Mohd. Abdul Javeed Pasha

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 1 - EO Court/Hyd

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

ECONOMIC OFFENCES: HYDERABAD

PRESENT: KUMAR VIVEK, District & Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Crl.M.P. No.176 of 2026 (Comp.No.)

Crl.M.P.No.2325 of 2026 (Regd. No.)

in

F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026

Between:

Shri Shailesh Pandey, Bishwanath Pandey, Age: 52 years, R/o. 2005, Tower 5, Saphire Heights, Lokhandwala Township, Kandivali East, Mumbai, Maharashtra. ….Petitioner/Accused

&

Union of India through DGGI, Hyderabad) ….Respondent/Complainant

This petition has come before me on 30.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri S. Abhijeeth Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner/accused and the Special Public Prosecutor, Special Court for trial of cases under Economic Offences, Hyderabad for the respondent/complainant, and upon perusal of the material papers available on record and the matter having heard, read over and stood to till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: ORDER ::

1.This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita -2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/accused.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has submitted before this

Court that the apprehension of the petitioner/accused of arrest by the

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 2 - EO Court/Hyd

respondent/complainant is arising from the fact that he has been served with two summons in connection with file no.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 and the first summons bearing DIN no.202603DSS40000999C61 dated: 07.03.2026 was served via e-mail on 07.03.2026 and the second summons bearing DIN no.202603DSS4000002070C dated: 16.03.2026 was served via e-mail on 16.03.2026, and the apprehension of the petitioner/accused of his arrest is also based upon the arrest of co-accused Rishi Gupta, Chief Executive Officer and

Managing Director of M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited on 27.02.2026 in connection with same Goods and Service Tax file; that first and second summons demanded personal appearance of the petitioner/accused in

Hyderabad on 09.03.2026 and 23.03.2026 respectively; that the first summons in essence merely granted 37 hours inclusive of Sunday to the petitioner/accused to collate and produce massive volumes of transaction data for 177 distinct entities across multiple financial years, and the petitioner/accused replied via e-mail expressing his inability to attend before the officer of the respondent/ complainant in Hyderabad at such a short notice; that the petitioner/accused filed Writ Petition no.7415 of 2026 before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of

Telangana on 10.03.2026 challenging first summons that was disposed of without going into merits of the matter as the said summons could not be acted upon; that the petitioner/accused expressed his inability to attend before the officer of the respondent/complainant in Hyderabad in pursuance of the second summons owing to the surgery of the mother-in-law of the petitioner/accused

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 3 - EO Court/Hyd

on 23.03.2026 that was scheduled much prior to receipt of said summons, and he requested additional 10 days to physically attend before the officer of the respondent/complainant after improvement of the health condition of his mother-in-law; that the first summons merely states that the inquiry pertains to non-payment of Goods and Service Tax on supply of taxable services without disclosing the specific nature of alleged inquiry, transactions under scrutiny, or the role attributed to the petitioner/accused; that the first summons was issued by the respondent/complainant without jurisdiction in view of para 3(c) and 3(e) of Directorate General of GST Intelligence Guidelines for conducting investigation in certain cases dated: 08.02.2024 that precluded a Zonal Unit from initiating investigation against a taxpayer located outside its geographical jurisdiction, and the petitioner/accused is located in Mumbai; that the said summons was also issued in violation of procedure prescribed in para 3(ii) of

Guidelines on Issuance of Summons of Goods and Service Tax-Investigation

Wing dated: 17.08.2022 that requires prior written permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy/Assistant Commissioner before issuing summons, and the said summons was issued by an officer holding the rank of

Superintendent; that as per para 2 of Guidelines on Issuance of Summons of

Goods and Service Tax-Investigation Wing dated: 17.08.2022 read with para 4 of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence Guidelines dated: 08.02.2024, the officer should first seek information through letters of requisition or official correspondence, and resort to the coercive power of summons only where such

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 4 - EO Court/Hyd

information cannot otherwise be obtained, and in the present case no such preliminary step was taken before issuing summons to the petitioner/accused officer; that the petitioner/accused is Chief Business Officer of M/s. Fino

Payments Bank Limited and in view of para 3(vi) of Guidelines on Issuance of

Summons of Goods and Service Tax-Investigation Wing dated: 17.08.2022 he should not ordinarily be summoned unless there exists clear material indicating his personal involvement, and these facts are creating apprehension in the mind of the petitioner/accused that the respondent/complainant may take coercive action against him including arrest; that at the time of onboarding of M/s.

Oceanique Web Solutions Private Limited and M/s. Webwin IT Hub Solutions

Private Limited on the Bank as Payment Aggregator (BAPA) services of M/s. Fino

Payments Bank Limited on 25.11.2024 and 17.09.2024 respectively there was no requirement for M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited to physically verify the merchant’s address/infrastructure, and M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited was only required to collect their KYC documents; that M/s. Fino Payments Bank

Limited has been using the services of iPowerFI Technologies Private Limited for monitoring the transactions of its merchants by performing transaction laundering and web crawling, and in the month of July 2025, iPowerFI

Technologies Private Limited highlighted red flag to M/s. Fino Payments Bank

Limited in relation to M/s. Webwin IT Hub Solutions Private Limited that M/s.

Webwin IT Hub Solutions Private Limited was engaging in gambling on 02.07.2025; that M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited immediately blocked and

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 5 - EO Court/Hyd

deactivated M/s. Webwin IT Hub Solutions Private Limited and information with regard to same was supplied to the respondent/ complainant on 19.01.2026; that on 15.07.2025 during an internal monitoring and audit carried out by M/s.

Fino Payments Bank Limited and its employees it was found that M/s.

Oceanique Web Solutions Private Limited had not provided the Goods and

Service Tax filing certificate to M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited and on the said ground M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited immediately blocked and deactivated

M/s. Oceanique Web Solutions Private Limited and the information with regard to the same was supplied to the respondent/ complainant on 19.01.2026 itself; that the petitioner/accused is no way involved in the operations of the program managers and the merchants. and he is neither a director nor a shareholder in

M/s. Oceanique Web Solutions Private Limited and M/s. Webwin IT Hub

Solutions Private Limited and has not received any amount in any capacity; that the summons dated: 14.02.2026 and 18.02.2026 were sent to said Rishi Gupta by the respondent/complainant on a non-operational e-mail address and the said two summons bounced and the respondent/complainant received information about the same; that the said two summons were communicated to the officers of M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited on 23.02.2026 via e-mail received by one

Anup Agarwal, Executive Vice President, Finance, and on 26.02.2026 at about 12.58 A.M. M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited through e-mail of one Vivek Kapur replied and supplied the digital copy of all the information that were handed over to the officers previously on 19.01.2026; that even if all the materials relied

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 6 - EO Court/Hyd

upon by the respondent/complainant is taken as a whole and considered against the petitioner/accused, the same is no way attribute any role of the petitioner/ accused in Goods and Service Tax evasion by M/s. Oceanique Web

Solutions Private Limited and M/s. Webwin IT Hub Solutions Private Limited; that the entire case of the respondent/complainant is that said Rishi Gupta as the

Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of M/s. Fino Payments Bank

Limited facilitated the masterminds of the syndicate with onboarding of merchant entities and program managers and thereby enabled routing of funds and abetted the masterminds in committing Goods and Service Tax evasion; that the petitioner/accused as Chief Business Officer of M/s. Fino Payments

Bank Limited does not have any control upon the program manager/resellers and not concerned with Goods and Service Tax defaults committed by third parties; that the petitioner/accused through M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited have taken all precautions and carried out all necessary due diligence in relation to all its merchants including M/s. Oceanique Web Solutions Private Limited and

M/s. Webwin IT Hub Solutions Private Limited; that M/s. Oceanique Web

Solutions Private Limited and M/s. Webwin IT Hub Solutions Private Limited are still active with Goods and Services Tax but no action has been taken against them; that admittedly M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited issued invoices for their services to M/s. Oceanique Web Solutions Private Limited and M/s. Webwin IT

Hub Solutions Private Limited hence, the question of evasion of Goods and

Service Tax and not issuing invoices does not arise; that maximum term of

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 7 - EO Court/Hyd

imprisonment prescribed under section 132(1)(i)(ii) of the Central Goods and

Services Tax, 2017 is five years, therefore, the plea of the pre-arrest bail of the petitioner/accused may liberally be considered; that M/s. Fino Payments Bank

Limited cooperated with the respondent/complainant in all possible ways and no material or evidence regarding personal involvement of the petitioner/ accused on non-payment of Goods and Service Tax on supply of taxable services have been produced by the respondent/complainant; that the entire case of the respondent/complainant is based on documentary evidence, that are in the custody of the respondent/complainant; that the investigation in this case has been going on from the month of January, 2026 and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner/accused and M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited hence custodial interrogation of the petitioner/accused is not required; and that the petitioner/accused is permanent resident of Mumbai and there is no likelihood of his flight risk.

3.Counter is filed on behalf of the respondent/complainant by the Senior

Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad.

4.The Special Public Prosecutor, Special Court for trial of cases under

Economic Offences, Hyderabad has submitted before this Court that during investigation it is revealed that M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited is involved in onboarding of M/s. Oceanique Web Solutions Private Limited and M/s. Webwin

IT Hub Solutions Private Limited, dummy/non-operational merchants through

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 8 - EO Court/Hyd

various program managers/resellers, who were verified and found to be non- operational at their registered premises and said merchants onboarded by M/s.

Fino Payments Bank Limited for provision of Bank as Payment Aggregator (BAPA) by entering into multiple agreements with various resellers/program managers; that said M/s. Oceanique Web Solutions Private Limited and M/s.

Webwin IT Hub Solutions Private Limited were created to provide online real money gaming services through various websites and mobile applications in the guise of providing various supplied as IT services, garments etc., however, they have not paid the applicable Goods and Service Tax @ 28% on the online gaming services so provided, and M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited played a prominent role in the syndicate engaged in operating illegal online real money gaming platforms thereby causing Goods and Service Tax evasion; that during investigation M/s. Oceanique Web Solutions Private Limited and M/s. Webwin IT

Hub Solutions Private Limited were found to be engaged in providing online real money gaming services through websites and mobile applications without issuing invoices and without declaring actual turnover in their Goods and

Service Tax returns; that upon verification of GSTR2A of M/s. Oceanique Web

Solutions Private Limited and M/s. Webwin IT Hub Solutions Private Limited, it is noticed that the services were received mainly from M/s. Fino Payments Bank

Limited; that during the investigation certain digital evidence have been seized that reveal nexus between executives of M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited and key persons associated with online gaming syndicate; that during the course of

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 9 - EO Court/Hyd

investigation summons dated: 07.03.2026, 16.03.2026, and 23.07.2026 were issued to the petitioner/accused to tender oral evidence and be present before the individual and seek his opinion on the seized digital evidence, but he failed to comply with the said summons, and he has been consistently seeking time to appear thereby causing delay in the ongoing investigation; and that the data pertaining to 177 merchants were already sought from M/s. Fino Payments Bank

Limited by Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit providing summons to said Rishi Gupta dated: 14.02.2026, 18.02.2026 and 26.02.2026 and the same was reiterated in the summons dated: 07.03.2026 issued to the petitioner/accused as such the contention of the petitioner/ accused that massive data was sought in short time is not true.

5. Perused the materials available on record.

6. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner/accused can be granted pre-arrest bail ?

POINT:

7.According to petitioner/accused issuance and service of summons dated:

07.03.2026 and 16.03.2026 via e-mails upon him by the Superintendent/

Appraiser/Senior Intelligence Officer namely Chettupalli Sandeep Raj requiring him to produce documents and also to tender oral evidence, and arrest of co-accused Rishi Gupta, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of M/s.

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 10 - EO Court/Hyd

Fino Payments Bank Limited inspite of supply of digital copy of information in reply to the two summons sent to the non-operational e-mail addresses of the said Rishi Gupta by one Vivek Kapur, and issuance of said summons in breach of

Directorate General of GST Intelligence Guidelines for conducting investigation in certain cases dated: 08.02.2024 and Guidelines on Issuance of Summons of

Goods and Service Tax-Investigation Wing dated: 17.08.2022 constitute pivotal reasons for the petitioner/accused to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation of committing an offence punishable under section 132(1)(i)(ii) of the

Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 between

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in para no.90 wherein it is held that A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at time for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage.

9.The petitioner/accused as well as the respondent/complainant have produced copy of summons issued to the petitioner on 07.03.2026 and 16.03.2026. Summons dated: 07.03.2026 requires the petitioner/accused

(a) to give evidence and/or

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 11 - EO Court/Hyd

(b) produce documents or things of the following description in his possession or under his control confirming:

1. if any of the merchants/entities in Annexure A are provided any payment services by M/s. Fino Payments Bank at any point of time.

2. if any of the program managers in Annexure B have taken payment aggregator services for any of their merchants/entities at any point of time. For merchants in Annexure A and program managers in Annexure B please give program manager wise merchant entity name, GSTIN, PAN, Sales Volume (Month wise) from 01.10.2023 to 28.02.2026, payout bank account numbers (including the current account) and ifsc code, pay in transaction details for one day i.e., 01.01.2026 for each of the merchant entity indicating the UPI ID, Date, Time and the amount of transaction.

3.Tender oral evidence, and to appear before said Chettupalli Sandeep Raj in person or by an authorized representative on 09.03.2026 at 11.00 A.M. at the office of the respondent/complainant in Hyderabad.

10.Summons dated: 16.03.2026 requires the petitioner/accused

(a) to give evidence and/or

(b) produce documents or things of the following description in his possession or under his control:

1. Sales Turnovers of all Merchants listed in Annexure A (177 Padizone Merchants) who are onboarded on M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited (cumilative i.e., adding up of sales through multiple resellers) from 01.10.2023 to 28.02.2026 clearly indicating GSTIN, Sales volume month wise, the reseller wise break up and Bank account number.

2. Sales Turnovers of all Merchants who are onboarded on any of the resellers (resellers who have onboarded any of the merchants listed in Annexure A) from 01.10.2023 to 28.02.2026 clearly indicating GSTIN, Sales volume month wise, the reseller wise break up and Bank account number. Payer UPI ID wise inward receipts indicating the amount and date for

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 12 - EO Court/Hyd

01.01.2026 for all the aforesaid merchants (with clear reseller wise break up).

3.Tender oral evidence, and to appear before said Chettupalli Sandeep Raj in person or by an authorized representative on 23.03.2026 at 11.00 A.M. at the office of the respondent/ complainant in Hyderabad.

11.The respondent/complainant has filed copy of the replies dated:

09.03.2026 and 23.03.2026 sent by the petitioner/accused through e-mails to said Chettupalli Sandeep Raj. In his reply dated: 09.03.2026 the petitioner/ accused acknowledged the receipt of first summons dated 07.03.2026, however, he contends that he saw the said summons during his office hours on 09.03.20216 and submits that the said summons is not clear about nature of inquiry vis-a-vis his role, and relevance of the information that is needed from him apart from data required, and that since the said summons reads vaguely as such he is not in a position to assist efficiently in the inquiry, and thereby he requests to provide him a letter with specific details that are needed from him, and he seeks two weeks’ time to visit said Chettupalli Sandeep Raj for any other requirement than data which is being provided. The petitioner/accused also submits in the said reply that majority of the information sought for in the first summons has already been shared by M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited.

12.In his reply dated: 23.03.2026 the petitioner/accused also acknowledges the receipt of second summons dated: 16.03.2026 and submits that his mother-

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 13 - EO Court/Hyd

in-law is going through a critical surgery that was scheduled much prior to the receipt of said summons as such he needs additional 10 days’ to be physically present apart from further reiterating the contents of his reply to the first summons that majority of the information sought for in the first summons has already been shared by M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited. In the said reply to the second summons the petitioner/accused further submits that since there is new request in the Government inquiry and the data is voluminous in nature, it requires data recovery and work of multiple teams to collate the data for submission and careful validation and the same takes due time.

13.During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has produced a pen drive and a copy of e-mail dated:

06.04.2026 sent by the petitioner/accused to said Chettupalli Sandeep Raj along with a memo reporting that the petitioner/accused furnished documents containing details of all the merchants onboarded by the program managers for the period from October, 2023 to February, 2026, and transaction details of all merchants as sought by the respondent/complainant, by attaching to the said e- mail.

14.On perusal of summons dated: 07.03.2026 and 16.03.2026 sent to the petitioner/accused it is noticed that the respondent/complainant is not only requiring the petitioner/accused to appear in person or by authorized representative to produce the documents but also require him to tender oral

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 14 - EO Court/Hyd

evidence. As per the contents of the counter filed on behalf of the respondent/complainant, the respondent/complainant is seeking appearance of the petitioner/accused for his comments on seized digital evidence revealing nexus between executives of M/s. Fino Payments Bank Limited and key persons associated with online gaming syndicate. Therefore, mere furnishing of documents as sought by the respondent/complainant under the said e-mail

dated 06.04.2026 will not suffice and dispense with attendance of the

petitioner/accused before the said officer of the respondent/complainant.

15.According to the averments of para 22 of the petition even if all the materials relied upon by the respondent/complainant against the said Rishi

Gupta is considered as whole, the same does not establish any role of the petitioner/accused in the Goods and Service Tax evasion by M/s. Oceanique Web

Solutions Private Limited and M/s. Webwin IT Hub Solutions Private Limited.

When such is the case then arrest of said Rishi Gupta on 27.02.2026 inspite of alleged supplying of digital copy of information to the respondent/complainant in pursuance of the summons dated: 14.02.2026 and 18.02.2026 to the alleged non-operational e-mail address ought not to have given rise to any apprehension to the petitioner/accused of arrest.

16.Admittedly the petitioner/accused did not attend before said Chettupalli

Sandeep Raj, Superintendent/Appraiser/Senior Intelligence Officer in due compliance of first and second summons dated: 07.03.2026 and 16.03.2026

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 15 - EO Court/Hyd

respectively inspite seeking time to appear in his replies dated: 09.03.2026 and 23.03.2026. Per contra the petitioner/accused avoided compliance of first summons by mentioning in his reply dated: 09.03.2026 that the said summons is vague as the same does not disclose the nature of inquiry vis-a-vis his role and the relevance of the information that is needed from him apart from data required. The petitioner/accused contends that he challenged validity of first summons before the Hon’ble High Court, but the writ petition was disposed of without going into the merits of the matter in issue. It is not the case of the petitioner/accused that he also challenged the validity of second summons issued by said Chettupalli Sandeep Raj, Superintendent/Appraiser/Senior

Intelligence Officer. Considering limited scope of the instant petition, the issues raised before this Court challenging validity of first summons as issued in violation of Directorate General of GST Intelligence Guidelines for conducting investigation in certain cases dated: 08.02.2024 and Guidelines on Issuance of

Summons of Goods and Service Tax-Investigation Wing dated: 17.08.2022, does not fall for direct adjudication before this Court.

17.The summons dated: 07.03.2026 and 16.03.2026 clearly indicate that personal attendance of the petitioner/accused or his authorized representative is sought in connection with making inquiry regarding investigation of non- payment of Goods and Service Tax on supply of taxable services under the

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Instead of attending before the said

Crl.M.P.No.176/2026 in F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/11/2026 16 - EO Court/Hyd

Chettupalli Sandeep Raj in person or through his authorized representative in due compliance of first and second summons for co-operating with the respondent/complainant in ongoing investigation in spite of seeking time to appear, the petitioner/accused under the guise of issuance and service of first and second summons to him is making an attempt to cocoon himself by approaching this Court seeking pre-arrest bail. It is also not the case of the petitioner/accused that after failing to appear post issuance and service of first and second summons, the respondent/complainant resorted to coercive action against him for securing his attendance.

18.In view of foregoing appreciation of the facts of this case this Court find that the apprehension of arrest of petitioner/accused put forth before this Court by the petitioner/accused is not real, but imaginary. Therefore, this petition is found to be devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. This point is answered against the petitioner/accused and in favour of the respondent/ complainant.

19.In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Gr1, transcribed and typed by her, and corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 18 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

FAC SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER ECONOMIC OFFENCES

HYDERABAD

Page No. 1 Judgment in CC No. 413 of 2024/ PS Kothur

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF CASES

ON FRAUDULENT DRAWLS AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF SCHOLARSHIP AMOUNTS

IN SOCIAL WELFARE, TRIBAL WELFARE AND BACKWARD CLASSES DEPARTMENTS

(EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS IN SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT)- CUM II

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB CASES HYDERABAD

Present:Mohd. Abdul Javeed Pasha Special Judge for speedy trial and disposal of cases on fraudulent drawls and misappropriation of scholarship amounts in Social Welfare Tribal Welfare and Backward Classes Departments (Embezzlement of funds in Social Welfare Department) – II Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad

Dated this Monday the 31stday of March, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.413 of 2024

(Old C.C.No.249 of 2023) BETWEEN:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police,

PS Kothur, Ranga Reddy Dist. .. ..Complainant

// AND // (1) Peerlagudem Sreeram, S/o Sattaiah, Aged 43 years, Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No. 2-21 KLUmmariguda, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(2) Peerlagudem Krishna, S/o Sattaiah, Aged 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H No. 7-24, Kummariguda, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(3) Peerlagudem Sathaiah, S/o Jangaiah, Aged 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 2-21, Kummariguda, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.… Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 23.03.2026 in the presence of Sri A.Ram Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri Talasila Suresh, counsel for the accused; upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and the court made the following:

Page No. 2 Judgment in CC No. 413 of 2024/ PS Kothur

J U D G M E N T

The accused 1 to 3 have arraigned before this court for the offences punishable under sections 447, 427 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec. 3 of

Prevention of Damage to the Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984.

2.The averments of the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:

(a)The accused No.3 who is the father of accused nos. 1 & 2 has the land admeasuring Ac.0.12 guntas in Sy.No. 313/AA at Kummariguda village of

Kothur Revenue, Ranga Reddy district. Government has the land admeasuring Ac.02.20 guntas in Sy.No.314/A which is located adjacent to the land of accused no.3 for which boundary pillars were fixed by the

Revenue Department officials. The accused no.1 to 3 in order to grab the part of above government land which is beside to them, criminally trespassed into the land, damaged boundary pillars and constructed the compound wall and septic tank. On the complaint about the encroachment of government land, as per the directions of District Collector, Ranga Reddy,

Y.Bhaskar Rao and Godugu Yadaiah, Village Revenue Officers got conducted the survey and confirmed that the accused were encroached into the government land and informed the same to the accused, for which accused assured that they will remove the constructions made by them. Further

Village Revenue Officers demarcated the government land in Sy.No. 314 with the help of Tippons and village map by showing the boundaries to the

Page No. 3 Judgment in CC No. 413 of 2024/ PS Kothur accused. But on the same day night, all the accused instead of removing septic tank and compound wall, laid road in the said government land.

(b)Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, J.Balaraju the then

Inspector of Police, P.S. Kothur has registered this case vide crime No. 36/2023 u/s 447 of IPC and Sec. 3 of PDPP Act, 1984 and entrusted the investigation to

Md. Sayeed, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothur.

(c)During the course of investigation, the sub-Inspector of police has examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, proceeded to the scene of offence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of the scene before the mediators, later issued notice to the accused u/sec. 41-A of Cr.PC. After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 447, 427 of IPC and sec. 3 of PDPP Act.

3.On filing of final report, the learned Principal Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Shadnagar has taken cognizance of this case against the

accused for the offences punishable under section 447, 427of IPC and sec.

3 of PDPP Act. On appearance of the accused before the learned

Magistrate, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required

under section 207 of Cr.P.C; later this case was transferred to this court vide orders of the Hon’ble District Judge, Ranga Reddy vide proceedings in

Ds.No.3616/2024 dated 24.07.2024.

Page No. 4 Judgment in CC No. 413 of 2024/ PS Kothur

4.This Court received the case records as per proceedings of the Hon’ble

High Court vide ROC No.1486/E1/2018 dated 02.05.2024 and G.O.Ms. No.27

dated 4.4.2024 on the point of jurisdiction. On appearance of the accused

before this court, they were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., for the

offences punishable under section 447, 427 of IPC and sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984, charges have been framed read over and explained the contents of the same to the accused in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 on its behalf.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 3 were examined under section 313 CrPC for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/s 447, 427 of IPC and sec. 3 of PDPP Act, 1984?

Page No. 5 Judgment in CC No. 413 of 2024/ PS Kothur

P O I N T :

9.Unfolding the case of prosecution, PW1 testified that the government has the land in Sy.No. 314 to an extent of Ac. 1.20 guntas at Kothur village; in the month of December, 2022 one Mahesh Goud complained to the District

Collector, Ranga Reddy district as the said land was encroached by the accused. As per the directions of the office of the District Collector, Ranga

Reddy, he alongwith Bhaskar Rao/Village Revenue Officer and one Sheshu

Kumar/ Surveyor visited the above land and the Surveyor conducted survey and identified some part of the government land was encroached. PW1 further deposed that they identified the encroachment, as there was a construction of compound wall, septic tank and also laid a gravel road and also damage to some boundary pillars marked by the revenue officers, then they tried to remove the illegal construction of compound wall and septic tank, but the accused nos.1 to 3 obstructed them for which they complained the matter to the police under Ex.P1.

PW2 is cited as circumstantial witness to the case of the prosecution;

Pws 3 & 4 are the panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama stated to have not acted as such. PW5 is the Investigating Officer who deposed about the manner of conducting of investigation after registering of the crime.

10.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that the accused who are having land adjacent to

Page No. 6 Judgment in CC No. 413 of 2024/ PS Kothur government land in Sy.No. 314/A of Kothur village, Ranga Reddy District, in order to grab the part of the land, criminally trespassed into said government land by damaging the boundary pillars marked by the revenue officials and constructed compound wall and septic tank in the said land.

11.PW1 who is the defacto complainant and who worked as Revenue

Inspector, Kothur narrated the version of prosecution in vivid manner with regard to land of the government to the extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.

314 at Kothur village and also about encroachment of the part of said land by the accused by damaging the boundary pillars marked by the government officials and about construction of compound wall, septic tank and also laying of gravel road in the said land. The version of PW1 is that upon identifying the encroachment of part of government land by illegal constructions by the accused, when they tried to remove the same, the accuse 1 to 3 obstructed them, then they complained the matter to the police under Ex.P1. But, on perusal of Ex.P1 report which is the earliest form of information about the commission of this offence, wherein it is mentioned that after knowing that the accused have illegally constructed the compound wall and septic tank in the government land, then himself and village

Revenue Officer /Bhaskar Rao went to the scene of offence and shown the boundaries of the government land to the accused, then the accused assured that they will remove the illegal construction in the government land, but instead of removing the same, they laid gravel road during night hours.

Nowhere in the Ex.P1 report it is mentioned that when Pws 1 and Bhaskar

Page No. 7 Judgment in CC No. 413 of 2024/ PS Kothur

Rao/Village Revenue Officer tried to remove illegal constructions, the accused obstructed them then they complained the matter to the police. In

Ex.P1 report it is only mentioned that upon identifying encroachment of land by the accused, they were shown the boundary lines and asked to remove the said illegal constructions. Even it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused obstructed Pws 1 and 2 while they were performing their official duties as stated by PW1 in his chief examination.

12.The next important aspect which needs for consideration is that as per the case of the prosecution, upon the directions of the office of District

Collector, Ranga Reddy, PW1 along with Bhaskar Rao/Village Revenue

Officer and one Surveyor/Seshu Kumar visited the scene of offence land,

Surveyor conducted the survey and identified some part of the government land was encroached by the accused. But neither Investigating Agency, cited said Seshu Kumar/Surveyor who conducted the survey as witness nor prosecution examined him and not placed any survey report before this court showing part of government land was encroached by the accused.

Even in the scene of offence panchanama/Ex.P8, it is mentioned that one

Mandal Surveyor who conducted the survey of the land, identified about the encroachment of the land. PW5/ Investigating Officer in his cross examination admitted that he has not examined the said surveyor, who conducted the survey of the land. This is a material lapse on the part of Investigating Agency.

Prosecution placed Ex.P2 ie., certified copy of adangal/Pahani for the fasli year 2009-10 with regard to Sy. No.314/A of Kothur village. No doubt,

Page No. 8 Judgment in CC No. 413 of 2024/ PS Kothur

Ex.P2/Adangal/Pahani discloses about the existence of government land in

Sy.No.314/A at Kothur village. But, in the present case, the allegations against the accused are with regard to trespass and mischief. When the prosecution alleging about trespass and mischief by the accused, the prosecution is duty bound to establish the said fact that the accused encroached into government land in Sy.No.314/A by demolishing the boundary pillars demarcated by the revenue officers. But as discussed supra, prosecution neither examined the surveyor who conducted the survey of the land nor placed any survey report before this court. PW1 in his cross examination clearly stated that after conducting field survey by the surveyor, he prepared a map by fixing boundaries and identified the encroached land, even the said map which is prepared by him showing the boundaries by identifying the encroached land is not placed before this court.

13.The most important aspect which needs for consideration is that as per the version of PW1 in his chief examination, the government has the land in

Sy.No. 314/A in Kothur village to the extent of Ac.1.20 guntas. In the cross examination, PW1 again stated that after conducting the survey, they identified the government land as Ac.1.20 guntas in said survey number as on that date. Even after conducting survey PW1 found the government land as Ac.1.20 guntas itself, then where is the question of encroachment of part of land by the accused, is inexplicable. Admittedly, the land of accused situated adjacent to the scene of offeence land of government. The defence of the accused is that accused have not trespassed into

Page No. 9 Judgment in CC No. 413 of 2024/ PS Kothur government land, but the accused No.1 constructed the house legally on his own land. Admittedly, the Revenue Officials have not given any notice to the accused about the encroachment of part of government land and not conducted any panchanama. When the prosecution categorically pleaded that the accused trespassed into government land in Sy.No. 314/A and committed mischief, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that said trespass and mischief. Prosecution has not placed any piece of evidence to establish the alleged trespass and mischief by the accused, except Ex.P2 which only shows the existence of government land at Sy.No. 314/A, but cannot prove the case of prosecution with regard to alleged trespass and mischief. Admittedly, no photographs of the scene offence about raising of illegal structures is placed before this court. It is pertinent to note that the

Investigating Officer/PW5 stated that he has photographed the scene of offence, but same were not filed before this court. When PW5 photographed the scene of offence land, then what prevented him to file the same before this court, is best known to him.

14.The other important aspect which needs for consideration is that as per the evidence of PW5/Investigating Officer, after registering the case, after recording the statements of PW1 and other witnesses visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama before the mediators and at the time of panchanama PW2 was also present and he recorded the statement of PW2 at the scene of offence itself.

Page No. 10 Judgment in CC No. 413 of 2024/ PS Kothur

The mediators for scene of offence panchanama ie., Pws 3 and 4 have not supported the version of PW5/ Investigating Officer with regard to conducting of any panchanama in their presence at the scene of offence land; they simply stated that their signatures were obtained and no survey was conducted in their presence. As Pws 3 and 4 not supported the version of prosecution even with regard to their presence at the scene of offence, hence prosecution declared them as hostile witnesses. Further, PW2 stated that police never examined him nor recorded his statement. Even PW2 on whose complaint the District Collector deputed PW1 to visit the scene of offence, not supported the version of PW5/Investigating Officer even with regard to recording of his S.161 statement by PW5.

15.It is also pertinent to note that as per the version of PW2 on the date of their visit to the scene of offence land, PW1 and Village Revenue Officers/

Y.Bhaskar Rao and Godugu Yadaiah, not conducted any survey but the same was conducted after two to three months of this case. But as per the version of PW1, he got conducted the survey at the scene of offence land with the Surveyors and identified the revenue land, at the scene of offence but not conducted any panchanama as the land belongs to government.

There is inconsistency in the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 whether on the date of visit of PW1 and other revenue officers, survey was conducted or only panchanama was drafted. That apart, as per the evidence of PW1 at the time of survey, PW2 was not present at the scene. But as per the evidence of

PW2 he was summoned by accused no.1 over phone, then he went to the

Page No. 11 Judgment in CC No. 413 of 2024/ PS Kothur scene of offence and after his arrival only, PW1 and Village Revenue Officers/

Y.Bhaskar Rao and Godugu Yadaiah came to the scene of offence and he left the scene of offence after departure of PW1 and Village Revenue

Officers. Again there is inconsistency in the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 with regard to presence of PW2 at the time of visiting scene of offence land by

PW1 and other revenue officials.

16.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed

before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that the

evidence on record is full of inconsistencies and discrepancies , hence this court feels that it is a fit case to extend a benefit of doubt to the accused.

Point is answered accordingly.

17.In the result, the accused nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 447, 427 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and

Sec. 3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984 and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.PC for the said offences. The bail bonds/surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of (6) months from today, as per sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer- Grade-I of this Court, transcribed by him, corrected and

b

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of March, 2026.

et, if the accused is sentenced to undergo or a imprisonment for a period of Sd/-

Special Judge

for Speedy disposal of cases on fraudulent drawls and misappropriation of scholarship amounts in social Welfare Tribal Welfare and Backward Classes Department (Embezzlement of funds in Social Welfare Departments)-CUM-II Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

Page No. 12 Judgment in CC No. 413 of 2024/ PS Kothur is APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1S.Sahadev Reddy/ defacto complainant PW2P.Mahesh Goud/ circumstantial witness PW3K.Jagan/ panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama/CDF PW4B.Lingam/ panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama/CDF PW5Mohd. Sayeed/ Investigating Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENSE : NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Report given by PW1 Ex.P2Certified copy of Adangal/Pahani Ex.P3 Signature of PW3 on scene of offence panchanama/CDF Ex.P4Signature of PW3 on rough sketch Ex.P5Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama/CDF Ex.P6Signature of PW4 on rough sketch Ex.P7First Information Report Ex.P8Crime Details Form

No. of documents marked for defense: Nil

MOS marked -Nil

Sd/-

Special Judge

for Speedy disposal of cases on fraudulent drawls and misappropriation of scholarship amounts in social Welfare Tribal Welfare and Backward Classes Department (Embezzlement of funds in Social Welfare Departments)-CUM-II Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

1

CC No.9645 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD.

Present: Sri Mohd. Abdul Javeed Pasha,

VII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 16 th day of December, 2024

C.C.NO.9645 OF 2023

BETWEEN :

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Saidabad Police Station.

...Complainant

//AND// (1) Mohammed Ghouse, S/o.Mohammed Mastan, Age:28 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o.H.No.4-11-154/7, M.M.Pahadi, Near 786 School, Rajendranagar, Attapur PS limits.

(2) Mohammed Imran, S/o. Mohammed Sabir, Age: 24 years, Occ:Vegetable Vendor, R/o.H.No.11-1-1113/A/70, Afzal Sagar, Mallepally, Hyderabad. Presently residing at near Bilal Hotel, Suleman Nagar, Chinthalet, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

(3) Mohammed Muzaffar Ali @ Mujju, S/o.Mohammed Niyamath Ali, Age:27 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o.H.No.4-11-99/2, M.M.Pahadi, Near 786 School, Rajendranagar, Attapur PS limits.

....Accused no.1 to 3

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 12.12.2024

in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri Mohd. Rafathullah, counsel for A1, Sri Mohammed Aslam, Sri

Khaja Moinuddin, Sri M.A. Azeem and Mohammed Asif, counsel for

A2 and Sri MD Arshad Khan, Sri Shaik Abdul Rahman, counsel for

A3 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till

this day, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused no.1 to 3 have arraigned before this court for the offences punishable u/secs.457, 380 r/w 511, 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

VII ACJM

2

CC No.9645 of 2023

2.The averments of the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Saidabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 3 alleging therein that on the night of 17.10.2023 at about 10:30 pm, accused no.1 to 3 went to Electricity Bill Collection Office at Saidabad crossroads in the auto rickshaw bearing no.AP13 Y-4338 pertaining to the accused no.1; they parked the auto rickshaw next to the Electricity Office, observed that the watchman who was on duty left the premises on Activa motor cycle, seeing this opportunity accused no.1 and 2 went to the first floor carrying an iron rod to break the lock and accused no.3 stayed in the auto rickshaw, monitoring the public movements.

When the accused no.1 and 2 reached the first floor, they found the grill door locked, accused no.2 broke the main grill lock using iron rod then they entered into the cash section and accused no.1 took the iron rod from accused no.2 to break other locks. Upon entering the cash section, they discovered two open lockers but they were empty and found another chest locker that was locked and despite their efforts they could not open it, hence they left the office.

(b) Basing on the report of the de facto complainant,

Sri P. Venkat Reddy, the then Sub Inspector of Police, PS Saidabad has registered this case in Cr.No.382/2023 u/secs.457, 380 r/w 511 of

IPC and took up the investigation.

(c) During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of

Police, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence situated at ERO-8 Office, Chenchalguda,

VII ACJM

3

CC No.9645 of 2023

Saidabad, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch of the scene before the mediators. After verifying the CCTV footage, it is found that three (03) unknown persons came in an auto rickshaw and parked the auto rickshaw near the premises of ERO-8 Office, TSSPDCL and entered the premises of the office.

(d)During the further course of investigation, on 30.10.2023 at about 1900 hours, when the Sub Inspector alongwith the staff were conducting the vehicle checking near Hanafia Mosque, Saidabad, they found the accused persons moving in suspicious circumstances in the auto rickshaw, asked them to stop the auto rickshaw but they tried to escape from that place; immediately, the Sub Inspector alongwith his staff caught hold them, checked the auto rickshaw and found one iron rod. On interrogation, they voluntarily confessed that on 17.10.2023 at late night hours they entered the premises of

Electricity Office situated near Imperial Hotel and broke the locks of the grill doors, entered the cash section of the electricity bill and tried to open the locker.

(e) Basing on the confession of the accused persons, the Sub

Inspector seized one Bajaj Auto bearing no.AP13 Y-4338 from the possession of the accused persons and also one iron rod which was used in the commission of offence, under the cover of panchanama

before the mediators. After completion of investigation, filed the

charge sheet against the accused persons.

3. This case was taken cognizance against accused no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable u/secs.457, 380 r/w 511 of IPC.

VII ACJM

4

CC No.9645 of 2023

4. On appearance of the accused no.1 to 3, copies of case records were furnished to them as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused no.1 to 3 were examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable u/secs.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC, charges have been framed against the accused persons for the said offences, explained and read over the contents of the same in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and MO1 to 3 on its behalf.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 to 3 were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of

the accused no.1 to 3, for the offences punishable

u/secs.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. Unfolding the case of the prosecution,PW1 testified that on 18.10.2023, he received a phone call from the Junior Accounts

Officer, as some theft was committed at their ERO-8 Office at

Saidabad, then immediately rushed to the office and found that nothing was stolen from the office but locks of all the sections, cash chest were broken; immediately he informed the matter to the higher officials. After that he complained the matter to police under Ex.P1.

VII ACJM

5

CC No.9645 of 2023

PWs.2 to 4 are the employees of TSSPDCL and cited as circumstantial witnesses; PW5 is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama stated to have acted as such; PW6 is the police constable who collected CCTV footage; PW7 is the panch witness for the confession and seizure panchanama; PW8 is the police constable who assisted the Investigating Officer; PW9 is the Investigating

Officer who investigated this crime.

11. Before embarking upon the appreciation of evidence, I deem it appropriate to refer to section 457 and 380 IPC:

Section 457 IPC – Lurking house-trepass or house-breaking

by night in order to commit offence punishable with

imprisonment:

"Whoever commits lurking house trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years."

Section 380 IPC – Theft in dwelling house, etc; " Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also liable to fine."

VII ACJM

6

CC No.9645 of 2023

At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to section 442 IPC, wherein the word “house trespass” is defined as under:

Section 442 IPC- House-trespass:

"Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house trespass".

Explanation: The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser’s body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.

12. Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 17/18.10.2023 at ERO-8 Office at TSSPDCL, Chenchalguda,

Hyderabad, accused trespassed into ERO-8 Office by breaking the grill doors and tried to commit theft of cash from the cash chest locker. PW1 who is the de facto complainant narrated the version of the prosecution in the vivid manner with regard to the breaking of the locks of the sections, currency chest at ERO-8 office, Saidabad and attempted to commit theft of cash from the cash chest. In

Ex.P1/report, which is the earliest form of information about the commission of this offence, wherein also it is mentioned that - some unknown persons entered into the office by breaking the grill locks, flushed the door lock of cash section and attempted to commit theft of cash.

13. PW2 who is the Sub Engineer at ADE (operations), chenchalguda and who first happens to see the broken locks at ERO- 8 Office on 18.10.2023, PWs.3 and 4 are said to be the watchmen at

VII ACJM

7

CC No.9645 of 2023

TSSPDCL, ERO-8 Office, seeks to corroborate the testimony of PW1 with regard to the broke down of locks at the office of ERO-8,

Saidabad and attempted to commit the theft.

On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 they have not witnessed the incident to depose about the break down of the locks and attempted to commit theft of cash from the office of ERO-8 at

Saidabad. Prosecution has not cited any witness who happens to see the persons who tried to commit theft of cash at the said office.

14. In these type of offences, the evidence of Investigating Officer who conducted the confession of the accused leading to the recovery of the property and the evidence of panch witnesses who are allegedly present at the time of such panchanama plays vital role to the case of the prosecution.

In this case, PW9, the Investigating Officer categorically deposed before this court that on 30.01.2023 at about 7:00 pm, he alongwith PW8 and one Sai Kiran, Police Constables, B. Vijay Kumar,

Homeguard, were conducting vehicle checking at Hanafia Mosque,

Saidabad, then at about 7:15 pm they found three persons were coming in an auto in suspicious circumstances; when they tried to stop them, the said persons tried to escape from that place but PW8 and B.Vijay Kumar caught hold them; upon interrogation to the said persons, firstly they have not stated anything but on the inspection of the auto they found a small rod in the auto. PW9 further deposed that upon interrogation at the police station and upon showing the

CCTV footage of near Mandi Hotel in the mobile phone, the said persons confessed that they are the said persons who went to the

VII ACJM

8

CC No.9645 of 2023

Electricity Office and attempted to commit theft in the said office, basing on the same, seized the auto and iron rod from the possession of the accused persons under the cover of the panchanama before the mediators.

15. One of the mediators who examined as PW7 corroborated the version of the Investigating Officer with regard to the confession of the accused and basing on the same, recovery of iron rod ie., MO2 and MO3/auto under the cover of panchanama in his presence. Ex.P4 to P6/confession and seizure panchanamas certifies the version of

PW7 and PW9 with regard to the said confession of the accused and seizure of MOs2 and 3 from their possession.

16. In this case, prosecution also examined the Police Constable who collected CCTV footage, as PW6. As per the evidence of PW6, as per the instructions of P.Venkat Reddy, the then Sub Inspector- on 18.10.2023 he collected CCTV footage between 9:00 pm to next day morning 7:00 am near Imperial Hotel, Saidabad main road with regard to some theft case, he collected the same in the pen drive, later converted into CD and handed over to Sub Inspector alongwith 65-B Certificate. Prosecution also filed said CD before this court and got marked the same as MO1. On perusal of the CD/MO1, it strengthens the version of PW9/Investigating Officer.

17. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the iron rod ie., MO1 is generally available in the open market and to avoid the negligence on the part of the employees of ERO-8 Office, as they have not properly locked the doors of the office, hence a false case is foisted against the accused persons who are noway concerned with this crime.

VII ACJM

9

CC No.9645 of 2023

18. In this case, PW7 who is the panch witness for the confession and seizure panchanama is not the staff of ERO-8 Office but he is the independent witness. He corroborated the version of the

Investigating Officer/PW9 in toto with regard to the seizure of iron rod and auto from the possession of the accused. No enemity is attributed against the PW7 to depose against the accused. Even there is no suggestion to PW7 what is the necessity to him to depose against the accused and to support the case of the prosecution.

The evidence of PW9/Investigating Officer coupled with the evidence of PW7/panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama and also coupled with Ex.P4 to P6/confession and seizure panchanamas, MO1 to 3 proves the case of the prosecution.

On perusal of the entire material on record, prosecution placed the best available evidence before this court.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the material placed before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that the evidence on record is consistent, cogent and convincing to sustain the conviction against the accused for the offences punishable u/secs.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC. Point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

20.In the result, accused no.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offences u/secs.457, 380 r/w 511 of IPC and they are convicted for the said offences u/s.248 (2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him and after its correction, pronounced by me in

open Court on this the 16 th day of Decemer, 2024.

VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

VII ACJM

10

CC No.9645 of 2023

Upon hearing the quantum of sentence, accused no.1 submitted that recently his elder brother died about one month back and he is the sole bread winner of his old aged parents and also having small children, if he go to jail his family members will suffer a lot.

Accused no.2 submitted that he is also sole bread winner of his family and his family members will depend on is earnings, if he go to jail his family members will suffer a lot.

Accused no.3 submitted that he is having old aged parents and he has to look after his old aged parents and he is the sole breadwinner of his family, if he go to jail his family members will suffer a lot.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the accused no.1 to 3, this court feels it appropriate in sentencing for a period of six (06) months of

Simple Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable u/s.457 of IPC.

Further, the accused no.1 to 3 are sentenced for a period of six (06) months of Simple Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of

Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable u/s.380 r/w 511 of

IPC.

Both the above sentences shall concurrently. (Total fine amount of accused no.1 to 3 is of Rs.600/-.The remand period which was already undergone by the accused shall be set off u/sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

VII ACJM

11

CC No.9645 of 2023

The accused no.1 to 3 are informed about their right to appeal against the judgment of this court and supplied the copy of the judgment on free of cost.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him and after its correction, pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 16 th day of December, 2024.

VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence: Nil

PW1 : S. Krupa Ratnam

PW2 : Meraj Ali

PW3 : B. Naresh Kumar

PW4 : Mohd. Akram Khan

PW5 : K. Babu

PW6 : V. Ravi

PW7 : Mohd. Abdul Raheem

PW8 : P. Sai Vikram

PW9 : P. Venkat Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence : Nil

Ex.P1 is the Report;

Ex.P2 is the Crime Details Form;

Ex.P3 is the certificate issued u/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act;

Ex.P4 is the seizure portion of confession statement of A1;

Ex.P5 is the seizure portion of confession statement of A2;

Ex.P6 is the seizure portion of confession statement of A3;

Ex.P7 is the First Information Report;

MOs Marked : MO1 is CD;

MO2 is the iron rod;

MO3 is the auto bearing no.AP 13 Y-4338

VII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

VII ACJM

Page No. 1 Fair Judgment in CC No. 352 of 2024/ PS Keshampet

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF CASES

ON FRAUDULENT DRAWLS AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF SCHOLARSHIP AMOUNTS

IN SOCIAL WELFARE, TRIBAL WELFARE AND BACKWARD CLASSES DEPARTMENTS

(EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS IN SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT)- CUM II

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB CASES HYDERABAD

Present:Mohd. Abdul Javeed Pasha Special Judge for speedy trial and disposal of cases on fraudulent drawls and misappropriation of scholarship amounts in Social Welfare Tribal Welfare and Backward Classes Departments (Embezzlement of funds in Social Welfare Department) – II Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad

Dated this Monday the 30 thday of March, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.352 of 2024

(Old C.C.No.784 of 2021) BETWEEN: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police,

PS Keshampet, Ranga Reddy Dist. .. ..Complainant

// AND //

Boda Rajesh, S/o Lingaiah, Aged 21 years, Occ: Driver cum owner of tractor bearing No. TS06 UA-7469/Trolley No. AP22U 9087, R/o Nirdavelly village of Keshampet Mandal.… Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 23.03.2026 in the presence of Sri A.Ram Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri A.Shireesh Kumar, counsel for the accused upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused has arraigned before this court for the offences punishable under sections 379 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec. 3(1) of Prevention of

Damage to the Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984 .

Page No. 2 Fair Judgment in CC No. 352 of 2024/ PS Keshampet

2.The averments of the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:

(a)The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Keshampet, Ranga Reddy District has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging therein that the accused being the driver and owner of tractor bearing No. TS06

UA-7469/Trolley No. AP22U 9087, on 20.06.2021 at an early hours loaded sand in his tractor from Nirdavelly Vagu by way of stealing without having any valid permission from the Government and while transporting the same to

Nirdavelly on the way to Nirdavelly village, at 05:30 hours, then two police constables/ N.M.Khaja and Kumara Swamy who were on patrolling duty found the tractor/Trolley under suspicious circumstances and tried to stop the said tractor/trolley but the accused without stopping the same, drove in high speed towards mosque colony and hit to the compound wall gate of the house of one Afjal.

(b)Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Sri K.Venkateswarlu, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Keshampet, registered this case vide crime No. 105/2021 u/s 379 of IPC, sec. 3(1) of PDPP Act, & Sec.21(1) of

MMDR Act and took up the investigation.

c)During the course of investigation, the sub-Inspector of police has examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, secured the presence of mediators, recorded the confessional statement of the accused, basing on

Page No. 3 Fair Judgment in CC No. 352 of 2024/ PS Keshampet the same, seized the sand alongwith tractor and trolley under the cover of panchanama before the mediators. Later issued notice to the accused u/sec.

41-A of Cr.PC., visited the scene of offence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of the scene in the presence of mediators. Later the Sub-Inspector of Police deposited the seized tractor bearing No. TS06 UA-7469 and Trolley No. AP22U 9087 before the Tahsildar,

Keshampet, who imposed a fine of Rs.5000/- as penalty for the Tractor Trolley.

After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 379 of IPC and sec. 3(1) of PDPP

Act.

3.On filing of final report, the learned Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Shadnagar has taken cognizance of this case against the

accused for the offences punishable under section 379 of IPC and sec. 3(1) of PDPP Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C; later this case was transferred to this court.

4.This Court received the case records as per proceedings of the Hon’ble

High Court vide ROC No.1486/E1/2018 dated 02.05.2024 and G.O.Ms. No.27

dated 4.4.2024 on the point of jurisdiction. On appearance of the accused

before this court, he was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., for the

offences punishable under section 379 of IPC and sec. 3(1) of Prevention of

Page No. 4 Fair Judgment in CC No. 352 of 2024/ PS Keshampet

Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984, charges have been framed, read over and explained the contents of the same to the accused in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 on its behalf.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 CrPC for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/s 379 of IPC and sec. 3 (1) of PDPP Act, 1984?

P O I N T :

9.Unfolding the case of prosecution, PW1 testified that on 20.06.2021 in the morning hours himself and Kumar Swamy/police constable went to patrolling duty on two wheeler to Nirdavelli village, on the way when they crossed Lemamidi village, they found a tractor loaded with sand, then they tried to stop the same but the driver of the said tractor without stopping the same proceeded into Lemamidi village towards Masjid galli and on the way

Page No. 5 Fair Judgment in CC No. 352 of 2024/ PS Keshampet dashed to the compound gate of house of one Afzal at Lemamidi village and stopped the tractor there. PW1 further deposed that then they apprehended the said tractor driver, on enquiry he disclosed his identity as that of the accused and further stated that he does not have any permission for transporting the sand but he regularly transports sand from Nirdavelli vagu; the number of the tractor is TS06 UA 7463, later they handed over the said tractor alongwith driver of the tractor to the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS

Keshampet and complained the matter under Ex.P1.

PW2 is the projected eye witness to the case of the prosecution; PW3 is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama; Pws 4 & 5 are said to be panch witnesses for the the scene of offence panchanama stated to have not acted as such. PW6 is the Investigating Officer who deposed about the manner of conducting of investigation after registering of the crime.

10.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.06.2021 at about 5:30 am the accused was found illegally transporting the sand in the tractor bearing No. TS06 UA- 7469 with Trolley bearing No. AP22U 9087 from Nirdavelly vagu without

Government permission; when PW1 and one Kumaraswamy (police constable) who were on patrolling duty on two wheeler, tried to stop the said tractor of the accused who allegedly drove the same at high speed without

Page No. 6 Fair Judgment in CC No. 352 of 2024/ PS Keshampet stopping and eventually hit to the compound wall of PW2 at Lemamidi village, later the accused was apprehended and produced before PW6 alongwith tractor and trolley loaded with sand.

11.In this case, PW1 who is the defacto complainant narrated the version of the prosecution in vivid manner with regard to illegal transportation of sand in the crime vehicle by the accused. The version of PW1 is that when they have tried to stop the crime vehicle, the accused without stopping the same proceeded towards Mosquecolony and hit to the compound wall gate of Afzal at Lemamidi village and stopped the tractor there. The said Afzal was examined before this court as PW2. In his evidence, PW2 stated that he does not know the facts of the case and police never examined him. As PW2 not supported the version of prosecution, he was declared as hostile witness.

12. PW1 and Kumara Swamy/Police Constable stated that they have apprehended the accused alongwith the tractor and trolley and handed over to PW6/Investigating Officer and presented Ex.P1 report. PW6/

Investigating Officer also deposed that on 20.06.2021 after registering the crime, he secured the presence of mediators and recorded the confession of the accused and basing on said confession, he seized the tractor bearing

No. TS06 UA-7469 with Trolley B.No.AP22U 9087 under the cover of panchanama before the mediators. One of the said mediators of the said panahanama is examined before this court as PW3. During his evidence, PW3

Page No. 7 Fair Judgment in CC No. 352 of 2024/ PS Keshampet deposed that police never summoned him for any panchanama nor conducted any panchanama in his presence but at about (4) years back, when he went to police station, Keshampet on his personal work, the police obtained his signatures and he does not know for what purpose the police have obtained his signatures and he does not know the facts of the case. As

PW3 not supported the version of the prosecution, he was also declared as hostile witness. Prosecution reported that M.Naveen, one of the mediators for confession-cum-seizure panchanama died and filed the report to that effect and basing on the same his evidence is closed.

In these type of offences, the evidence of Investigating Officer who conducted the confession -cum- seizure panchanama and the evidence of panch witnesses who allegedly said to have present at the time of seizure of the property, plays vital role to the case of the prosecution. But in this case as discussed supra, PW3 panch witness for confession -cum-seizure panchanama, even did not support his presence at the place of panchanama. Hence , there is no corroboration to the evidence of

PW6/Investigating Officer with regard to the seizure of tractor with trolley and sand from the possession of accused under the cover of panchanama before the mediators.

13.As per version of PW6/Investigating Officer, he handed over the crime vehicle/ tractor with sand to the Tahsildar of Keshampet and accused paid

Page No. 8 Fair Judgment in CC No. 352 of 2024/ PS Keshampet the fine imposed by the Tahsildar. But there is no material placed before this court with regard to imposing and payment of fine by the accused nor examined any revenue officials to substantiate the same. Though the case of the prosecution is that the accused lifted sand from Nirdavelly vagu which is government property and illegally transporting the same, but the prosecution not placed any material to show that the alleged sand was lifted from

Nirdavelly vagu.

14. PW1 in his cross examination stated that at the time of apprehension of the accused, no one was present at the scene as the same was situated at outskirts of the village. But in his chief examination, PW1 stated that when they tried to stop the crime vehicle, the accused without stopping the same, proceeded to Lemamidi village towards Masjid galli and on the way hit to the compound gate of PW2 and stopped the tractor there. There is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 in his chief examination and cross examination. During his cross examination he stated that he apprehended the accused at the outskirts of village where no one was present and whereas in his chief examination he stated that they apprehended the accused at the house of

PW2. Even as per the CDF / Ex.P8 the scene of offence is surrounded by the residential houses. It means it is not the outskirts of village as stated by PW1 in his cross examination. This leads to suspicion about the apprehension of accused by the PW1 and Kumaraswamy (police constable) as the

Page No. 9 Fair Judgment in CC No. 352 of 2024/ PS Keshampet prosecution is not certain about the place of apprehension of accused.

Admittedly, the prosecution has not placed any material before this court to show that PW1 and said Kumaraswamy/police constable were on patrolling duty at the Nirdavelly village on the date of this incident. Though

PW6/Investigating officer stated that on 20.06.2021 he conducted scene of offence panchanama before the mediators and drafted the Crime Details

Form and also rough sketch ie., Ex.P8 but the said mediators who were examined as Pws 4 and 5, did not support the version of the

PW6/Investigating Officer and they simply stated that police never summoned them for any panchanama nor conducted any panchanama in their presence. As Pws 4 & 5 not supported the version of the prosecution, they were declared as hostile witnesses.

15.According to the case of the prosecution, the accused was found transporting the sand by committing theft from the Nirdavelly vagu. Though

PW1 and PW6 deposed that accused was apprehended while transporting sand , the material objects either tractor trolley or sand which were allegedly to have been committed theft was not produced before this court. Moreover, there is no material on record as to the subject matter of theft is sand. There is no material to show that it was handed over to the Government or sold in open auction by the revenue officials. When the accused person is charged

Page No. 10 Fair Judgment in CC No. 352 of 2024/ PS Keshampet for the offence of theft, the prosecution is duty bound to establish and produce the subject matter of theft, but prosecution failed to do so.

17.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed

before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that the

evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain the conviction against the accused, hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec. 3(1) of Prevention of

Damage to the Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984 and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.PC for the said offences. The bail bonds/surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of (6) months from today as per sec.

437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer- Grade-I of this Court, transcribed by him, corrected and

b

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of March, 2026.

et, if the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of

Sd/-

Special Judge

for Speedy disposal of cases on fraudulent drawls and misappropriation of scholarship amounts in social Welfare Tribal Welfare and Backward Classes Department (Embezzlement of funds in Social Welfare Departments)-CUM-II Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, is

Page No. 11 Fair Judgment in CC No. 352 of 2024/ PS Keshampet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1N.M.Khaja, complainant PW2Afzal/ Eye witness PW3K.Jagath Reddy/ Panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama PW4S.Mallaiah/ Panch witness for Crime Details Form PW5B.Mallaiah/Panch witness for Crime Details Form PW6K.Venkateswarlu/ Investigating Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENSE : NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Report given by PW1 Ex.P2S.161 Cr.PC Statement of PW2 Ex.P3 Signature of PW3 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P4Signature of PW4 on Crime Details Form Ex.P5Signature of PW5 on Crime Details Form Ex.P6First Information Report Ex.P7Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P8Crime Details Form

No. of documents marked for defense: Nil

No. of Material Objects marked : Nil

Sd/-

Special Judge

for speedy disposal of cases on fraudulent drawls and misappropriation of scholarship amounts in social welfare Tribal Welfare and Backward Classes Department (Embezzlement of funds in Social Welfare Departments)-CUM-II Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad,

Page No. 1 Judgment in CC No.551/2025/ PS Khairatabad

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF CASES ON FRAUDULENT DRAWLS AND

MISAPPROPRIATION OF SCHOLARSHIP AMOUNTS IN SOCIAL

WELFARE, TRIBAL WELFARE AND BACKWARD CLASSES

DEPARTMENTS (EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS IN SOCIAL WELFARE

DEPARTMENT)- CUM II ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

SPE & ACB CASES HYDERABAD

Present: Mohd. Abdul Javeed Pasha

Special Judge for speedy trial and disposal of cases on

fraudulent drawls and misappropriation of scholarship amounts in Social Welfare Tribal Welfare and Backward Classes Departments (Embezzlement of funds in Social Welfare Department) – II Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad

Dated this the Wednesday the 25th day of February 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.551 of 2025

(Old C.C.No.1241 of 2024) BETWEEN:

The State through

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Khairatabad. .. ..Complainant

// AND //

Porandla Kalki Chandra, S/o P.Sudhakar, Aged 24 years, Occ: Student, R/o H.No.1-109-9/304, Saraswathi Enclave,

Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad..... Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 19.02.2026 in the presence of Sri A.Ram Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri P.Vishal, learned counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides, and upon perusing the material available on record, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and the court made the following:

Page No. 2 Judgment in CC No.551/2025/ PS Khairatabad

J U D G M E N T

The accused has arraigned before this court for the offences punishable under sections u/s 279 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), sec. 3 of Prevention of

Damage to the Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984 and sec. 184, 185 and 186 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988.

2.The averments of the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:

(α) The defacto complainant/Venugopal Yadav, police constable and

C.Sanjay/Home Guard were performing area patrolling duty on 9.12.2023 and while they were passing from RTO office towards VV Statue, meantime they noticed one car bearing No. DL 9CU 5423 ie., Honda Amaze which was coming from RTO office towards V V Statue in a rash and negligent manner, hit to the railings of footpath and damaged the railings of footpath beside

Hanuman Temple near V V Statue, Khairatabad; immediately they reached to the spot and stopped the driver of the car who was in drunken condition and brought him to the police station and tested with breath analyser which comes 159 mg.

(b) Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Smt. B. Ramana, the then Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Khairatabad registered this case vide crime

No. 284/2023 for the offences punishable u/s 279 of IPC, Sec. 3 of PDPP Act,

Page No. 3 Judgment in CC No.551/2025/ PS Khairatabad 1984 and sec. 184, 185 and 186 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and took up the Investigation.

(c) During the course of Investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police has examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and also drawn the rough sketch of the scene in the presence of mediators; later issued notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused.

After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.On filing of final report, the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad has taken cognizance of the offence u/s 279 of IPC,

Sec. 3 of PDPP Act and sec. 184, 185 and 186 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before the learned I Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C and the accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under section 279 of

IPC, Sec. 3 of PDPP Act and sec.184, 185 and 186 of the Motor Vehicles Act, charges were framed against the accused for the said offences, read over and explained the contents of the same in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page No. 4 Judgment in CC No.551/2025/ PS Khairatabad

5. At the stage of trial, the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate Hyderabad, has transferred this case to this court. This court has

received the case records as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble High Court vide ROC No.1486/E1/2018 dated 02.05.2024 and G.O.Ms. No.27 dated 4.4.2024 on the point of jurisdiction.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 on its behalf.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 CrPC for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/s 279 of IPC, Sec. 3 of PDPP Act and sec. 184, 185 and 186 of the Motor Vehicles Act ?

P O I N T:

10. Unfolding the case of prosecution, PW1 testified that himself and

Sri.Sanjay/Home Guard were deputed to attend patrol car-1 duties from 28.12.2023 at 8:00 pm to 29.12.2023 at 8:00 am; on 29.12.2023 at about 4:00

Page No. 5 Judgment in CC No.551/2025/ PS Khairatabad am when they crossed RTO office and proceeding towards V.V.Statue, they noticed one car was stationed by dashing to the railings of the footpath; then they went near to that place, found the said car with Delhi registration number plate. PW1 further deposed that upon enquiry with the driver of said car, he was not in a position to speak as he was in drunken condition, then they brought the driver of said car to PS Khairatabad, conducted the breathe analyser test, which revealed that the driver was in the state of intoxication; later he presented the report to the Sub-Inspector of Police under Ex.P1 and identified the accused as the driver of said car.

PW-2 is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama stated to have not acted as such; PW3 is the Investigating Officer deposed about the manner of conducting of investigation after registering of the crime.

11. Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is thaton 29.12.2023 at about 4:00 am, PW1 and Sanjay/Home

Guard while performing patrolling duty from RTO office towards V.V.Statue, they noticed that crime vehicle driven by the accused in drunken condition in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the railings of footpath and thereby caused damage to the railings of footpath near Hanuman Temple, opposite to

Metro pillar No. A1164, Khairatabad.

Page No. 6 Judgment in CC No.551/2025/ PS Khairatabad

12.PW1 who is the defacto complainant narrated the version of the prosecution in vivid manner with regard to the damage to the railings of the footpath near V.V.Statue, Khairatabad. The version of the PW1 is that while he alongwith Sri Sanjay/ Home Guard were performing patrolling duty, they noticed one stationed car and found therein the accused who was not in a position to speak and in drunken state, hence they took him to the police station, Khairatabad and got conducted breath analyser test, which revealed that the accused was in the state of intoxication. But no breath analyser test report is filed before this court.

PW1 in his cross examination stated that one Jemadar in the PS

Khairatabad conducted breath analyser test on the accused. But the prosecution has not examined said Jemadar (police personnel who conducted breath analyser test). Even PW3, the Investigating Officer did not whisper anything with regard to conducting of breath analyser test to the accused. As per the version of PW1, he and Sri Sanjay/Home Guard took the accused to the police station on 29.12.2023 on the date of presentation of Ex.P1 report itself. But PW3/ Investigating Officer not supported the same and interestingly stated that on 02.01.2024 she summoned the accused to the police station and issued notice under sec.41-A Cr.PC. Even in Ex.P1 report, which is the earliest form of information about the commission of this offence, it is clearly mentioned that accused was brought to the police station and tested breath

Page No. 7 Judgment in CC No.551/2025/ PS Khairatabad analyser test which comes to 159 mg. But neither PW3/ Investigating Officer whispered about the production of the accused on the date of lodging of Ex.P1 report nor stated about anything with regard to conducting of breath analyser test and not filed any breath analyser test report of the accused, before this

Court, to show that accused was apprehended by the police when he was in drunken state at the scene of offence itself.

13.The next important aspect which needs for consideration is that as per the version of PW1 while they were on patrolling duty, they noticed one stationed car which was dashed to the railings of the footpath, upon inquiring with the driver of the said car, he was not in a position to speak as he was in drunken condition. But as per Ex.P1 report wherein it is specifically mentioned that when they were on patrolling duty and passing through RTO office towards VV Statue, Khairatabad, meantime they noticed one four wheeler car bearing No. DL 9CU 5423/ Honda Amaze which was coming from RTO office towards V.V.Statue, in a rash and negligent manner and hit to the railings of the footpath, thereby railings of footpath near Hanuman Temple opposite to metro pillar No.A1164 were damaged. It means as per Ex.P1 report, PW1 and Sanjay/Home Guard witnessed the rash and negligent driving of the accused who caused damages to the railings of the footpath. But PW1 in his evidence not supported the same and his version before this court is that while performing patrolling duty they noticed one stationed car. Even in the

Page No. 8 Judgment in CC No.551/2025/ PS Khairatabad cross examination of PW1, he categorically stated that he was not personally witnessed the hitting of the car to the railings of the footpath. There is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 with that of Ex.P1 report with regard to the fact that whether PW1 has witnessed the incident or went to the scene of offence after the incident and noticed the crime vehicle when it was stationed.

14. One moreimportant aspect which needs for consideration is that as per the version of PW1 when they noticed stationed car, they tried to enquire with the person present in the car but said person was not able to speak as he was in drunken state. But as per the Ex.P1 report, wherein it is mentioned that when they tried to inquire about the details of the car, the driver of the car refused to tell his details and started making nuisance on the road by arguing with them. Again there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 with that of the

Ex.P1 report with regard to the fact that whether the accused was in drunken condition or in conscious state as he was said to be argued with PW1 &

Sanjay/ Home Guard.

15.The other important aspect which needs for consideration is that as per the case of the prosecution the accused was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the railings of footpath. There is no material placed before this court to establish presence of railings at the scene of offence. Though PW3/Investigating Officer stated that he photographed the scene of offence but said photographs are not placed before the court, for the

Page No. 9 Judgment in CC No.551/2025/ PS Khairatabad reasons best known to PW3/Investigating Officer. When the prosecution alleging that the accused was damaged the railings of footpath by hitting with the car, the prosecution is duty bound to establish the existence of railings at the scene of offence to believe that the same were damaged by the accused.

No evidence is placed before the court to show that the alleged car pertains to the accused. Admittedly the crime vehicle was not got inspected with the

Motor Vehicle Inspector, to know whether there are any mechanical defects in the vehicle; the prosecution neither seized the car nor placed the damaged parts of the railings which is the subject matter of the crime before this court to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, prosecution has not examined any independent eye witnesses and as per the evidence of PW1 in his cross examination he is not an eye witness to the alleged incident, hence, there is no material with regard to the fact that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident and also about the rash or negligent driving on his part. As discussed above, no breath analyser report is placed

before this court nor examined the police personnel who said to have

conducted the breath analyser test on the accused, to establish that accused drove the car under the influence of alcohol.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed

before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that the

evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain the conviction against the

Page No. 10 Judgment in CC No.551/2025/ PS Khairatabad accused. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 279 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sec. 3 of Prevention of

Damage to the Public Property (PDPP) Act and sec. 184, 185 and 186 of

Motor Vehicles Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.PC for the said offences. The bail bonds /surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of (6) months from today as per sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer- Grade-I of this Court, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of February, 2026.

b et, if the accused is sentenced to undergo SrigorouS imprisonment for a f Sd/-

Special Judge

for Speedy disposal of cases on fraudulent drawls and misappropriation of scholarship amounts in social Welfare Tribal Welfare and Backward Classes Department (Embezzlement of funds in Social Welfare Departments)-CUM-II Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, sed is

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1G.Venugopal Yadav/defacto complainant PW2Mohd. Mohsin/ panch witness for Crime Details Form PW3Smt. B. Ramana/ Investigating Officer

Page No. 11 Judgment in CC No.551/2025/ PS Khairatabad

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENSE : NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Report given by PW1 dt. 29.12.2023 Ex.P2First Information Report Ex.P3Crime Details Form

No. of documents marked for defense: Nil

No. of Material Objects marked : Nil

Sd/-

Special Judge

for speedy disposal of cases on fraudulent drawls and misappropriation of scholarship amounts in social welfare Tribal Welfare and Backward Classes Department (Embezzlement of funds in Social Welfare Departments)-CUM-II Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad,