Smt.Mellam Reshma

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KADAPA.

Present: Smt: M.Reshma,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Calendar Case No.1137 of 2020

Between

State:Sub Inspector of Police, Kadapa I Town U/G P.S.

...Complainant

Vs.

1. Shaik Madarsab, 55 years, S/o Budensab, D.No.21/635, R.K Nagar, Kadapa City.

2. Shaik Fakruddin, 45 years, S/o Mastanvalli, D.No.21/628-4, Palempalli Street, Kadapa City. (The case is abated against A.2 as he is died).

…Accused.

This case came up before me on 17.04.2026 for final hearing and upon hearing the arguments of Y.Syam Sunder Reddy, learned Senior Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri G.V.Kalyan Reddy, learned Counsel for the accused, the case is abated against A.2 as he is died, and the matter having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadapa I Town U/G Police Station, has filed a charge sheet against A.1 and A.2 in Crime No.252 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) of The Narcotic Drugs And

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(in short the NDPS Act) and Section 9 (1) of

Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, Matka (in short the AP Gaming Act).

2.The sum and substance of the charge sheet is as follows:-

Previously, A.1 was involved in matka cases and was arrested by the

Kadapa I Town Police, and so a suspect sheet is being continued against A1. On receipt of credible information with regard to sale of ganja in the vicinity of old

Municipal Office, PW2 secured Panchayathars PW1 and LW2/A.Sreenivasulu,

V.R.O and went to old Municipal Office, Kadapa, arrested A.1 and A.2 in the presence of Panchayathars and interrogated them. On that A.1 and A.2, confessed that previously they were indulged in matka writing, and as they were arrested by the police several times, they decided to purchase ganja at a lower price and to sell the same at a higher price in order to earn a huge amount.

(i).While so, on 29.10.2018, they purchased 1 kg of ganja from one unknown person for Rs.2,000/- and distributed half kg each between them and further divided the said ganja into 10 packets each containing 50 grams and were selling the said packets each for Rs.100/-. PW2 recorded the confession in the presence of PW1 and PW2 under a cover of panchnama, seized half kilo of ganja sealed in a white plastic cover, divided it into small packets and also seized an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and 5 matka slips from the possession of A1. PW2 seized half kilo of ganja sealed in a white plastic cover, divided it into small packets, also seized an amount of Rs.30,000/- and 6 matka slips from the possession of A.2 under the cover of Panchnama in the presence of PW.1 and LW2. PW.2 arrested the accused, seized the incriminating material, went to the police station and basing on the panchnama registered a case in Crime No.252 of 2018 under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 9(1) of AP Gaming Act, Matka.

Thereafter, PW2 forwarded the seized samples of ganja to LW3/C.Rajeswaramma, along with a letter of advice for analysis and report. Accordingly, LW3 examined the

Ganja and issued an analysis report vide CE No.875 of 2018 stating that the sample was Ganja. After completion of the investigation, PW.2 filed charge sheet.

3.The then learned magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 9 (1) of A.P Gaming Act, Matka against A.1 and A.2.

4.On the appearance of A.1 and A.2, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.A.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and

Section 9 (1) of AP Gaming Act, Matka, Charges were framed and read over and explained for which they pleaded not guilty, denied and claimed to be tried. Case against A.2 is abated as he died.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and MO.1 to MO.3. The evidence of L.W.2/

A.Sreenivasulu and LW.3/C.Rajeswaramma was given up by the learned A.P.P.

The prosecution evidence was reported closed.

7.A.1 is examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him, for which he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A.1 for the offences punishable u/Secs. 8(c) r/w 20 (b)

(ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 9(1) of AP Gaming Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

Point:

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, relying on the depositions of

PWs 1 and 2, and exhibits P.1 to P.3, vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of A.1 beyond all reasonable doubt.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused contends that Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied, and that the officer who is bound to reduce the information into writing and send it to the superior officer has not complied the mandatory provisions and further contends that no independent witnesses were secured, and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to acquit the accused.

12.In order to prove the guilt of , the prosecution examined 2 witnesses.

Viz. PW.1/Y.Chinnaiah, V.R.O and PW.2/T.V.Satya Narayana Sub-Inspector of police. The evidence of L.W.2/A.Sreenivasulu and LW.3/ C.Rajeswaramma was given up by the learned A.P.P.

13. The prosecution relies upon the following documents. Ex.P.1 is the

Confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P.2 is the F.I.R in Crime No.252 of 2018,

Ex.P.3 is the R.F.S.L report, M.O.1 is the cash of Rs.50,000/- vide F.D.R

No.38090444675, M.O.2 is the 450 grams of ganga seized from the possession of

A.1 and M.O.3 is the 450 grams of ganga seized from the possession of A.2.

14.It is the evidence of PW1/Y.Chinnaiah, VRO, that on 29.10.2018 at about 05.30 p.m., while he and LW2/A.Sreenivasulu, V.R.O were present in the office, at the request of PW2, they went to the police station to act as mediators.

From there, himself, LW2 and other police officials went to the old Municipality

Office, Kadapa and by the time they reached there, two persons were standing at the water tank, and on seeing them, they tried to escape. Then police apprehended them, and they voluntarily revealed their identity particulars as A1 and A2, and on individual enquiry by PW2, they revealed that they were indulged in matka writing and that they were in possession of ganja and that they purchased ganja at a lower price to sell the same for a higher price. Then A1 and A2 produced 10 packets each containing 50 grams of ganja. PW2 seized 5 matka slips and Rs. 20,000 from A1, and 6 matka slips and Rs.30,000 from A2, and also seized the ganja packets from

A1 and A2. He then drew a sample for forwarding it to Chemical analysis. PW2 arrested A1 and A2 prepared the confession and seizure panchanama, and then

PW1 and LW2 signed on it. Ex.P1 is the confession and seizure panchanama.

15.It is the evidence of PW2/T.V.V Satya Narayana, the Investigating

Officer, that on 29.10.2018 at 05.00 p.m., on receipt of credible information about sale of ganja at old Municipal Office, he secured PW1 and LW2, gave information to them about the sale of ganja, and went to the scene of offence situated at Water

Tank near old Municipality Office, Kadapa, there he found two persons and that they ran away on seeing them. Then he apprehended them with the help of police staff, and one of his staff members identified them as matka beaters. On enquiry,

A1 and A2 revealed their identity particulars and voluntarily confessed that they are selling ganja and that they purchased 1 kg of ganja from some unknown persons, divided into small packets, half a kilo each. On search of A1, he found 5 matka slips and Rs.20,000 cash along with 10 packets of ganja. On search of A2, he found 6 matka slips, Rs. 30,000 cash and 10 packets of ganja and he seized them in the presence of PW1 and LW2 under the cover of Panchnama/Ex.P1, arrested the accused, and sent them for judicial remand. On the same day, he registered a case in Crime No. 252/2018, issued FIR, submitted copies of FIR to the concerned.

Exhibit.P2 is the FIR. On 30.10.2018, PW4 drew 50 grams of ganja from the one

Kg seized from each person, forwarded it to LW3 for chemical analysis, and on 18.02.2020 he received RFSL report from LW3. Exhibit.P3 is the RFSL report. The seized ganja and cash was produced before the court, which were marked as MO1 is cash of Rs.50,000 vide FDR No.38090444675. MO2 is 450 grams of ganja seized from A1. MO3 is 450 grams of ganja seized from A2. After completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet.

16.The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the evidence of

P.Ws 1 and 2 is not corroborating with each other and the accused is entitled to acquittal.

17.PW1 and PW2 categorically deposed in similar lines. The evidence of

PW1 and PW2 is corroborating in all aspects i.e date of the alleged offence, place of arrest, and seizure, and also with regard to the material objects seized from A1 and A2. But that is not the end of it.

18.A.1, the accused was charged with the offence punishable under

Section under Sections 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985. The provisions under the NDPS Act are mandatory in nature, and they have to be complied with in a strict sense. Now it has to be seen whether the Investigating Officer Has complied with the mandatory provisions prescribed under the NDPS Act.

19.It is here pertinent to read Sections 42, 50, and 57 of NDPS Act, which are extracted here under : Section 42:- Power of entry, search, seizure, and arrest without warrant or authorization : (l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intellegence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place,may between sunrise and sunset,— (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;

(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;

(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture there of and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to bailable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter V A of this

Act; and

(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act:

[Provided that in respect of holder of a license for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector:

Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.

(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.

Section 50A. Power to undertake controlled delivery.—The Director General of

Narcotics Control Bureau constituted under sub-section (3) of section 4 or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf, may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, undertake controlled delivery of any consignment to—

(a) any destination in India;

(b) a foreign country, in consultation with the competent authority of such foreign country to which such consignment is destined, in such manner as may be prescribed.

In Union Of India vs. Bal Mukund and others, reported in 2009(2) ALD (Crl.) 41 (SC) (FB), The Hon’ble Apex Court held that compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is necessary when stringent punishment is prescribed under the Act.

20.As per Section 50 of the Act, when any officer duly authorized under

Section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42, or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer.

21.Thus, it is a prerogative of the accused to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. But the evidence of PW.2 does not disclose that he has apprised the accused of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted

Officer. The evidence of PW.2 does not disclose that A1 and A2 were searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Though it is the evidence of PW.2 that he has secured two mediators, it is not his evidence that he has secured the Gazetted

Officer as one of the mediators. As such, it can be said that the Investigating Officer failed to comply with the mandatory provision as laid down under section 50 of the

Act, and it is fatal.

22.In Arik Khan alias Agha Khan vs. the State of Uttarakhand reported in 2018(2) ALD (Crl.) 10 (SC), Their Lordships have held that “non-compliance of mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 50 of NDPS Act is fatal to the prosecution case, and the accused is entitled to acquittal.

23.It is further pertinent to read Section 42(2) of the Act which is extracted hereunder:

Section 42. Power of entry, search, seizure, and arrest without warrant or authorization.—(l) ………………….

(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. *A reading of Section 42 (2)goes to show that whenever an officer receives any information of the offence punishable under this Act, has been committed, he shall inform the same within 72 hours to his superior. But the evidence of PW2 does not disclose that he has complied with this mandatory provision.

In State of Rajasthan vs. Jag Raj Singh alias Hansa, reported in2016 (2) ALD (Crl.) 376 (SC), it was held that section 42(2) ofNDPS Act is a mandatory provision, violation of the same, accused isentitled to acquittal.”

In the present case also the investigating officer/PW2 failed to comply with the mandatory provision required under Section 42(2) of N.D.P.S Act and it is fatal.

24.It is further pertinent to read Section 57 of N.D.P.S Act which reads as follows:

57. Report of arrest and seizure :- Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within forty- eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior.

[57A.Report of seizure of property of the person arrested by the notified officer.—Whenever any officer notified under section 53 makes an arrest or seizure under this Act, and the provisions of Chapter VA apply to any person involved in the case of such arrest or seizure, the officer shall make a report of the illegally acquired properties of such person to the jurisdictional competent authority within ninety days of the arrest or seizure.

25.A reading of Section 57 of the NDPS Act goes to show that whenever any arrest or seizure has been made, it is the obligation of the Investigating Officer to report the particulars of arrest and seizure to his immediate superior officer. But there is no whisper in the evidence of PW.2 that he has reported the arrest and seizure to his immediate superior officer within 48 hours. Thus, the evidence discloses that the Investigating Officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions laid down under Section 57 of the NDPS Act.

26.In Ankireddy Ramana Reddy vs. State of A.P., reported in 2005(3)

ALT (Crl.) 176 (AP) it was held that “seizure of property and arrest of accused failed to inform to the superior officer within 48 hours by the Investigation Officer amounts to a failure to comply requirement of section 57, due to that trial held vitiated.” In

Central Bureau of Narcotics vs. Bahadur Singh, reported in (2011) ACR 202, it

was held that “when there is no strict compliance with legal provisions of NDPS

Act which are mandatory, no reliance can be placed on the confessional statement of accused.”

In the present case also, except the confession statement of the accused, no other material was placed before the court by the prosecution to prove the involvement of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arif Khan alias Agha Khan v. State of

Uttarakhand 2018 (2) ALD Crl 10 (SC) wherein their lordships have held that"

Since the non compliance of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is fatal to the prosecution case and in this case we have found that the prosecution has failed to prove the compliance as required in law". He further relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

Gurunadham SubbaRao Kavali Ghatodgajudu vs State of Andhra Pradesh

2024 (1) ALD (Crl) 76 AP where in his lordship held that “non-compliance of

Section 42 of the NDPS Act is a serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution”.

27.As already discussed, there is no strict compliance of the legal provisions of the NDPS Act. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the offence punishable under Sec 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985.

It is further the allegation of the prosecution that the Accused No.1 is indulging in the practice of Matka and that he is found in possession of matka slips, and so he is punishable under section 9(1) of Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act. Section 9(1)of AP Gaming Act is extracted hereunder:- Penalty for gaming or setting birds or animals to fight in a public street or place - (1) Whoever is found gaming or reasonably suspected to be gaming in any public street or thoroughfare or in any place to which the public have, or are permitted to have, access shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees or with both.

28.Though PWs 1 and 2 categorically deposed that they found Matka slips in possession of A.1, the prosecution failed to produce the said Matka slips before the court. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused No.1 indulges in

Matka gaming and that he was found in possession of Matka slips. The learned counsel for the accused also contends that PW2 did not paste any identity slips on

MOs 1 to 3 at the time of seizure to show that they were seized from the possession of the accused. Admittedly, PW2 did not affix any mediator slips to the cash and ganja alleged to have been found in the possession of the accused.

During his cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he acted as panchayathdar in about 20 to 30 cases and that whenever the Sub-Inspector of one town police station requests him, he acts as mediator. It appears that PW1 is a stock mediator to the police.

29.So inview of the aforesaid discussion this Court finds that from the admissions by P.W.1 and P.W.2 it is clear that PW2 did not take the assistance of any other gazetted officer and the entire procedure was done by himself, while he is also the complainant in this case. It is also apparent that he did not comply the mandatory provisions under Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The citations relied by the learned defence counsel show that the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases including a constitutional bench Judgment, had repeatedly emphasised and also laid down that the said provisions are mandatory and violation of these provisions goes to the root of the prosecution case.

30.Hence, this Court holds that the investigating officer did not follow the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act and the prosecution has failed to prove the the guilt of A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act and Section 9 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, Matka beyond all reasonable doubt and that he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

In the result, A.1 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 8

(c) r/w 20 (b) (1) of N.D.P.S Act and Section 9 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act,

Matka accordingly he is acquitted under Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred. M.O.1 i.e Cash of Rs.50,000/- vide F.D.R No.38090444675, the unclaimed property shall be confiscated to the state after the expiry of appeal time if no appeal is preferred. M.O.2/450 grams of ganja and M.O.3/450 grams of ganja is ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred.

Case against A2 is abated as he died.

Typed by me on my personal laptop corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class Kadapa. Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution: For Defence: Nil

PW.1: Y.Chinnaiah, V.R.O

PW.2: T.V.Sayna Narayana, Inspector of Police

Exhibits marked for prosecution: For Defence:Nil

Ex.P.1: Confession and seizure panchanama

Ex.P.2: F.I.R in Crime No.252 of 2018

Ex.P.3: R.F.S.L report

Material Objects Marked For Prosecution

M.O.1: Cash of Rs.50,000/- vide F.D.R No.38090444675

M.O.2: 450 grams of ganga seized from the possession of A.1

M.O.3: 450 grams of ganga seized from the possession of A.2.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I AJFCM, Kdp.

Calendar And Judgment Calendar and Judgment tried by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensionReleaseCommencementClose ofJudgment of accusedon bailof trial trial 29.10.2018 29.10.201829.10.20188.11.20189.7.202517.4.202627.4.2026

Calendar and Judgment in Calendar Case No. 1137 of 202 0 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

1. Shaik Madarsab, 55 years, S/o Budensab, D.No.21/635, R.K Nagar, Kadapa City.

2. Shaik Fakruddin, 45 years, S/o Mastanvalli, D.No.21/628-4, Palempalli Street, Kadapa City. (The case is abated against A.2 as he is died). Offence : under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 9(1) of AP Gaming Act, Matka

Finding : Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 9(1) of AP Gaming Act, Matka Sentence: In the result, A.1 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 8

(c) r/w 20 (b) (1) of N.D.P.S Act and Section 9 (1) of Andhra Pradesh

Gaming Act, Matka accordingly he is acquitted under Sec. 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred. M.O.1 i.e Cash of

Rs.50,000/- vide F.D.R No.38090444675, the unclaimed property shall be confiscated to the state after the expiry of appeal time if no appeal is preferred. M.O.2/450 grams of ganja and M.O.3/450 grams of ganja is ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred. Case against A2 is abated as he died.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KADAPA.

Present: Smt: M.Reshma,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 10th day December, 2025.

Calendar Case No.908 of 2019

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadapa II Town U/G P.S.

...Complainant

Vs.

1. Siddavaram Venkata Ramana, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, D.No.8/956-1, Vakkalapeta, Guduru Harijanawada, Kadapa City.

2. Muddala Sumathi, 54 years, W/o Late Obaiah, D.No.3/50, Pullreddypeta Village, Vallur Mandal,Kadapa District. …A.1 and A.2.

This case came up before me on 1.12.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri Y.Syama Sundar Reddy, for the State and the learned counsel for the A.1 and A.2 Sri M.Nagaraju and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadapa II Town U/G Police Station, has laid a charge sheet against the A.1 and A.2 in Crime No.103/2019 for the offences punishable u/Sec.338 of Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) & Sec.180, 181, 184, 187 of Motor

Vehicle Act (in short the M.V Act for the sake of convenience).

2.The gravamen of the charge sheet is as follows:-

On 7.4.2019 at about 8.30 pm. PW.1 and PW.4 started from the house of

PW.1 on a motorcycle of PW.1 on their personal work. PW.1 was the driver of the 2 motorcycle, and PW.4 was a pillion rider. When they reached near Almaspeta Circle, A.1 came from the opposite direction on a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed without blowing any horn, and dashed into the motorcycle of PW.1. Due to the hit, PW.1 and PW.4 fell on the road. PW.1 received dumb injuries, and PW.4 received a severe bleeding injury on his head. PW.1 shifted PW.4 to Sri Sri Holistic

Hospital, Kadapa, in his own vehicle and admitted him there. On the advice of doctors,

PW.4 was shifted to SVIMS Hospital, Chennai. Later, on the advice of elders on 12.4.2019, PW.1 went to the police station and lodged a report.

3.Based on the report of PW.1. PW.6, registered a case in Crime No.103/2019 for the offence punishable u/Sec.338 of IPC & Secs.180, 181, 184, 187 of M.V Act and took up investigation.

4.The then learned predecessor has taken cognizance against A.1 and A.2 for the offences punishable u/Secs.338 of the IPC & Sec.180, 181, 184, 187 of the M.V Act.

5.On appearance of A.1 and A.2 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.A.1 and A.2 are examined u/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation u/Sec.338 of IPC & Sec.180, 181, 184, 187 of M.V Act is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to PW.6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. The evidence of L.W.4 and LW.7/Shaik Khadar Basha and

K.Chand Basha was given up by the learned A.P.P.

8.A.1 and A.2 are examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating 3 material appearing against them, for which they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A.1 for the offences punishable u/Sec.338 of IPC & Sec.181, 184, 187 of M.V Act and the guilt of A2 for the offence punishable u/Sec.180 of M.V Act”?

Point:

11.In order to prove the guilt of A.1 and A.2 the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses. PW.1/U.Narasimhulu is the injured cum defacto complainant, PW.2/

Y.Mallikarjuna is said to be the eyewitness who observed the incident from his mobile shop, PW.3/P.Ramu is the owner of the mobile shop, who is said to be another eyewitness, PW.4/E.Gangaiah is the pillion rider and injured, PW.5/Shaik Touseef

Ahmed is the Doctor, PW.6/C.Rushendra Babu is the Investigating Officer.

12.In order to prove the guilt of A.1 and A.2, the prosecution relied upon the following Exhibits. Ex.P.1 is the Report of PW.1, Ex.P.2 is the Wound certificate of PW.4,

Ex.P.3 is the F.I.R in Crime No.103/2019 and Ex.P.4 is the Rough sketch.

13.The case of the prosecution is that on 7.4.2019 at about 8:00 pm., near

Almaspet Circle, A1 being the driver of the crime vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed into the vehicle of PW.1 and PW.4 being the pillion rider and as a result both PW.1 and PW.2 fell and received simple and grievous injuries. It is further the case of the prosecution that A2 gave control over the crime vehicle to A2 in an un-authorized manner.

14.PW.1/U.Narasimhulu, the injured cum the defacto complainant, deposed 4 that, on 7.4.2019 at about 8.00 pm., while he and PW.4 were proceeding from Saipeta to

Chowdamma Temple on a scooty driven by him, when they reached near Almaspet

Circle and were crossing the road, a pulsar bike came in their opposite direction and hit their scooty, due to which, he and PW.4 fell from the scooty. He further deposed that

PW.4 sustained an injury on the back of his head and PW.1 sustained an injury to his right shoulder. He also testified that PW.4 was shifted to a private Hospital in an ambulance, and he accompanied PW.4 to the hospital. He further deposed that, later,

PW.4 was shifted to Chennai for better treatment and that after 4 days he went to the police station and lodged Ex.P.1/report. He deposed that he does not know the pulsar bike number that caused the accident and that he did not observe the driver of the pulsar bike at the time of the accident. His cross-examination was reported as nill.

15.PW.2/Y.Mallikarjuna deposed that, on 7.4.2019 at about 8.00 pm., while he was present in his mobile shop, PW.1 the rider, along with PW.4 as a pillion rider, was coming on a motorcycle from Saipeta towards Almaspet circle near Chowdeswaramma

Temple. At that time, A.1 was going in the opposite direction of PW.1 and PW.4 on a Star

City motorcycle bearing No.AP04-BX-3248 at a high speed. On noticing the high speed driving of A.1, he and his neighbour shop person by name Khadarathulla discussed that due to over speed of A.1, he would hit anyone and that an accident may occur. He further deposed that, at that time, PW.1 along with PW.4 was coming in the opposite direction to A.1. A.1 hit his vehicle into the motorcycle of PW.1 at the circle. By the time they rushed there, PW.1, PW.4 fell on the ground, and A.1 also fell and due to over speed, the vehicle of A1 dragged him to some distance. They lifted PW.1 up and noticed that PW.4 was unconscious with a head injury. He further deposed that immediately they 5 telephoned their relative, one RMP doctor, and on his suggestion they shifted PW.4 to the Holistic hospital. Meanwhile, A.1 got up, walked up-to some distance and then he went away.

16.During his cross-examination, he stated that the colour of the bike of the accused is black and maroon red. He further testified that they shifted PW4 in the I-10 car belonging to one Satish Sharma, who is the priest at Chaudeshwari Mata Temple.

He testified that neither he nor PW1 lodged the report at the spot soon after the accident.

17.PW3/Posa Ramu deposed that he was running a petty shop at Almaspet

Circle. On 07.04.2019 at 08.30 p.m., while he was present at his shop, he observed that one motorcycle bearing number AP04-BX-3248 was coming from Chilakalabavi side towards Vakkalapetta and at the same time, on the opposite side, PW1 and PW4 were coming on another motorcycle, and A1 drove the motorcycle at a high speed, dashed into the motorcycle of PW1. PW3 further deposed that due to the hit, PW4 fell from the motorcycle and sustained injury on the back of his head and that PW1 also sustained minor injuries. He identified A1 as the driver of the crime vehicle.

18.During his cross-examination, he testified that there is a divider on the road near his shop. He further testified that he did not have prior acquaintance with A1 before the date of the alleged incident.

19.PW4/E.Gangaiah, the injured, deposed that on 07.04.2019, he along with

PW1, proceeded on a motorcycle, and when they reached Almaspet, one motorcycle came in the opposite direction and dashed into their motorcycle, due to which they fell on the road. He deposed that he received a head injury on the left side and that he does 6 not know whether PW.1 received injuries. He was shifted to Kadapa by his son

Govardhan, and from there he was shifted to Chennai for better treatment. He deposed that he cannot identify the motorcyclist who dashed into their motorcycle.

20.PW5/Shaik Touseef Ahmed, the doctor deposed that on 07.04.2019, PW4 came to their hospital i.e Sri Sri Holistic Hospital and stated that he had met with a road accident. He further deposed that at the time of admission, PW4 was in a bad condition with an internal injury in his brain and after observing the CT scan, he was immediately shifted to the emergency operation for surgery, which was performed by one

Dr.Krantikumar, a neurosurgeon in the same hospital. He further deposed that PW4 was in the observation room for 4 days, and as the condition of PW4 was deteriorating, his family members shifted him to some other hospital, and he issued an injury certificate of

PW4 to the effect. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate of PW.4.

21.PW6/C.Rushendra Babu, the Investigating Officer, deposed the registration of F.I.R, examination of PW1 and recording his statement, visiting the scene of offence and preparation of rough sketch and examination of PW2, PW3, LW4/Shaik Khadar

Basha, and PW4 and recording their statements. He further deposed that on 15.04.2019, as he was on casual leave, LW7/K.Chand Basha, Head Constable arrested

A.1 and A.2 as they voluntarily surrendered before him, and LW7 released them on bail after obtaining sureties. He further deposed that on 01.06.2019, he received a wound certificate of PW.4 from PW5, and after completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet.

22.During his cross-examination, he admitted that even though the F.I.R was registered on 12.04.2019, due to a mistake, it was mentioned as 11.04.2019. He 7 admitted that he did not mention in the F.I.R that, due to oversight, he mentioned the date as 11.04.2019. He further admitted that it is mentioned in the report that there were no eyewitnesses at the time of the accident.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/Sec.338 of IPC the prosecution has to prove the essential ingredients u/Sec.338 of IPC/Causing grievous hurt by an act endangering the life or personal safety of others.

1). The accused did some act 2). He did it rashly or negligently 3). The act was such as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others;

4). Grievous hurt was caused in consequence of such an act

23.Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A.1 and A.2 beyond all reasonable doubt.

24.It is the evidence of PW.1 that on 07.04.2019 at 08.00 pm., he and PW.4 went on a motorcycle from Saipeta to Chowdamma Temple, reached Almaspet Circle, and while they were crossing the road, a Pulsar bike came in the opposite direction and hit their scooty, resulting in their fall, and they both received injuries. PW1 and PW4 categorically deposed that they do not know the bike number which caused the accident, and also they did not witness the driver of the motorcycle and that they do not know the manner of the accident. As such, their evidence does not aid the case of the prosecution.

25.It is the contention of the accused that the witness who is examined as PW2 is not the witness who is cited in the memo of evidence. During the cross-examination of 8

PW2, the learned counsel for the accused questioned him whether he is Elugoti

Mallikarjuna. PW2 answered that he is not Elugoti Mallikarjuna. If that is so, this objection should have been raised by the counsel for the accused when the witness entered into the box. He did not choose to do so. Instead, he took the objection at the stage of arguments. Except posing a question, he did not prove the identity of PW.2 by producing any documents. However, this is not the stage to decide the genuineness of the identity of the witness.

26.PW2, who is said to be the eyewitness, deposed that on 07.04.2019 at 8:30 pm. he and one Khaduratulla discussed on noticing the high speed driving of A1, due to that over speed, he might hit anyone and that an accident may occur. He further deposed that A1 went in an opposite direction to PW1 and PW4, on a Star City motorcycle bearing registration number AP04-BX-3248 and collided with the motorcycle of PW1 and PW4 at the circle. PW3, who is said to be the eyewitness, deposed that A1 drove the motorcycle at a high speed, came from the opposite direction and hit the motorcycle of PW1. During his cross-examination, PW.3 testified that there is a divider on the road near his shop. It is further the evidence of PW.2 that the accused also fell after the alleged accident, and that the vehicle dragged him some distance. From the evidence of PW2 and PW3, it can be inferred that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. A reasonably prudent man would not have dashed into the motorbike by moving onto the other side of the road, even when there is a divider on the road, which shows a reckless attitude towards the consequences of moving in a speedy manner, which shows the absence of care, precaution and vigilance by the driver of the crime vehicle. This part of their testimony 9 remains unshaken in any manner.

27.There is no dispute that the accident had taken place. However, the prosecution has to prove that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle and that A.1 is the driver of the crime vehicle.

28.It is the contention of the accused that PW.2 and PW.3 are not the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and that the mobile shops, which are said to have been owned by them and from where, according to them, they witnessed the alleged incident, were not shown in the rough sketch.

29.According to Ex.P.1, when PW1 and PW4 reached Almaspet Circle, an unknown motorcycle came at a high speed in the opposite direction and dashed into their vehicle, resulting in their fall, and after they rose, they did not find the vehicle which dashed into them. Whereas, according to PW2, after the accident occurred, he and

Khudarathulla rushed to the spot and lifted PW1. According to Ex.P1, when PW1 enquired about the motorcycle that dashed into them, the neighbours at the scene informed that they did not observe the vehicle and that PW1 and PW4 went to a private hospital in their own vehicle. It is the evidence of PW.1 that PW.4 was shifted to the hospital in an ambulance and that he accompanied PW.4. Whereas, according to PW.2, he shifted PW.4 in an I-10 car, which belongs to one Satish Sharma, the priest in

Chowdeshwari Mata temple. PW.2 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not state before the police that PW.5 was shifted in the car driven by him. Moreover, PW.4 testified that he was shifted to the hospital by his son, Govardhan. The evidence of PW.2 is inconsistent with the recitals of Ex.P1. These inconsistencies, coupled with the testimony of PW.4, give rise to a serious doubt in the mind of the court regarding the 10 witnessing of the accident by PW.2, the presence of PW.2 at the time of shifting PWs 1 and 4 to the hospital, and the presence of the accused at the spot. It is the evidence of

PW.1 that after they met with accident PW.4 was shifted in an ambulance and that he accompanied him.

30.It is the contention of the accused that PW.3 is also not an eyewitness to the accident and that it is impossible to identify a person from a distance of 100 mtrs at night. PW.3 admitted that he does not have any prior acquaintance with the accused.

31.This Court intends to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court for the state of Telangana In G.Srinivasulu vs The State Of A.P. where in it was held that “As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, no test identification parade was conducted prior to the identification of the petitioner/ accused by PW.1 before the Court. Ordinarily, identification of an accused for the first time in the Court by a witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature inherently of a weak character, unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the Test Identification Parade. Test Identification Parade is a check valve to the evidence of identification in Court of an accused by a witness. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapture what a witness had seen earlier, strength/trustworthiness of the evidence of identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in the Court. If a witness identifies the accused in Court for the first time, a probative value of such any corroborated evidence becomes so much minimal so that it becomes, as a rule of prudence but not as a rule of law, unsafe to rely on such a piece of evidence. Further, 11 the subject accident took place in the year 2002 and the prosecution witnesses identified the petitioner/accused for the first time in the Court in the year 2005. Belated identification of an accused in Court for the first time after more than three years from the date of incident should not form the basis of conviction, especially when the same is not corroborated by either previous statement or before the police or any other evidence. Further, in the instant case, there is no mention of the name of the petitioner/accused in the FIR registered in this case. Where the prosecution witnesses did not name an accused before the police to identify him in the Court and prosecution has not furnished any explanation for nondisclosure of the name of the petitioner/ accused before the police by the witness, is belated identification in Court for the first time after more than three years should not be relied upon, more so when the same is not corroborated by any other evidence on record. Ordinarily, if accused is not named in the FIR, his identification by the witness in Court should not be relied upon especially when they did not disclose the name of the accused before the police, subject to certain exceptions.” No test identification was conducted after the alleged accident. Accordingly, his evidence with respect to the identity of the accused is not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon.

32.PW.1 and PW.3 categorically deposed that PW.4 sustained injury on the back of his head. PW.4, the injured, deposed that he sustained an injury on the left side of his head. The evidence of PW5, coupled with Ex.P2, shows that PW.4 sustained injury on the right side of his head. Thus, their evidence is not tallied about the area of injury sustained by PW.4.

33.It is the evidence of PW2 that A1 drove his motorcycle at a high speed and 12 hit the motorcycle of PW1, and after the accident due to over speed, the vehicle of A1 dragged him to some distance. If that is so, the vehicle would have sustained reasonable damage. The Investigating Officer/PW6 failed to seize the crime vehicle or forward the crime vehicle for inspection to the Motor Vehicle Inspector, which would have aided him in establishing the presence of the said vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. The prosecution has failed to examine Khudarathulla, who, according to PW2, accompanied him to the spot and had also discussed with him about the overspeed driving of A1, for reasons best known to them. PW6 did not file any documents to show that A2 is the owner of the crime vehicle. The prosecution failed to prove that A2 is the owner of the crime vehicle.

34.It is well-settled law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and if any reasonable doubt exists, the benefit of doubt shall go in favour of the accused. Since none of the witnesses has stated anything about the identity of A1 and his rash and negligent act in causing the accident, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of A1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Since there are no documents to show that A2 is the owner of the crime vehicle, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of A2 beyond all reasonable doubt.

35. Since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt this Court is not inclined to award compensation.

In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Secs.338 of the IPC & Sec.180, 181, 184, 187 of the M.V Act accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. As no property was seized and 13 produced before this Court, no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer(O.S), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10th of the December, 2025.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class Kadapa.

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution: For Defence: Nil PW.1: U.Narasimhulu

PW.2: E.Mallikarjuna

PW.3: P.Ramu

PW.4: E.Gangaiah

PW.5: Dr Shaik Tousif Ahmed

PW.6: C.Rushendra Babu, S.I of Police

Exhibits marked for prosecution: For Defence:Nil

Ex.P.1: Report of PW.1

Ex.P.2: Wound certificate of PW.4

Ex.P.3: F.I.R in Crime No.103/2019

Ex.P.4: Rough sketch

Material Objects Marked: -Nil-

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I A.J.F.C.M, Kdp.

14

Calendar And Judgment

Calendar and Judgment tried by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensionRelease onCommenceClose of trial Judgment of accusedbailment of trial 11.4.2019 11.4.2019--25.8.20191.12.202510.12.2025

Calendar and Judgment in Calendar Case No.908 of 2019 on the file of the Court of

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa,

1. Siddavaram Venkata Ramana, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, D.No.8/956-1, Vakkalapeta, Guduru Harijanawada, Kadapa City.

2. Muddala Sumathi, 54 years, W/o Late Obaiah, D.No.3/50, Pullreddypeta Village, Vallur Mandal,Kadapa District.

Offence : u/Secs.338 of IPC and Secs.181, 184, 187 of the M.V Act and Sec.180 of M.V Act.

Finding : A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Secs.338 of the IPC & Sec.180, 181, 184, 187 of the M.V Act.

Sentence: In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Secs.338 of the IPC & Sec.180, 181, 184, 187 of the M.V Act accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

A.1 and A.2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. As no property was seized and produced before this Court, no order as to property.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KADAPA.

Present :Smt. M.Reshma,

Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Kadapa - cum - I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma,

Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra,

Tuesday, this the 9th day of December, 2025.

Juvenile Calendar Case No.4 of 2024

State Rep. by the C.W.O T.Sundupalli U/G P.S. … Complainant.

Vs.

XXXXXXXX

 …CICL.

This case came up before me on 6.12.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri Y.Syama Sundar Reddy, and the learned counsel for the CICL Sri P.Nagabhushanam, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Board delivered the following:- : : F I N A L O R D E R : :

1.This is a case filed by the Child Welfare Police Officer, T.Sundupalli Police

Station in Crime No.24/2023 against the CICL for the offence punishable u/Secs.302, 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code( in short the IPC for the sake of brevity).

2.The sum and substance of the final report is as follows:-

About 4 years ago, the marriage of adult offender No.3 was solemnized with one Pushpavathi, the relative of the deceased. After a few days of marriage, the said

Pushpavathi left the adult offender No.3, and she married someone else. Since then there are no talking terms between the adult offender No.2, CICL, adult offender No.3 and the deceased. The deceased and his family members used to go to their fields through the fields of Adult Offender No.1, the CICL, Adult Offender No. 3. The adult offenders and the CICL objected them from passing through their fields. The deceased paid a deaf ear to their words. Since then, the adult offenders and the CICL developed ill feelings against the deceased. PW4 and the deceased used to have frequent family disputes. PW2 and PW3 used to pacify those disputes. On 11.03.2023, PW4 left the house of the deceased and went to her parents' home. The deceased used to argue with

PW10 and PW11, as they used to back bitch against the deceased with PW4. On 14.03.2023 in the evening PW6, PWs 12 to 14 came to the house of PWs 10 and 11 for panchayat. While they were talking to each other. The deceased and PW1 abused

PW10, the deceased beat PW11 with stick over his elbow. The elders PW6, PW12 to

PW14 pacified the matter. Thereafter at about 07.30 p.m. PW5, PW12 to PW14 left. On 14.03.2023 at about 07.45 p.m. while PW1, PW2 and the deceased were talking to each other in a street beside Rajampet to Rajachoty Road. Near the petty shop of PW7 which is next to the house of PW2, the adult offenders 1 and 3, the CICL came there with sticks and raised cries about the altercation that is happening every day. And also with regard to the passing through the fields. The adult offender no. 1 beat the deceased with a stick over his head causing a bleeding injury. When PW1 and PW2 came to the rescue of the deceased. The CICL beat PW1 with a stick over his left shoulder and on his back and the CICL beat the deceased with a stick over his back and legs, the and beat PW2 with a stick over his Right back and also left shoulder. When PW2 raised cries, the adult offender No.3 beat the deceased again with a stick over his head. PW5 to PW9 witnessed the incident, rushed to the spot and admonished the adult offenders and also the CICL. While leaving the adult offenders and the CICL threatened PW1, PW2 and the deceased with dire consequences. PW1, PW3 and the deceased went to Govt. Hospital

Rayachoti in an ambulance for treatment. As the condition of the deceased was critical after Obtaining first aid. PW1 to PW3 shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and thereafter to Jagadeesh Neuro Care, Kadapa for better treatment. On knowing the same, PW4 rushed to the hospital along with relatives. The deceased could not survive and succumbed to injuries. PW1 lodged a report against the CICL.

3.Basing on the report of PW1, PW.17/Lakshmi Narasaiah, Head Constable of T.Sundupalli P.S registered a case in Crime No.24/2023 u/Secs.324, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC. Basing on the F.I.R registered PW.18/P.RamaKrishna visited the scene of offence prepared a rough sketch and altered F.I.R u/Sec.302, 324, 506 r/w 34 basing on the report lodged by PW.1 on 24.3.2023. PW.19/S. Lingappa conducted investigation basing on the altered F.I.R.

4.The then magistrate has taken cognizance against the CICL for the offence punishable u/Secs.302, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

5.Copies of documents were furnished to the CICL as contemplated u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. When CICL is examined u/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation appearing against him for the offence punishable u/Secs.302, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.19 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P34 and M.Os.1 to 7. The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.15, LW.17, LW.19 to LW.21. Viz., LW.15/Dr

D.Jagadeeswar Reddy, LW.17/K.Hareesh Babu, LW.19/M.Sudha Rani, LW.20/Dr

Sreevani and LW.21/Dr A.Ramaraju, and prosecution evidence is reported closed.

7.The CICL was examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of both sides.

“Now the point for determination is”:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/Secs.302, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC”? 

9.PW.1/Devendra, deposed that, one day, when he went to the police station on his personal work police obtained his signature on some written papers and that he does not know its contents. He turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He identified his signature on the reports. As such, his signatures are marked as Ex.P.1, Ex.P2. He further deposed that he does not know anything about the case. He turned hostile and he had resiled from his earlier statements. Hence, his

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P.3, Ex.P4.

10.PW.2/Ramanjaneyulu the injured, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He had resiled from his earlier statement. As such, his Sec.161

Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. PW.3/Jayamma, PW.4/Uma

Maheswari, PW.5/Sreenivauluu, PW.6/K.Nagarjuna Naidu, PW.7/K.Ramaiah, PW.8/

K.C.Naidu, PW.9/G.Vasudeva, PW.10/Sujatha, PW.11/Eswaraiah, PW.12/ Jayachandra,

PW.13/Venkataiah and PW.14/A.Venkata Ramana, deposed that they do not know anything about this case. They turned hostile and had resiled from their earlier statements. As such their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.19.

11.PW.15/C.Rama Mohana, Panchayath Secretary, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He deposed that, one day, the Child Welfare Officer obtained his signature on some written papers and that he does not know their contents.

As such, his signatures on the scene observation panchanama, Inquest report, and confession panchanama are marked as Ex.P20, Ex.P21, Ex.P22.

12.PW.16/K.Siva Sankar Reddyturned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He deposed that, one day, the Child Welfare Officer obtained his signature on some written papers and that he does not know their contents. As such, his signatures on the scene observation panchanama and confession panchanama are marked as Ex.P23, Ex.P24.

13.PW.17/P.Lakshmi Narasaiah, Retired Head Constable, deposed that on 18.3.2023 at 7.45 pm., while he was in the police station, PW.1 went to the police station and lodged Ex.P.25/Report. Basing on it, he registered Ex.P.26/Certified copy of F.I.R.

Then he examined PW.1 in the police station and recorded his statement. Later, he handed over the investigation to PW.18.During his cross-examination, he testified that there is a delay of 4 days in the registration of F.I.R.

14.PW.18/P.Ramakrishna, Child Welfare Officer, deposed that, on 19.3.2023 he took up further investigation conducted by PW.17 and found it to be on correct lines.

He deposed that he visited the Jagadeesh Neuro Clinic, Hospital, Kadapa and secured the presence of PW.1 to PW.4 and recorded their statements and that the deceased was in a coma stage. Then he visited the scene of offence situated at Kothagangagampalli,

Chinnagollapalli Village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, then he secured the presence of PW.5 and PW.6 and recorded their statements and prepared Ex.P.27/Rough sketch. He further deposed that, on 24.3.2023, while he was in the police station at 10.40 pm., PW.1 went to the police station and informed that the injured is dead and lodged a written report.

Then he altered the F.I.R from 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC to Secs.302, 324, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC and submitted F.I.R copies to the concerned and that he handed over the investigation to PW.19.

15.PW.19/S.Lingam, Child Welfare Officer deposed that he took up further investigation from PW18 and found it to be on correct lines. He then visited the

Government General Hospital, Rayachoty and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW15, PW16 and LW17/K.Hareesh Babu. Ex.P.29 is the inquest report. Then he forwarded the dead body for autopsy, and after the autopsy he handed over the dead body to his relatives. On the same day, while he was in the police station, the constable produced a snuff colour and parrot-green flower design old blanket, which he obtained from the hospital staff, and PW19 seized the same through police proceedings. Ex.P30 is the police proceedings. M.O.1 is the Snuff color and parrot green flower design old blanket. He further deposed that on 26.03.2023, he went to the scene of offence situated at Kottagangana Palli and examined PWs 10 to 14 and recorded their statements. On 27.03.2023, on receipt of credible information, he secured

PW15, PW16 and LW17/K.Hareesh Babu. as mediators, and he went to Dudyala cross road and found two persons. He deposed about their apprehension, and that on enquiry they voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence, and that he seized material objects. M.O.2 is the Blood stained fist seized stick about 101 grams and perimeter about 17 cms. M.O.3 is the Blood stained fist seized stick about 100 grams and perimeter about 17 cms. M.O.4 is the blood-stained fist seized stick about 93 grams and perimeter about 17 cms. M.O.5 is the blood-stained rose and black colors striped full shirt having nine way letters label at neck and having 9-W letters on the pocket. M.O.6 is the Yellow color T-Shirt with a head cap on the back side CRUZO letters on the back neck of the T-Shirt, black design at front of the T-Shirt. M.O.7 is the Navy blue color T-

Shirt red and white horizontal stripe K.G collections letters label. On 28.03.2023, on receipt of credible information, he secured PW15, 16 and LW17 as mediators and went to Yaguvajangam palli and found the CICL and on apprehension, the CICL revealed his identity particulars and confessed about the confession of offence. He prepared an arrest panchanama. Ex.P.31 is the Arrest panchanama. After receiving the postmortem report, wound certificate, RFSL report and after completion of the investigation, he filed a final report. Ex.P.32 is the Postmortem report from LW.20/Dr Sreevani. Ex.P.34 is the

R.F.S.L report.

16.PW.1 the injured cum defacto complainant turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.2, the injured turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PWs 3 to 14 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PWs 15 and 16 who are said to be the mediators turned hostile and categorically deposed that police obtained their signature on some written papers and that they do not know the contents. As such, their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution. Nothing could be culled out from the cross-examination of PWs 1 to PW16.

17.The only evidence available for consideration is the evidence of PWs 17 to

PW19. The evidence of PWs 17 and 18 is restricted only to the extent of registration of

FIR, examination of witnesses, preparation of a rough sketch and alteration of FIR.

According to PW19, on 28.07. 03.02.2023, he apprehended the CICL, and then he voluntarily confessed the offence. It is settled law that, as per sections 25 and 26 of the

Indian evidence Act, the confession before the police officer is inadmissible in evidence except the confession leading to discovery. There is nothing in the evidence of PW19, the Investigating Officer, that any discovery was made in pursuance of the confession of the CICL. PWs 15 and 16, the alleged mediators, turned hostile. As such, the evidence of PW19 cannot be relied upon regarding the confession of the CICL and the offence. As already discussed, the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.

Thus, there is absolutely no iota of evidence against the CICL to hold him guilty of the offence punishable u/Secs.302, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

18.Since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt this Board is not inclined to award compensation.

In the result, the CICL is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Secs.302, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.17(1) of

Juvenile Justice Act. The bail bonds of the parent or guardian of the CICL shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal if preferred. M.Os 1 to 7 the non-valuable property shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (O.S), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open board, on this the 9th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-M.Reshma

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Kadapa.

Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for State/Child Welfare Officer

PW.1: P.Devendra PW.2: Ramanjaneyulu PW.3: Jayamma PW.4: Uma Maheswari PW.5: Sreenivauluu PW.6:K.Nagarjuna Naidu PW.7:K.Ramaiah PW.8:K.C.Naidu PW.9:G.Vasudeva PW.10:Sujatha PW.11:Eswaaiah PW.12:Jayachandra PW.13:Venkataiah

PW.14:A.Venkata Ramana, PW.15:C.Ram Mohan PW.16:Siva Sankar Reddy PW.17:P.Lakshmi Narasaiah PW.18:P.Rama Krishna, C.W.O PW.19: S.Lingapa, C.W.O

Exhibits marked on behalf of State/Child Welfare Officer Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2: Signature of PW.1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P9: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P10: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 Ex.P11: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7 Ex.P12: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7 Ex.P13: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8 Ex.P14: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9 Ex.P15: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.10 Ex.P16: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.11 Ex.P17: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.12 Ex.P18: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.13 Ex.P19: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.14 Ex.P20: Signature on scene observation panchanama Ex.P21: Signature on inquest report Ex.P22: Signature on confession panchanama of CICL Ex.P23: Signature on scene observation panchanama Ex.P24: Signature on confession panchanama of CICL Ex.P25: Report Ex.P26: Certified copy of F.I.R Ex.P27: Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P28: Altered F.I.R Ex.P29: Inquest report Ex.P30: Police proceedings Ex.P31: Arrest panchanama Ex.P32: Postmortem report of the deceased Ex.P33: Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P34: RFSL report

Material objects marked on behalf of the State

M.O.1 is the Snuff color and parrot green flower design old blanket

M.O.2 is the Blood stained fist seized stick about 101 grams and perimeter about 17 cms

M.O.3 is the Blood stained fist seized stick about 100 grams and perimeter about 17 cms

M.O.4 is the Blood stained fist seized stick about 93 grams and perimeter about 17 cms

M.O.5 is the Blood stained rose and black colors striped full shirt having nine way letters label at neck and having 9-W letters on the pocket

M.O.6 is the Yellow color T-Shirt with head cap on the back side CRUZO letters on the back neck T-Shirt black design at front of T-Shirt.

M.O.7 is the Navy blue color T-Shirt red and white horizontal stripe K.G collections letters label

Witness examined on behalf of the CICL -Nil-

Exhibits marked for CICL - Nil -

Sd/-M.Reshma,

P.M.J.J.B, Kdp.

Calendar And Final Order

Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Kadapa.

Juvenile Calendar Case No.4 of 202 4 1Date of offence14.3.2023 2Date of complaint18.3.2023 3Date of apprehension of the CICL28.3.2023 4Date of release on bail20.4.2023 5Date of commencement of trial31.12.2024 6Date of close of trial6.12.2025 7Date of Final Order 9.12.2025

ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, T.Sundupalli Police Station.

CICLXXXXXXXX

OffenceThis is case “of voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons, murder, criminal intimidation in furtherance of common intention

Section of law u/Secs.302, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

FindingChild in conflict with law is found not guilty.

Sentence or In the result, the CICL is found not guilty for the order offence punishable u/Secs.302, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.17(1) of Juvenile Justice Act. The bail bonds of the parent or guardian of the CICL shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal if preferred. M.Os 1 to 7 the non-valuable property shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

Principal Magistrate Juvenile

Justice Board, Kadapa.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KADAPA.

Present: Smt: M.Reshma,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Calendar Case No.2237 of 2022

Between

State:Sub Inspector of Kadapa I Town U/G Police Station.

...Complainant

Vs.

1. G.Subhan Bee @ Ashabeen, 50 years, W/o Dastagiri, D.No.1/571,

Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kadapa City.

2. Gillella Seshadri, 34 years, S/o Venkataiah, Occ:Cashier in Dress

Circle Shopping Mall, D.No.3/374 4-33, Tilak Nagar. Now R/a

D.No.77/162-2, SBI Colony Kadapa.

...A.1 and A.2 .

This case came up before me on 8.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the In-charge Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri Ganga Sekhar, learned counsel for A.1 and of Sri M.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for A.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadapa I Town U/G Police Station, has filed a charge sheet against the A.1 and A.2 in Crime No.3 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (2) (a) and 5 (1) (b) of the Immoral Trafficking

Prevention Act of 1956.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

On 06.01.2022 at 01.30 p.m., PW3 received information about the occurrence of prostitution in D.No.4/435-1, Maruthinagar, Kadapa. Immediately,

PW.3 forwarded a requisition to S.D.P.O Kadapa to issue such proceedings, and after receipt of such proceedings vide RC No.01/SDPO-KDP/search/2022, dt.6.1.2022 from S.D.P.O Kadapa, PW3 secured Pws 1 and 2 through LW5 and informed PW1 and PW2 about the information and instructed them to act as mediators for conducting a raid on the prostitution house. After serving summons to

PW1 and PW2, PW3 left the police station at 02.30 p.m. in a police vehicle bearing number AP9P8542 along with his staff, LW4 to LW7/K.Dastagiri, H.C LW.5/P.Khadar

Hussain, PC, LW.6/P.Siva Kumari, WPC and LW.7/B.Shamili, WPC and they reached at 03.00 p.m. A.1, who stood outside the door on seeing the police, escaped. PW3, along with PW1 and PW2, entered the house, found four victims,

V2 to V5, sitting in the hall and talking to each other. On seeing the police, the victim women tried to escape, but they were apprehended by the staff of PW3.

Later, PW3 opened the bedroom and found victim No.1 and A2 coming out of the room by adjusting their dress. LW7/B.Shamili, WPC kept 5 victims and A.2 in one place and examined the victims individually in the presence of mediators. The statements of the victims were recorded and on search of the victims 1 to 5 police seized Rs.3,470/- from Victim 1, Rs.1,860/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs. 1,950/- and Rs.1,200/- from Victims 2 to 5 respectively in their possession. A.2 confessed about his acquaintance with A1 and also about his frequent visits to the prostitution house.

On a personal search of A2, the police found 100/- in his possession. PW.3₹ searched the house and found four sealed Kamasutra condom packets in the bedroom and one sky blue coloured ACE mobile phone bearing IMEI Nos.

351406738464209 and 351406738464217, which allegedly belonged to A1. The police seized the said cash amounts, the four Kamasutra condom packets, and the mobile phone under a panchanama. A2, Victim Women Nos.1 to 5 and the mediators attested the panchanama. Based on the panchanama, PW3 registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2022 under Section 3(2) (a), 5 (1) (b) of the Immoral

Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956. Hence, the charge.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Section 3(of)

Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 against A1 and A2.

4.On appearance of the A1 and A2, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C for brevity).

5. A.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, and the charge under Sections 3(2) (a), 5 (1) (b) of the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956, was framed, read over and explained to A1 and A2, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to PW.4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. The evidence of LW.4 to LW.7. Viz, LW.4/K.Dastagiri,

H.C LW.5/P.Khadar Hussain, PC, LW.6/P.Siva Kumari, WPC and LW.7/B.Shamili,

WPC Kadapa. The prosecution evidence was reported closed. The evidence of

LW.3/Shaik Shabuddin was closed in view of the report filed.

7.A.1 and A.2 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material available against them, for which they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish

the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the offence

punishable under Sections 3 (2) (a), 5 (1) (b) of

the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956

beyond all reasonable doubt”

Point:

10.It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.01.2022, PW.3/Investigating

Officer along with his staff conducted a raid at the house situated in D.No 1/435-1,

Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa. During the raid, A2 and Victim No.1 were found in a bedroom, while Victim Nos. 2 to 5 were found in the hall. It is further the case of the prosecution that A1 was instigating Victims 1 to 5 to engage in prostitution for easy money and that A2 frequently visits and indulges in prostitution, and thus A1 and A2 are punishable for the offence punishable Sections 3 (2) (a), 5 (1) (b) of the Immoral

Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956.

11.In order to prove the guilt of the A.1 and A.2 the prosecution examined 4 witnesses. Viz. PW.1/Syed Masthan, PW.2/T.Subbaiah, PW.3/V.Narayana, S.I of

Police and Pw.4/Dr Sirisha Assistant Professor.

12.The prosecution relies upon the following documents. Ex.P.1 is the

Signature on panchanama, dt.6.1.2022 at 3.00 pm., Ex.P.2 is the Signature on panchanama, dt.6.1.2022 at 3.00 pm., Ex.P.3 is the Search proceedings, Ex.P.4 is the Panchanama, Ex.P.5 is the F.I.R in Crime No.3 of 2022, Ex.P.6 is the Wound certificate of Palagiri Devi, Ex.P.7 is the Wound certificate of Chandragiri Deepa,

Ex.P.8 is the Wound certificate of Lakke Mounika, Ex.P.9 is the Wound certificate of

D.Saraswathi, Ex.P.10 is the Wound certificate of Balika Gaikwad, M.O.1 is the

Cash of Rs.9,580/-, M.O.2 is 4 Condom packets and M.O.3 is the cell phone.

13.PW1/Masthan, who is said to be the mediator, deposed that she does not know anything about this case and that the police obtained her signatures on some written papers, and she signed it without knowing its contents. She turned hostile and denied the suggestions put to her. As such, her signature on the panchnama is marked as Ex.P1.

14.PW.2/T.Subbaiah, who is said to be the mediator, turned hostile and deposed that he does not know anything about the case. As such, his signature on the panchnama is marked as Ex.P.2.

15.PW3, the Investigating Officer, testified about receiving credible information, obtaining Ex.P.3 search proceedings from SDPO, Kadapa, securing

PW1 and PW2 and proceeding to the scene of offence, along with LW4 to LW7/

K.Dastagiri, H.C LW.5/P.Khadar Hussain, PC, LW.6/P.Siva Kumari, WPC and LW.7/

B.Shamili, WPC. He further testified that after they reached Door No. 1-435-1, they found a woman outside the gate, and on seeing them, she tried to skulk away.

When LW7/B.Shamili, WPC tried to apprehend her, she escaped. He further testified that when he, along with PW1 and PW2, and LW4 to LW7, entered the house, they found 4 women sitting on the floor, and a man and a woman came outside of the bedroom. Then he enquired 5 females and A2 separately. On that, all of them stated that A1 instigated the 5 females to do prostitution for easy money, and on conducting such, they seized Rs. 9,580 from all the females and Rs.100 from A.2, one cell phone and also seized 4 condom packets and that he prepared a panchnama. Ex.P4 is the panchnama. MO1 is the cash of Rs. 9,580. MO2 is 4 condom packets. MO3 is the cell phone. Then he forwarded all the victims to

Ujwala's home and arrested A2. Based on Ex.P4, he registered a case in Crime No 3/2022, issued an FIR and submitted copies to the concerned. Ex.P5 is the FIR. He further testified that on 28.01.2022, A.1 appeared before him and that he issued 41A- Cr.P.C notice to A1. After completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet.

16.PW4/Dr.D. Salini Shakuntala deposed that on 12.01.2022 at about 11.10 a.m., she examined Palagiri Devi, W/o Girish Kumar and issued a wound certificate to that effect. Ex.P6 is the wound certificate of Palagiri Devi. On the same day at 11.30 a.m. she examined Chandragiri Deepa, W/o late Venkatesh and issued a wound certificate to that effect. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate of

Chandragiri Deepa. On the same day at 11.40 a.m., she examined Lakke Mounika,

W/o Obulaiah and issued a wound certificate to that effect. Ex.P8 is the wound certificate of Lakke Mounika. On the same day at 11.45 a.m., she examined

D. Saraswathi and issued a wound certificate to that effect and stated that the said

D.Saraswathi is HIV positive, and that she was on anti-retroviral drug treatment.

Ex.P9 is the wound certificate of D. Saraswathi. On the same day at 11.50 a.m. she examined Balika Gaikwad, W/o Raju Gaikwad and she opined that there is no evidence of any abrasions, injuries or lesions on the body suggestive of sexual abuse or sexually transmitted diseases in the recent past, and she issued a wound certificate to that effect. Ex.P10 is the wound certificate of Balika Gaikwad. She opined that, except D. Saraswati, none of the victims were HIV positive.

17.In order to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 under Section 3(2) (a) of the

Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, the prosecution has to establish that A1 is the owner or lessee or occupier or person in charge of the alleged house and that she knowingly uses the house premises for a brothel. In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos 1 and 2 under Section 5(1) (b) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, the prosecution has to establish that A1 induced the victims to go from one place to another for the purpose of prostitution.

18.PW1 and PW2, who are said to be the mediators, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. As such, their evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. Now, the evidence available on record to prove the case of the prosecution is only that of PW3. It is a settled principle of law that the evidence of a police officer cannot be rejected merely because he is an investigating officer. However, when independent witnesses fail to support the prosecution's case, such evidence requires careful scrutiny. Though PW.3 deposed that he secured Victim Nos. 1 to 5 and sent them to Ujwala Home, the prosecution failed to examine Victim Nos. 1 to 5 before the Court to establish that they were induced or compelled to engage in prostitution by A1. The prosecution failed to produce any documents to show that A1 is the owner of the alleged house. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused no. 2 induced victims no. 1 to 5 to engage in prostitution and that accused no. 2 used the premises to run a prostitution house.

It is the allegation of the prosecution that accused no. 2 engaged in prostitution with victim no. 1 and found him coming out of the bedroom when they went to conduct a raid, and that he confessed the offence before the police in the presence of PWs. 1 and 2. The alleged confession of A2 before the police officer is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the same cannot be relied upon to prove his involvement in the alleged offence. Since the mediators to the alleged seizure did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PW.3 regarding the seizure of MO.1 to MO.3 remains uncorroborated. PW4/Dr. D. Salini Shakuntala is the doctor who medically examined the victim women. Her evidence only shows that she examined the women on 12.01.2022 and issued wound certificates under

Exs.P6 to P10. Her testimony does not establish that the victims 1 to 5 were subjected to inducement to engage in prostitution by A1 or that A1 was managing a brothel.

19.It is well-settled law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and if any reasonable doubt exists the benefit of doubt shall go in favour of the A.1 and A.2.

20.In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

21.Since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt this Court is not inclined to award compensation.

In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (2) (a) and 5 (1) (b) of the Immoral Trafficking

Prevention Act of 1956. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A.1 and A.2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as required under Sections 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 the cash of Rs,9.580/- is ordered to be confiscated to the state after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred. M.O.s 2 and 3, the non-valuable property shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred.

Typed by me on my personal laptop corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution: For Defence: Nil

PW.1: Syed Masthan

PW.2: T.Subbaiah

PW.3: V.Narayana, S.I of Police

PW.4: Dr Sirisha, Assistant Professor

Exhibits marked for prosecution: For Defence:Nil

Ex.P.1: Signature on panchanama, dt.6.1.2022 at 3.00 pm

Ex.P.2: Signature on panchanama, dt.6.1.2022 at 3.00 pm

Ex.P.3: Search proceedings

Ex.P.4: Panchanama

Ex.P.5: F.I.R in Crime No.3 of 2022

Ex.P.6: Wound certificate of Palagiri Devi

Ex.P.7: Wound certificate of Chandragiri Deepa

Ex.P.8: Wound certificate of Lakke Mounika

Ex.P.9:Wound certificate of D.Saraswathi

Ex.P.10: Wound certificate of Balika Gaikwad

Material Objects Marked For Prosecution

M.O.1: Cash of Rs.9,580/-

M.O.2: 4 Condom packets

M.O.3: Cell phone.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I AJFCM, Kdp.

Calendar And Judgment

Calendar and Judgment tried by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensionReleaseCommencemenClose ofJudgment of accusedon bailt of trial trial 6.1.2022 6.1.2022--12.5.20258.5.202613.5.2026

Calendar and Judgment in Calendar Case No. 2237 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

1. G.Subhan Bee @ Ashabeen, 50 years, W/o Dastagiri, D.No.1/571, Rajiv Gandhi

Nagar, Kadapa City.

2. Gillella Seshadri, 34 years, S/o Venkataiah, Occ:Cashier in Dress Circle

Shopping Mall, D.No.3/374 4-33, Tilak Nagar. Now R/a D.No.77/162-2, SBI

Colony Kadapa.

Offence : Under Sections 3 (2) (a) 5 (1) (b) of Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act-1956.

Finding : A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 3 (2)

(a) 5 (1) (b) of Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act-1956.

Sentence: In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (2) (a) and 5 (1) (b) of the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act of 1956. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A.1 and A.2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as required under Sections 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 the cash of Rs,9.580/- is ordered to be confiscated to the state after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred. M.O.s 2 and 3, the non-valuable property shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KADAPA.

Present: Smt: M.Reshma,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Summary Trial Case No.155 of 2023

Between:

Shaik Chan Basha, S/o Late S.Silar Saheb, 56 years, Occ:Business, D.No.11/88, Kummarikunta, Kadapa City.

...Complainant

Vs.

S.M.D.Moulali, S/o S.Nawab Jab, 45 years, Occ:Business, D.No.18/290 and 291 Syed, Miah New Market, Kadapa City.

…Accused.

This case came up before me on 8.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Thulasi Ram, learned counsel for the complainant and

Sri K.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a complaint filed under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as the NI Act for the sake of brevity.

2.The gist of the complaint is that the complainant and the accused are distant relatives. The accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- for his family’s necessities. In spite of repeated demands, the accused failed to repay the amount.

Finally, on 14.03.2023, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.000027 for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 drawn on HDFC Bank, DC Road, Machupally Bus Stand, Kadapa.

On the same day, the complainant presented the cheque before the bank, and it was dishonoured as “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” vide Cheque return memo dated 16.03.2023. On 30.03.2023, the complainant got issued a legal notice, the accused received the same, and gave a reply notice dated 02.04.2023 denying all the allegations. The accused did not choose to repay the amount. Thus, the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of the NI Act.

3.Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 r/w 142 of the NI Act.

4.On the appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Cr.P.C).

5.The accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C explaining the substance of accusation for the offences punishable under Sections 138 r/w 142 of the NI Act, and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of the trial, the complainant got himself examined as

PW1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4.

7.After the closure of the complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material evidence made out against him, for which he denied the same and reported defence evidence. On behalf of the accused, DW.1 was examined. No exhibits were marked.

8.Heard Arguments on both sides.

Now the point for determination is:-

1. “Whether the complainant has proved the essential

ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act beyond

reasonable doubt? ?

2. “To what relief”?

Point:-

9.It is the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed

Rs.1,75,000/- and issued cheque No.000027 dated 14.03.2023 towards discharge of the said liability drawn on HDFC Bank, Kadapa, and the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient ” along with a cheque return memo dated 16.03.2023. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 30.03.2023 within time, and despite receipt, the accused failed to pay. Thus, the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of the NI Act, 1881.

10. In order to establish the offence under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant must fulfill all the essential

ingredients of the offence. The essential ingredients in brief are as follows:-

1. The cheque must be drawn by the accused on an account maintained by him with a banker:

2. The cheque must be issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability;

3. The cheque must be presented within its validity period;

4. The cheque must be dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds;

5. Legal notice must be issued within 30 days;

6. Failure to make payment of the said amount of money within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice;

11. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the complainant himself got examined as PW1. PW1 reiterated the complaint averments and marked

Exs.P.1 to P.4. His evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination.

12. The accused examined DW1, who claimed that the accused did not borrow the amount and used to keep his cheque book at a vegetable stall.

However, during his cross-examination, DW1 admitted that he does not know whether the accused borrowed Rs.1,75,000/- from the complainant and that he also does not know about the earlier transactions between the complainant and the accused for Rs. 5,00,000/-. He further admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the financial transactions between the complainant and the accused, more particularly in this case. Thus, his testimony does not inspire confidence.

13.The complainant through his evidence and through Ex.P1 to P4, has successfully established all the ingredients envisaged under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and thereby successfully discharged his initial burden.

Nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 to disbelieve his version.

14. When the complainant has discharged his initial burden of proof, the complainant is entitled to the benefit of presumptions available under Sections 139 and 118 of the NI Act.

In order to further strengthen the above contention, this court relies upon a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shree

Daneshwari Traders Vs. Sanjay Jain, (2019) 16 SCC 83. “Once

cheque is issued by drawer, a presumption under Section 139

arises in favour of holder. Section 139 creates a statutory

presumption that cheque received is of the nature referred to

under Section 138 is for the discharge in whole or in part of any

debt or other liability. Initial burden lies upon complainant to

prove the circumstances under which cheque was issued in his

favour and that same was issued in discharge of a legally

enforceable debt. It is for accused to adduce evidence of such

facts and circumstances to rebut the presumption that such

debt does not exist or that the cheques are not supported by

consideration.

15.Since the complainant is entitled to the benefit of presumptions available under sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, the onus shifts onto the accused to disprove the version of the complainant by rebutting the presumptions.

16.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the complainant did not file any document evidencing the hand loan transaction, and also failed to state the date, time, and in whose presence the hand loan was alleged to have been given to the accused. However, it is a settled principle of law that even a hand loan would be a legally enforceable debt if proved. In the present case, PW1 stated that he has an acquaintance with the accused, as they are distant relatives. Even DW1 deposed that the complainant and the accused had an acquaintance with one another. Then PW1, believing the accused and giving the amount mentioned in Ex.P1, does not cast any doubt. Further, the accused did not place any evidence to show that PW1 had any enmity against him or that a false case was filed against him. Thus, the accused failed to prove the non-existence of the hand loan and a legally enforceable debt.

17.It is further the contention of the defence that the cheque was kept at the platform for payment to vegetable suppliers and that the complainant misused the said cheque. If that were so, the accused failed to explain how the cheque came into the possession of the complainant. Further, the accused did not take any steps to issue stop-payment instructions to the bank authorities nor lodge any complaint with the police alleging theft of the cheque. The conduct of the accused is against the conduct of an ordinary prudent man. Therefore, the contention raised by the accused is not trustworthy. Moreover, the accused did not deny his signature on the cheque.

18.The learned counsel for the complainant relied upon a decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Subramani Vs K.Damodara Naidu 2015 1 SCC 99

where in it was held that“Failure to lodge a complaint or failure to issue stop- payment instructions weakens the defence of lost cheque”.

19.In the present case, admittedly, the accused neither lodged any complaint alleging loss or misuse of the cheque nor issued stop-payment instructions to his banker, which creates a serious doubt about the genuineness of his defence and renders the same unacceptable.Hence, the defence set up by the accused that the cheque was misused cannot be believed.

20.It is further contended by the defence that there is a difference in the handwriting on Ex.P1. If such contention was true, the accused could have taken steps to send Ex.P1 for expert opinion to substantiate the same. However, no such effort has been made. Therefore, the contention raised by the accused lacks merit and cannot be accepted.

21. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is no dispute about the signature on the cheque and relied upon a decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in “Shiv Kumar alias Jawahar Saraf Vs Ramavtar Agarwal”.

The facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

22. The learned counsel for the complainant further relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Rangappa Vs Sri Mohan” AIR 2010 SC 1898 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that- "Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to Section 139 of the NI Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption."

23.In the present case, the accused has not denied his signature on the cheque. Even assuming, without admitting, that there is a difference in handwriting on the cheque, it is relevant to note that the cheque was returned for “insufficient funds” and not for “signature differs”. The accused has failed to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the complainant by adducing any probable defence or evidence. Accordingly, this Court holds that the complainant has successfully established that the cheque/Ex.P1 was issued towards a legally enforceable debt, and the defence of the accused is untenable.

24.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumptions available in favour of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the complainant has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and consequently, the accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of the NI Act. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the Complainant.

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly, he is convicted under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Typed by me on my personal laptop and corrected pronounced in the open court on the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Quantum of sentence:

25.When the convict is questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on his, the accused (convict) pleaded mercy. Considering the nature of the offence proved against the accused and as the accused deliberately issued the

Ex.P1 cheque without having sufficient amount in his account, if the accused is released under the Probation of Offenders Act, it is nothing but traverse of justice and the very object of the legislative mandate of making cheque bounce an offence will be ruined. Therefore, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case to invoke beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused.

Thus, this court is inclined to impose the sentence against him.

26.Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,75,000/- which is equivalent to the cheque amount/Ex.P1 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 3 months. Out of the total fine amount of Rs.1,75,000/-, a sum of

Rs.1,65,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand only) is ordered to be paid to complainant as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

27.The accused did not undergo any detention. Hence, he is not entitled for set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

28.A copy of the Judgment is furnished to the accused at free of cost.

29.Accused is appraised about his right of appeal.

Typed by me on my personal laptop and corrected pronounced in the open court on the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Memo Of Evidence

Witnesses examined for Complainant: For Defence: PW.1: Shaik Chan Basha DW.1:S.Shabuddin

Exhibits marked for Complainant:

Ex.P.1: Cheque bearing No.000027, dt.14.3.2023 for Rs.1,75,000/- issued by accused in favour of the complainant drawn on HDFC Bank, Kadapa.

Ex.P.2: Memo issued by Union Bank of India, Mandy Bazar Branch, Kadapa dt.16.3.2023.

Ex.P.3: Office copy of legal notice dt.30.3.2023 issued to the accused along with postal receipt.

Ex.P.4: Reply notice dt.2.4.2023 issued by accused counsel

For Defence:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked: -Nil-

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I AJFCM, Kdp.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensionReleaseCommencementClose ofJudgment of accusedon bailof trial trial 14.3.2023 16.3.2023- -- -8.7.20248.5.202611.5.2026

Calendar and Judgment in Summary Trial Case No.155 of 2023 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Kadapa.

Name of the accused withAgeReligionResidence father's Name.

1234

S/o S.Nawab Jab, Occ: Business, D.No.18/290 and 45 S.M.D.Moulali, - 291 Syed, Miah New Market, Kadapa City.

Offence:U/Sec.138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Finding:Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly, he is convicted under Section 255 (2) of

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

Quantum of sentence:

When the convict is questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on his, the accused (convict) pleaded mercy. Considering the nature of the offence proved against the accused and as the accused deliberately issued the Ex.P1 cheque without having sufficient amount in his account, if the accused is released under the Probation of Offenders Act, it is nothing but traverse of justice and the very object of the legislative mandate of making cheque bounce an offence will be ruined. Therefore, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case to invoke beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused. Thus, this court is inclined to impose the sentence against him.

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,75,000/- which is equivalent to the cheque amount/Ex.P1 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 3 months. Out of the total fine amount of Rs.1,75,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand only) is ordered to be paid to complainant as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

The accused did not undergo any detention. Hence, he is not entitled for set off u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

A copy of the Judgment is furnished to the accused at free of cost. Accused is appraised about his right of appeal.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.