he did not seize the crime vehicle records.

22. On perusal of the entire evidence, the deceased was died in an accident but the prosecution failed to prove how the accident occurred and who is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. The inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 creates a doubt as to the presence of the accused and he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on the date of alleged incident. Hence, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

23. In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offence Under Section 304(A) of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- P.Meenakshi Sundari

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

P.W.1: Shaik Moulali. -None- 8

P.W.2: Shaik Nasreen.

P.W.3: Shaik Rahamthunnisa. P.W.4: Syed Chand Basha.

P.W.5: K.N.Vijayalakshmi, C.A.S., Govt. Area Hospital, Kadiri. P.W.6: K.Ramana.

P.W.7: R.Hari Kumar. P.W.8: S.Raheem, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudigubba P.S.

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P.1: Report given by P.W.1, Dt.01.12.2015. Ex.P.2: Signature of P.W.4 in inquest, Dt.01.12.2015.

Ex.P.3: Postmortem certificate issued by P.W.5. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.5: Inquest, Dt.01.12.2015.

Ex.P.6: First information report in Cr.No.162/2015 of Mudigubba P.S., Dt.01.12.2015.

Ex.P.7: Rough sketch.

Exhibits marked for Defence

-NIL-

Material Objects marked

No material Objects were marked on either side.

Id/- P.M.S. A.J.M.F.C/KDR.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District:: ANANTHAPURMU

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Date of

Date of Report Apprehen-Released Commence-Close of trial Judgment Offence sion of on bail ment of trial Accused 01.12.2015 01.12.2015 10.12.2015 10.12.2015 12.03.2019 31.07.2024 17.01.2025

Judgment in C.C.No.64/2016 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudigubba Police Station.

Cr.No. and P.S. :: 162/2015, Mudigubba Police Station.

Name of the Accused AgeFather’s (or) ReligionResidenceMandal Husband’s Name

Nagiri Madhava Naidu 30 yrs Late HinduSai Nagar, Mudigubba N.Jayaramulu Mudigubba Village. Driver of Bolero Pickup Goods Vehicle bearing No. AP02 Y 9639

Offence:- U/Sec.304(A) of IPC.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence:- In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offence Under Section 304(A) of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

10

Explanation This case was taken on file and copies of documents were furnished to the for delay & accused and he was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C on 20.06.2017 and posted for trial. On 12.03.2019 the trial of the case was commenced Remarks, if and the prosecution evidence was closed on 31.07.2024. On 19.11.2024 any:- Accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and posted for arguments. On 30.12.2024 Heard both sides and posted for judgement. On 17.01.2025 judgment was delivered. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P.Meenakshi Sundari

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KADIRI

Present: Kum. P. Meenakshi Sundari

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Friday, this the 17th day of January, 2025

Calendar Case No.242 of 2017

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kadiri Town Police station (Crime No.282 of 2016 of

Kadiri Town Police station).

...Complainant.

And

1) U.Sai Prasad, age 28 years, S/o U.Sudhakar, (Died, case against him abated).

2) U.Sudhakar, aged 53 years, S/o late U.Venkataramana,

3) U.Alivelamma, age 50 years, W/o U.Sudhakar,

4) U.Hariprasad, age 25 years, S/o U.Sudhakar,

All are residents of Kolimirallapalli Village, Amadaguru Mandal.

... Accused.

This case is placed on 30.12.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri K.Narendra, advocate for the accused and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under section 498 (A), 506 r/w 34 of

IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.282 of 2016 of Kadiri Town

Police Station.

2

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the defacto-complainant/P.W.1-

U.Suhasini is resident of Jowkupalyam Street, Kadiri Town and her marriage was solemnized with the accused No.1 U.Sai Prasad of Kolimirallapalli Village, Amada- guru Mandal at about 2 years back. At the time of the marriage, her parents given 6 ½ tulas gold ornaments to the accused No.1 as dowry and they lived amicably for 3 months only. Later the accused No.1 was harassing her physically, mentally with the support of accused Nos.2 to 4 for getting additional dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. Due to not tolerate their harassments, P.W.1 came to her parental house and stayed there. Further she tried go to in-laws house, all the accused threat- ened her with dire consequences as if she will bring additional dowry, otherwise, they will permit her to come into their house. Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, a case in

Cr.No.282/2016 U/sec.498(A), 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohi- bition Act of Kadiri Town Police Station has been registered by P.W.6-G.Gopaludu,

Sub-Inspector of Police on 03.12.2026 and submitted FIR copies to all concerned officers and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, P.W.6 exam- ined the defacto complainant and other witnesses and recorded their statements and also examined the scene of offence. P.W.6 arrested the accused No.1 on 08.12.2016 and sent him for judicial remand. He has served notices U/sec.41(A) Cr.P.C to ac- cused Nos.2 to 4. After completion of his investigation, P.W.6 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence under sections 498 (A), 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused Nos.1 to 4.

4. After appearance of accused Nos.1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to the accused Nos. 1 to 4 under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code. They were 3 examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, and the charges under

Sections 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were read over and explained to accused Nos.1 to 4 in Telugu, for which they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. On 28.01.2020 the death cer- tificate of accused No.1 filed, as such the case against him was abated.

5. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2.

6. After closing the prosecution evidence, Accused No. 2 to 4 were examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, for which they denied and reported that no defence evidence.

7. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the defence. Written arguments field on behalf of the accused Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused

Nos.2 to 4 for the offences under sections 498 (A), 506 r/w 34 IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable

doubt?

9. POINT:-

To constitute the offence under Section 498 (A) of IPC, the prosecution is bound to prove the cruelty of the husband or relatives of husband against a woman.

10. To substantiate their case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and

Exs.P.1 and P.2 are marked.

11. P.W.1/U.Suhasini deposed that her marriage was performed on 02.08.2015 with A.1 at Chowdeswary Temple of Amadaguru Village and at the time of marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and 6 ½ thulas of gold to A.1 to A.3 towards 4 dowry. After marriage, P.W.1 and A.1 lived happily for 3 months. A.1 heard the words of A.2 to A.4 and harassed her by demanding the additional dowry and she informed the same to her parents, but her parents expressed their inability and advised A.1 to change his attitude. LW.5 and LW.6 convened panchayat but same was futile.

12. P.W.2/D.Gangulappa who is father of P.W.1 deposed that he performed the marriage of P.W.1 with A.1 at about 4 years ago in Chowdeswary Temple, Amada- guru. At the time of marriage, he gave cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and 6 ½ tulas of gold to A.1 towards dowry. After the marriage, P.W.1 and A.1 lead marital life at Kolimiral- lapalli of Amadauguru Mandal and lived happily for 6 or 7 months. After that accused harassed P.W.1 to bring the additional dowry and accused beat P.W.2 and P.W.1. A.1 did not lookafter the P.W.1 and he used to harass the P.W.1 by physically and men- tally along with A.2 to A.4.

13. P.W.3/K.Jaffervali deposed that the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A.1 at about 5 years ago in the Amadaguru Mandal. He came to know that the parents of P.W.1 gave 6 ½ thulas of gold and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry to the accused. After marriage P.W.1 and A.1 lived happily for 1 year. He came to know through P.W.1 and her father that accused harassed P.W.1 for additional dowry 10 to 12 days prior to lodged report by P.W.1 to police, A.1 came to the house of P.W.1 and made galata with P.W.1 and her parents.

14. P.W.4/J.Venkataramana deposed that the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A.1 at about 4 years ago in Amadaguru Chowdeswary Temple. After marriage, they set up family in Amadaguru village. At the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave 6 thulas of gold and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry to A.1. After marriage

A.1 and P.W.1 lived happily for 1 ½ year, after that he came to know that accused 5 harassed P.W.1 for additional dowry through to P.W.2. Thereafter P.W.1 came to the house of P.W.2 then they conducted panchayath at terubazar of Kadiri by the time himself, LW.5 were settled the disputes between P.W.1 and A.1 and in the said pan- chayath he convened the accused for not to harass the P.W.1, but the accused did not her their words. Later he came to know that P.W.1 lodged report to police. After 10 days of lodged report A.1 came to the house of P.W.2 and picked up galata with the P.W.2 and beat him and his wife.

15. P.W.5/S.Hydervali deposed that the marriage between P.W.1 and A.1 was per- formed by both side elders and at the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave 6 ½ thulas of gold and Rs.1,00,000/- cash towards dowry. He came to know that ac- cused used the dowry and again harassed P.W.1 to get additional dowry and beaten her and necked out her. P.W.1 came to her parents house and informed the same to her parents. The parents of P.W.1 expressed their inability to pay the additional dowry. A.1 came to the house of parents of P.W.1 and beaten P.W.1 and her brother and her parents.

16. P.W.6/G.Gopaludu who is the Investigating Officer deposed that on 03.12.2016 at about 7.00 p.m., while he was present in the police station, he received written report i.e., Ex.P.1 from P.W.1. Basing on that, he registered a case in Cr.No.282/2016

U/sec.498(A), 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act, Ex.P.2 is the FIR. On the same day he recorded the 161(3)Cr.P.C statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Then, he went to the house of P.W.1 at Jowkupalyam Street, Kadiri Town and examined P.W.3 and P.w.5 and recorded their 161(3) Cr.P.C statements and on the next day i.e., on 04.12.2016 he went to Jowkupalyam Street, Kadiri Town and examined P.W.4, LW.5 and LW.7 and recorded their 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements. On 08.12.2016 he arrested 6

A.1 and send him to judicial custody. On 12.12.2016 he issued 41(a) Cr.P.C notice to the accused No.2 to 4 and released them on station bail. After completion of his investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

17. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, P.W.1 deposed that she was sub- jected to harassment by A.1 alone. In her chief examination she stated that after hearing the words of A.2 to A.4, A.1 harassed P.W.1. In support of her contentions, no evidence was let-in by the prosecution. The date, time and place of harassment not mentioned either in report or in her chief examination. P.W.2 deposed in his chief examination that A.1 beaten P.W.1 and him. But he did not state the same before the police or in Ex.P.1. P.W.2 in his entire evidence did not state about when, where and how A.2 to A.4 harassed the P.W.1. When coming to the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5, they are hearsay witnesses and it is well settled law that hearsay evidence is no evidence. P.W.5 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that in his presence A.1 to A.4 never demanded additional dowry and no dowry and gold was given in his presence.

18. On perusal of entire evidence there is no any specific overt-acts against A.2 to

A.4. P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed only they harassed by A.2 to A.4, but they failed to state when, how and where they are harassed by A.2 to A.4 not mentioned anywhere.

On this point this court relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., in

Katakam Rama Rao and others Vs. State of A.P 2024 2 ALT Crl.13 A.P., in this case it was held that “Mere allegations is not sufficient to bring the guilt of accused, it must be supported by the cogent evidence.”

19. On perusal of the evidence and law laid down, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.2 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt.

7

20. In the result, Accused Nos.2 to 4 are found not guilty for the charges under sections 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, accordingly, they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.2 to 4 and their sureties shall be in force for 6 months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, this the 17th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- P.Meenakshi Sundari,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for Prosecution Defence

P.W.1: U.Suhasini. -None- P.W.2: D.Gangulappa. P.W.3: K.Jaffar Vali. P.W.4: J.Venkataramana. P.W.5: S.Hydervali. P.W.6: G.Gopaludu, Sub Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town P.S.

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P.1: Report, Dt.03.12.2016.

Ex.P.2: First information report in Cr.No.282/2016 of Kadiri Town P.S., Dt.03.12.2016.

Exhibits marked for Defence

NIL

Material Objects marked

NIL Id/- P.M.S., A.J.M.F.C/KDR.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District:: ANANTHAPURMU

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Date of

Date of Report Apprehen-Released Commence-Close of trial Judgment Offence sion of on bail ment of trial Accused

Prior to 03.12.2016 08.12.2016 13.12.2016 06.02.2019 18.12.2024 17.01.2025 03.12.2016 A1 41(a) Cr.P.C 12.12.2016 notice A2 to A4

Judgment in C.C.No.242/2017 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station.

Cr.No. and P.S. :: 282/2016, Kadiri Town Police Station.

AgeReligionResidenceMandal Name of the Accused Father’s (or) Husband’s Name

Hindu

1. U.Sai Prasad 28 yrs S/o U.Sudhakar All are Amadaguru residents of Hindu

2. U.Sudhakar 53 yrs S/o late U.Venkata Kolimiralla palli village ramana

3. U.Alivelamma 50 yrs W/o U.Sudhakar Hindu Hindu

4. U.Hariprasad 25 yrs S/o U.Sudhakar

Offence:- U/Secs.498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Finding: Accused Nos.2 to 4 are found not guilty.

Sentence:- In the result, Accused Nos.2 to 4 are found not guilty for the charges under sections 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, accordingly, they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of

Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.2 to 4 and their sureties shall be in force for 6 months.

9

Explanation This case was taken on file and copies of documents were furnished to the for delay & accused and they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C on 16.10.2017 Remarks, if and posted for trial. On 06.12.2019 the trial of the case was commenced and any:- the prosecution evidence was closed on 18.12.2024. On 24.12.2024 Accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and posted for arguments. On 27.12.2024

Heard for the accused counsel and posted for APP hearing. On 30.12.2024 written arguments filed by the accused counsel. Heard both sides and posted for judgement. On 17.01.2025 judgment was delivered. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P.Meenakshi Sundari,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: KADIRI

Present: Kum. P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadiri

Thursday, this the 16 th day of January, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.528 of 2023

Between:

State, the Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station in Crime No.69 of 2021. … Complainant. AND

Bara Ravi Kumar, age 38 years, S/o Bara Obulapathi, D.No.9-112, Main Road, Pathabattlapalli of Nallamada Mandalam, Now residing at Maggala Quarters, Kadiri Town, Occ.-Auto Driver.

… Accused.

This case was placed before me for final hearing on 02.01.2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B.Surendra, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station filed charge sheet in

Crime No.69 of 2021 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC, Sec.8(B)(I)(II) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Sec.34(A) of A.P.Excise Act.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that, on 8.3.2021 at about 4.30 pm., while conducting patrolling duties, P.W.2 along with his staff at Maggala Quar- ters, Hindupur road, Kadiri and there they found one male person and he is selling

ID arrack to some unknown person. On seeing them, he escaped from the scene of offence. P.W.2 deputed P.W.1 to secure the mediators but no one came forward.

Then P.W.2 verified the scene of offence and found one auto bearing No. AP02-TD- 2144 and found 11 bottles Old Admiral of 180 ml and 2 bottles of Old Admiral of 1 liter. P.W.2 came to know about the accused details and he drawn 1 bottle of 180 ml and 1 bottle of 1 liter from the contraband for chemical analysis by duly affixing labels.

Then P.W.2 prepared police proceedings at the scene of offence. Then they returned 2 to the police station along with the accused and contraband and registered a case and addressed a letter to the M.V.I to know the details of the owner of the auto. After completion of his investigation, he handed over the C.D. file to P.W.3. P.W.3 handed over the C.D. file to LW.5-P.Satya Babu, Inspector of police. After completion of his investigation, LW.5 filed charge sheet in this case.

3. Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 188 of IPC, Sec.8(B)(I)(II) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused.

4. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offence. Charges are framed Under Section 188 IPC, Sec.8(b)(i)(ii) of

A.P.P and Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Out of the five witnesses cited, in order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 and

M.O.2 are marked.

6. Accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he stated that entire incriminating evidence appearing against him is false and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

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

offence Under Section188 IPC, Sec.8(b)(i)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

9. Point: -

To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 are marked. The C.I. of Police given up the evidence of LW.2-Y.Harinath Reddy and LW.5-P.Satya Babu, Inspector of Police,

Kadiri Town Police Station.

10. P.W.1 who is Constable deposed that on 8.3.2021 at about 4.30 pm., while he was present in the police station, on the instructions of C.I. of Police, as there is Municipal Elections, he along with LW.1 and LW.3 went to the patrolling duty meantime, they went in a police jeep bearing No.AP18-P-1733 to the Maggala Quar- ters, near Venkateswaraswamy temple and reached by 5.00 pm and there they found one male person is sitting in auto along with bag and on seeing them, he escaped from the scene of offence. Then, P.W.2 verified the said bag and found 11 bottles of

Old Admiral (VSOP) brandy of 180 ml each and 2 bottles of Old Admiral (VSOP) brandy of 1 liter each and they verified the auto bearing No. AP02-PB-2144. P.W.2 tried to secure the mediators but no one came forward and he enquired the details of the accused and he came to know about the identity particulars of the accused.

Later P.W.2 drawn 2 samples of 180 ml each from the 11 bottles and 90 ml from the 2 bottles for chemical analysis by duly affixing the labels. P.W.2 prepared police proceedings at the scene of offence. Then they returned to the police station along with the contraband. He identified the accused who present in the court hall.

11. P.W.2 who is Head Constable deposed like P.W.1 and he further deposed that he prepared police proceedings/Ex.P.1 at the scene of offence. Then he returned to the police station along with the contraband and registered a case against the accused and he addressed a letter to the MVI to know the details of the owner of the auto. After completion of his investigation, he handed the C.D file to

P.W.3 for further investigation in this case. He identified the accused who present in the court hall.

12. P.W.3 who is S.I. of Police deposed that he received C.D file from P.W.2 for further investigation in this case and he send the sample for chemical analysis and he received chemical analysis report/Ex.P.3. M.O.1 and M.O.2 are sample 4 bottles. He arrested the accused at Maggala Quarters and send him to judicial cus- tody. After completion of his investigation, he handed over the C.D file to LW.5 and

LW.5 filed charge sheet in this case.

13. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and there were residential houses near the scene of offence. At the time of search and seizure, the police should follow Sec.100 Cr.P.C.

In the present case, the police failed to follow the Sec.100 Cr.P.C and they did not secure any local inhabitants at the time of search and seizure and the police failed to explain what is the nature of the contraband.

14. The search as contemplated by Section 100 of Cr.P.C. shall be made

in the presence of two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the

locality in which the place to be searched is situated. In this regard, it is the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that,

“ It is true MRO office was situated beside their police

station and revenue officials were available. Sachivalayam is

situated in Maggala Quarters and VRO also available. We did

not try to secure the VRO or Sachivalayam staff. It is true 800

houses were situated in Maggala Quarters and said is a busy

road. It is true beside our station there is MRO office.”

15. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Investigation

Officer failed to comply the mandatory provisions of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. It

was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Baba Saheb @

Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2009(4) APLJ 57 HC that

“Before making a search the officer or other person about

to make it shall call upon 2 or more independent and respectable

inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is

situated or any other locality if no such inhabits of the said

locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search to

5

attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing

to them or any of them so to do.” 16. On perusal of entire evidence on record and law laid down by the Hon’ble

High Court it is clear that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

17. In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offence Under Section 188 of IPC and Sec 8(b)(i)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act, accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- P.Meenakshi Sudnari

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KADIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For

Prosecution:

P.W.1 : B.Ramanjulu, Police Constable, Kadiri Town P.S.

P.W.2 : N.Suresh Babu, Head Constable, Kadiri Town P.S.

P.W.3 : P.Ismail Khan, Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town P.S.

For Defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecu- tion:

Ex.P.1 : Police proceedings, dt.8.3.2021.

F.I.R in Cr.No.69/2021 of Kadiri Town P.S., Ex.P.2 :

dt. 8.3.2021

6

Ex.P.3 : Chemical analysis report.

For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1: Sample bottle.

M.O.1: Sample bottle.

Id/- P.M.S.

A.J.M.F.C.

KADIRI.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District:: ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri Date of

Date of Report of Apprehen- Released Commence- Close Sentence Offence Complaint sion of on bail ment of trial of trial of order Accused 08.03.2021 08.03.2021 12.03.2021 22.03.2021 15.12.2023 27.12.2024 16.01.2025

Judgment in C.C.No.528/2023 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Kadiri.

Complainant :: The Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station. Cr.No. and P.S. :: 69/2021 of Kadiri Town Police Station.

Name of the AgeFather’s (or) ReligionResidenceMandal Accused Husband’s Name

Bara Ravi 38 yrs S/o Bara HinduOcc: Auto driver, Kadiri Kumar Obulapathi D.No.9-112. Main road, Pathabattalapalli of Nallamada Mandal. Now residing at Maggala Quarters, Kadiri Town.

Offence:- U/Sec.188 of IPC and Sec.8(b)(i)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. Finding:- Accused is found not guilty. Sentence:- In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offence Under Section 188 of IPC and Sec. 8(b) (i)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation This case was taken on file and copies of documents were furnished to the accused and he was examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C and posted for trial. On for delay & 15.12.2023 the trial of the case was commenced and the prosecution Remarks, if evidence was closed on 27.12.2024 and posted for 313 Cr.P.C examination. any:- On 02.01.2025 Accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. Heard both sides and posted for judgment. On 16.01.2025 judgment was delivered. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P.Meenakshi Sundari

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: KADIRI

Present: Kum. P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadiri

Friday, this the 17 th day of January, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.517 of 2023

Between:

State, the Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station in Crime No.626 of 2021. … Complainant. AND

Matta Madhavaiah, aged 43 years, S/o M.Nagaiah, r/o Tarakarama Nagar, Kutagulla Village in Kadiri Town.

… Accused.

This case was placed before me for final hearing on 02.01.2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A.Gangi Reddy, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the follow- ing:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station filed charge sheet in

Crime No.626 of 2021 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that, on 18.12.2021 at about 5.30 p.m., while P.W.2 was present in the police station, on the instructions of C.I. of

Police, he along with his staff went to the patrolling duties in a police jeep bearing

No. AP18-P-1646 and reached Tarakarama Nagar, Kutagulla Village and there they found some gathering in the open place. On seeing them, they escaped from the scene of offence by leaving one bag. Then, P.W.2 send his staff to secure mediators but no one came forward. Then P.W.2 verified the bag and found 2 liquor bottles of

Good Friends Deluxe whisky of 180 ml, 2 liquor bottles of Old Timer Deluxe whisky of 180 ml, 2 bottles of Celebrity Brandy of 180 ml and 1 bottle of Daaru House XO brandy of 180 ml, in total 7 liquor bottles and seized the remaining contraband under 2 the cover of police proceedings. Then P.W.2 enquired about the details of the accused and he came to know that accused used to sell the liquor in that area. Then they returned to the police station and registered a case against the accused. After completion of his investigation, P.W.2 handed over the C.D. file to P.W.3. After completion of investigation of P.W.3, his successor LW.7-T.Madhu, Inspector of

Police, Kadiri Town Police Station filed charge sheet in this case.

3. Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as contem- plated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused.

4. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offence. Charge is framed Under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Out of the seven witnesses cited, in order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 to M.O.4 are marked.

6. Accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he stated that entire incriminating evidence appearing against him is false and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

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

offence Under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt

9. Point: -

To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 to M.O.4 are marked. The C.I. of Police given up the evidence of LW.3-Y.Harinath Reddy , LW.4-G.Vemareddy, Police Constables, LW.5- 3

K.Ramadevi, Asst. Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh .& Excise Laboratory, Chittoor (A.P.) and LW.7-T.Madhu, Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station.

10. P.W.1 who is Head Constable deposed that on 18.12.2021 at about 5.30 p.m., while he was present in the police station, on the instructions of C.I. of Police, he along with P.W.2, LW.3 and LW.4 went to the patrolling duties in a police jeep bearing No.AP18-P-1646 and reached Tarakarama Nagar, Kutagulla Village and there they found some gathering in the open place and on seeing them, they escaped from the scene of offence by leaving one bag. Then, he send his staff to secure mediators but no one came forward. Then, P.W.1 verified the bag and found 2 liquor bottles of Good Friends Deluxe whisky of 180 ml, 2 liquor bottles of Old Timer Deluxe whisky of 180 ml, 2 bottles of Celebrity brandy of 180 ml and 2 bottles of Daru whisky of 180 ml in total 8 liquor bottles. Then, P.W.2 prepared police proceedings at the scene of offence, Then, they returned to the police station along with the contraband.

He can identify the accused.

11. P.W.2 who is Asst. Sub-Inspector of police deposed like P.W.1 and he further deposed that he seized the remaining contraband under the cover of police proceedings/Ex.P.1. Then he enquired about the details of the accused and he came to know that accused used to sell the liquor in that area. Then, they returned to the police station and registered a case against the accused. After completion of his investigation, he handed the C.D file to P.W.3 for further investigation in this case.

He can identify the accused.

12. P.W.3 who is C.I. of Police deposed that on 18.12.2021 at about 8.00 p.m., while he was present in the police station, P.W.2 appeared before him and produced Ex.P.1 along with the seized property. He send the case property for chem- ical analysis and obtained chemical analysis report/Ex.P.3. M.O.1 to M.O.4 are the sample bottles. On 11.02.2022 at about 11.00 a.m., on credible information, he arrested the accused at Auto stand, Kutagulla Village and on the same day, he send the accused to judicial custody. After completion of his investigation, his successor i.e., L.W.7 filed charge sheet in this case.

4

13. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and there were residential houses near the scene of offence. At the time of search and seizure, the police should follow Sec.100 Cr.P.C.

In the present case, the police failed to follow the Sec.100 Cr.P.C and they did not secure any local inhabitants at the time of search and seizure and the police failed to explain what is the nature of the contraband.

14. The search as contemplated by Section 100 of Cr.P.C. shall be made

in the presence of two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the

locality in which the place to be searched is situated. In this regard, it is the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 that, “ One has to reach Kutagulla within 15 minutes from Kadiri.

I did not sign in the police proceedings. It is true I did not

prepare any arrest mahazarnama at the time of arrest of

accused.”

15. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Investigation

Officer failed to comply the mandatory provisions of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. It

was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Baba Saheb @

Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2009(4) APLJ 57 HC that

“Before making a search the officer or other person about

to make it shall call upon 2 or more independent and respectable

inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is

situated or any other locality if no such inhabits 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.” 16. On perusal of entire evidence on record and law laid down by the Hon’ble

High Court it is clear that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

5

17. In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offence Under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months. M.O.1 to

M.O.4 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- P.Meenakshi Sundari

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KADIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For

Prosecution:

P.W.1 : B.Srinivasulu, Head Constable-1985, Kadiri Town P.S.

P.W.2 : C.V.Subba Rao, A.S.I of Police, Kadiri Town P.S.

P.W.3 : P.Satya Babu, Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town P.S.

For Defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecu- tion:

Ex.P.1 : Police proceedings, dt.18.12.2021.

F.I.R in Cr.No.626/2021 of Kadiri Town P.S., Ex.P.2 :

dt. 18.12.2021

Ex.P.3 : Chemical analysis report.

For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1 to M.O.4: Sample bottles.

Id/- P.M.S.

A.J.M.F.C.

KADIRI.

6 \CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District:: ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri Date of

Date of Report of Apprehen- Released Commence- Close Sentence of Offence Complaint sion of Accused on bail ment of trial of trial order 18.12.2021 18.12.2021 11.02.2022 23.02.2022 18.11.2024 04.12.2024 17.01.2025

Judgment in C.C.No.517/2023 on the file of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

Complainant :: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station.

Cr.No. and P.S. :: 626/2021 of Kadiri Town Police Station.

AgeReligionResidenceMandal Name of the Father’s (or) Accused Husband’s Name

Hindu Matta 43 M.Nagaiah R/o Tarakarama Nagar, Kadiri Town Madhavaiah yrs Kutagulla Village

Offence:- U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Finding:- Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence:- In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offence Under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months. M.O.1 to M.O.4 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation This case was taken on file and copies of documents were furnished to the for delay & accused and he was examined Under section 239 of Cr.P.C and posted for Remarks, if trial. On 18.11.2024 the trial of the case was commenced and the any:- prosecution evidence was closed on 04.12.2024 and posted for 313 Cr.P.C examination. On 02.01.2025 Accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. Heard both sides and posted for judgment. On 17.01.2025 judgment was delivered. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P.Meenakshi Sundari

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

1

APAN0C0012642022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: KADIRI

Present: Kum. P. Meenakshi Sundari,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadiri

Friday, this the 25 th day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.635 of 2022

Between:

State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Gandlapenta Police Station in Cr.No.58/2022.

… Complainant.

And

Maale Ramanjulu, age 30 years, S/o M.Narasimhulu, Kurumamidi village, Gandlapenta Mandal.

… Accused.

This case was placed before me for final hearing on 24.04.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri L.Lokeswara Reddy, Advocates for the accused and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandlapenta Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.58 of 2022 against the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 272, 273 IPC and Sec. 57, 58 r/w 26, 30 of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that, on 03.08.2022 at about 4.00

P.M., while P.W.2 was present in the police station, he received credible information about the tobacco packets. Then he along with his staff went to the Karumamidi

Village and reached by 4.30 P.M., there they found one male person selling tobacco 2 packets in his petty shops. On seeing the police, he tried to skulk away but they caught hold the said person. P.W.2 enquired the said person, he voluntarily revealed identity particulars and found 10 Badshaha Tobacco packets and seized the same under the cover of police proceedings. Then P.W.2 returned to the police and regis- tered the above case against the accused. P.W.2 issued 41(a) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and released him on bail. After completion of his investigation, P.W.2 filed charge sheet in this case. Hence, this case.

3. Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under

Section 6 r/w 24(2) of C.O.T.P. Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused.

4. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, for which he denied the offence. Charge is framed Under Section 6 r/w 24(2) of C.O.T.P. Act was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Out of the four witnesses cited, in order to establish its case, the prose- cution has examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and M.O.1 are marked.

6. Accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he stated that entire incriminating evidence appearing against him is false and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offence Under Section 6 r/w 24(2) of C.O.T.P. Act, beyond all reasonable

doubt?

3

9. Point:- To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 and

P.W.2 and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and M.O.1 are marked. The learned Asst. Public Pros- ecutor given up the evidence of LW.2-K.Ravi Kumar and LW.3-C.P.Bhaskar Raju,

Police Constables Gandlapenta P.S.

10. P.W.1 who is Head Constable deposed that on 03.08.2022 at about 4.00 pm, while P.W.1 was present in the police station, LW.4 received credible information about selling Tobacco packets. Then, he along with LW.2 to LW.4 went to the

Kurumamidi village and reached by 4.30 pm and there they found one male person in a shop and on seeing them, he tried to skulk away, but they caught hold the said person. LW.4 enquired said person and he voluntarily revealed his identity particu- lars and other details. Then, LW.4 verified the person and found 10 Badshaha

Tobacco packets. Then, LW.4 arrested the accused and seized the remaining con- traband under the cover of police proceedings. Then, they returned to the police station along with the accused and contraband. He identified the accused present in the court hall.

11. P.W.2 who is the then Sub-Inspector of Police deposed like P.W.1 and he further deposed that he enquired about the details of the said person and he revealed his identity particulars and found 10 Badshaha Tobacco packets and seized the same under cover of police proceedings/Ex.P.1. Then, he returned to the police station and registered a case. Ex.P.2 is the FIR. M.O.1 is the seized tobacco packets of 10 in number. Then, he issued 41(a) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and released him on bail. After completion of his investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

He identified the accused who present in the court hall.

12. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and there were residential houses near the scene of offence. At the time of search and seizure, the police should follow Sec.100 Cr.P.C.

In the present case, the police failed to follow the Sec.100 Cr.P.C and they did not secure any local inhabitants at the time of search and seizure and the police failed to explain what is the nature of the contraband.

4

13. The search as contemplated by Section 100 of Cr.P.C. shall be made

in the presence of two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the

locality in which the place to be searched is situated. In this regard, it is the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that,

“ It is true Kurumamidi is a Village Head Quarter and it is

a busy locality. We did not try to secure the mediators. We

did not prepare rough sketch and scene observation

mahazarnama in the scene of offence. We did not try to secure

local inhabitants.”

14. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is clear that the Investigation

Officer failed to comply the mandatory provisions of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. It

was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Baba Saheb @

Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2009(4) APLJ 57 HC that

“Before making a search the officer or other person about

to make it shall call upon 2 or more independent and respectable

inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is

situated or any other locality if no such inhabits 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.”

15. On perusal of entire evidence on record and law laid down by the Hon’ble

High Court it is clear that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 6 r/w 24(2) of C.O.T.P Act and he is accordingly, acquitted under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of 5

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 25th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- P.Meenakshi Sundari,

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KADIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For

Prosecution:

P.W.1 : P.Ramaiah, Head Constable, Gandlapenta P.S.

B.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.2 : Gandlapenta P.S.

For Defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Police proceedings, dt.03.08.2022.

F.I.R in Cr.No.58/2022 of Gandlapenta P.S., Ex.P.2 : dt.03.08.2022.

For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1: Seized tobacco packets of 10 in number.

Id/- P.M.S., A.J.M.F.C,

KADIRI.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District:: ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri Date of

Date of Report of Apprehen- Released Commence- Close Offence Complaint sion of on bail ment of trial of trial Sentence of Accused order 03.08.2022 03.08.2023 03.08.2022 41 (A) Cr.P.C 26.07.2024 08.01.2025 25.04.2025

Judgment in C.C.No.635/2022 on the file of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandlapenta Police Station. Cr.No. and P.S. :: 58/2022 of Gandlapetna Police Station.

AgeResidenceMandal Name of the Father’s (or) Caste/ Religion Accused Husband’s Name

Hindu Maale 30 S/o M.Narasimhulu Kurumamidi Gandlapenta Ramanjulu yrs village

Offence:- U/Sec. 6 r/w 24(2) of C.O.T.P Act.. Finding:- Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence:- In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 6 r/w 24(2) of C.O.T.P Act and he is accordingly, acquitted Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C for a period of six months. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation This case was taken on file and copies of documents were furnished to the for delay & accused and he was examined Under section 239 of Cr.P.C on 31.10.2023 Remarks, if and posted for trial. On 26.07.2024 the trial of the case was commenced any:- and the prosecution evidence was closed on 08.01.2025 and posted for 313 Cr.P.C examination. On 24.04.2025 Accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and heard both sides and posted for judgment. On 25.04.2025 judgment was delivered. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P.Meenakshi Sundari,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.