Sri Mohd Abdul Rafi., B.Sc. L.L.M.,

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri K.JAYA KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada fp Tuesday, this the 6th day of August, 2013

C.C No. 504-2012

The State, Sub. Inspector of Police, L & O, Suryaraopet P.S, Vijayawada City. …. Complainant.

Vs

Pandiri Prasad, S/o. Subba Rao, 25 years, Reddy, Cheruvu Centre, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada. ….Accused. This case coming on 5-8-13 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. J.Vijaya Laxmi, A.P.P for Complainant and B.David Ratna Kumar, Advocate for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The S.H.O, Suryaraopet P.S, laid a charge sheet against the accused, P.Prasad-A1, P.Bharat Kumar-A2, the case against whom is separated and disposed off on 29-9-12 in Jail Adalath, for the offence punishable u/sec.379 or 411 of IPC, in his station crime

Nos.190/10, 191/10, alleging that some unknown offenders committed theft of red colour Hercules cycle worth Rs.3,000/- on 15- 7-10, which was parked at Rythu Bazar Parking Place belong to PW1-

A.Ramu. On the strength of the report given by the said PW1, PW5-

P.Ezra, Head Constable, registered a case against the unknown offender u/sec. 379 IPC, issued FIRs to all the concerned, investigated the matter.

2.Further, it is alleged that some unknown offenders committed theft of green colour Hero Jet Cycle worth Rs.3,000/- on 14-7-10 belong to PW2-R.Durga Rao from the parking place of Rythu

Bazar, Suryaraopet. On the strength of the report given by the said

PW2, PW5-P.Ezra, Head Constable, registered a case against the unknown offenders, issued FIRs to all the concerned.

3.It is further alleged during the course of investigation on 17-7-10, PW7-B.Pattaiah, S.I of Police, arrested the present accused 2 herein and another in the presence of mediators at Potti Sreemulu

Statue, Krishna Barrage, Vijayawada and seized the property concerning in I Town P.S; and that on confession made by the accused, the said PW7 seized the cycles concerning in Crime Nos.

190/10 and 191/10 under cover of separate mediators report, sent the accused for remand. On coming to know about the arrest of the accused and seizure of property in Cr.Nos.190/10 and 191/10, PW6-

K.Chalapathi, S.I of Police, filed a requisition before this court obtained P.T warrant against the accused herein which were lodged in the District Jail, Vijayawada and produced them before this court in this cases.

4.As noticed herein before, the case against A2-

P.Bharat Kumar was separated and disposed off on 29-9-12

in the Jail Adaath. Now the case against A1-P.Prasad only.

5.This case was taken on file u/secs.379 or 411 IPC against the accused.

6. Copies of documents were supplied to the accused as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

7.The accused was examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C. The accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet was put to him for which he denied the offence. After hearing the prosecution and defence counsel, a charge U/Sec.411 IPC is framed, read over and explained to him, for which he denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

8. In its attempt to prove the complicity of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses as PW1 to

PW7, got marked Ex.P1 to P11 and MO1 and MO2.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution 3 witnesses. He denied the evidence. He reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the arguments of the prosecution and defence counsel.

11.The point for determination is:

i.Whether the prosecution could prove that

the accused herein was found in possession of the

Cycles theft property in Cr.Nos.190/10 and 191/10 of

Suryaraopet P.S on 17-7-10, as alleged?

ii. Whether the prosecution could prove the

guilt of the accused for the charge u/sec.411 of IPC,

beyond reasonable doubt?

12.POINTS: It is the case of the prosecution that some unknown offenders committed theft of MO1-Cycle belong to PW1-A.Ramu on 15-7-10 from the parking place of Rythu Bazar, Suryaraopet.

Further, it is the case of the prosecution that some unknown offenders committed theft of MO3-Cycle belong to PW2-R.Durga Rao from the parking place of Rythu Bazar, Suryaraopet; and that on the reports given by PW1 and PW2, PW5-P.Ezra, Head Constable, registered cases U/sec.379 IPC against the unknown offenders, issued FIRs to all the concerned, investigated the matter; and that during the course of investigation, on 17-7-10, PW7-B.Pattaiah, S.I of

Police, arrested the accused herein and another in connection with the crime number of their police station and on their confession,

PW7 seized MOs 1 and 2 from their possession, sent them for remand.

13.The defence of the accused is one of total denial.

14.Of the 7 witnesses examined, PW1-A.Ramu and PW2-

R.Durga Rao are the loosers of MOs 1 and 2-Cycles and the authors of Ex.P1, Ex.P2 reports. PW3-V.Ramesh, PW4-G.Murali Mohan Rao are the alleged mediators for the arrest of the accused and seizure 4 of MOs.1 and 2, while PW5 to PW7 namely, P.Ezra, K.Chalapathi and

B.Pattaiah are the I.Os.

15.As noticed herein before PW1-A.Ramu, PW2-R.Durga Rao are the loosers of MOs 1 and 2 and the author of Ex.P1 and P2 reports. On oath, it is the say of PW1 that around 6.00 p.m on 15-7- 10, he parked his MO1 cycle in front of Rythu Bazar, Suryaraopet which was committed theft by unknown person and he gave report under Ex.P1. It is his further say that 20 days after his report, police traced his cycle. It is the say of PW2 that on 14-7-10, around 4.30 p.m, he parked his MO2-cycle at Rythu Bazar which was committed theft by unknown persons. He gave report to police under Ex.P2.

One month after his report, police traced his cycle. The undisputed evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2 would prove that some unknown offenders committed theft of their cycles on 15-7-10 and 14-7-10 respectively when they were parked at Rythu Bazar. As a matter of fact, the accused did not claim MOs 1 and 2 cycles as of his own. The evidence of PW1 and

PW2 would prove that MOs 1 and 2 cycles belong to them.

16.PW3-V.Ramesh, PW4-G.Murali Mohan Rao are the alleged mediators for the arrest of the accused and seizure of MOs 1 and 2 cycles. Both these witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution. They did not support the version put forth by the prosecution in toto. On the other hand, these witnesses have categorically stated that no proceedings like arrest of the accused and seizure of cycles effected in their presence. As PW3 and PW4, the alleged mediators, deviated from the contents of the mediators, subsequently marked through the I.O, as Ex.P10 and Ex.P11, the learned Prosecutor cross examined them with the permission of the court. The cross examination of PW3 and PW4, by the prosecution, did not yield any result in bringing incriminating material against the accused. Thus, the evidence of PW3 and PW4, the alleged mediators for the arrest of the accused and the seizure of property, in my humble opinion, is not useful to the case of the prosecution in its attempt to connect the accused with the crime.

5

17.PW5-P.Ezra, PW6-K.Chalapathi and PW7-B.Pattaiah are the I.Os. Among them, PW5-P.Ezra is the Head Constable who registered a case against the unknown offenders basing on the reports of PW1 and PW2, issued FIRs to all the concerned and investigated matter in part. He spoke about the registration of the crime and the role played by him in the investigation of this case.

Whereas, PW6-K.Chalapathi, S.I of Police, merely filed a requisition

before this court, obtained P.T warrant against the accused herein

and another. Thus, the evidence of PW5 and PW6, who merely registered a case and obtained custody of the accused through P.T warrant, in my humble opinion, is not useful to the case of the prosecution to connect the accused with the offence of theft or the seizure of property namely MOs 1 and 2. It is PW7-B.Pattaiah, S.I of

Police, I Town P.S, who allegedly arrested the accused and seized

MOs 1 and 2 cycles. On oath, it is the say of PW7 that on 17-7-10, on information, he proceeded to Potti Sriramulu Statue, Prakasam

Barrage, arrested the accused herein in the presence of mediators and seized two bikes concerning in the crime numbers of his police station; and that the accused led him and his party to RTC Work

Shop, Vidyadarapuram, where they produced 12 cycles and 2 bikes property concerning in I Town, II Town and Suryaraopet Police stations, sent the accused for remand.

18.As noticed herein before, both the mediators testified as

PW3 and PW4, did not support the above version of this witness-PW7 on oath. Further, at the cost of repetition, I may once again say that it is the categorical say of PW3 and PW4 that no proceedings like arrest of accused and seizure of property effected in their presence.

Except the uncorroborated evidence of PW7, the I.O, there is no evidence on record to say that the accused was found in possession of MOs 1 and 2 on 17-7-10. With this in mind, this court is of the opinion that relying on the uncorroborated evidence of PW7, to record conviction on the accused for the offence u/sec. 411 of IPC, is unsafe. With this in mind, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge u/sec. 411 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the 6 accused is entitled to acquittal. The points, are accordingly answered.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge u/sec. 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bonds and bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled. The sureties are discharged. MO1-Cycle and MO2-Cycle which were given to PW1-A.Ramu and PW2-R.Durga Rao for interim custody shall be made absolute.

Dictated to P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on the 6th day of August,

2013.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution:Defence: PW1: A.Ramu -None- PW2: R.Durga Rao PW3: V.Ramesh PW4: G.Murali Mohan Rao PW5: P.Ezra PW6: K.Chalapathi PW7: B.Pattaiah

Documents marked for Prosecution:Defence: Ex.P1 : Report of PW1 -Nil- Ex.P2 : Report of PW2 Ex.P3 : Signature of PW3 Ex.P4 : Signature of PW3 Ex.P5 : Signature of PW4 Ex.P6 : F.I.R Ex.P7 : Rough Sketch Ex.P8 : F.I.R Ex.P9 : Rough Sketch Ex.P10: Mediators Report dated 17-7-10 @ 4.00 p.m Ex.P11: Mediators Report dated 17-7-10 @ 6.45 p.m

M.O 1 :- Cycle of PW1 M.O 2 :- Cycle of PW2

III Addl.C.M.M., 7

Vijayawada.

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE: VIJAYAWADA.

DATE OF

OffenceTaken on Apprehen-Released Commen- Close of Sentence Filesion of on bailcement trialor accusedof trialOrder 14-7-10 30-3-1122-7-103-11-101-10-125-8-136-8-13 15-7-10 EXPLANATION FOR DELAY: This Case was taken on file on 30-3-11 initially numbered as 187/11. As the case against A2 is disposed off on 29-9-12, the case against A1 is separated and numbered as 504/12. Accused was appeared on 27-3-12. The accused was examined u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C on 7-9-12 with regard to the accusation made against him in the charge sheet for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried. PW1 & PW2 were examined on 1-10-12; PW3 was examined on 24-1-13; PW4 was examined on 22-3-13; PW5 was examined on 18-6-13; PW6 was examined on 3-7-13 and PW7 was examined on 18-7-13. Accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C on 23-7-13. Heard the arguments on 5-8-13. Judgment pronounced on 6-8-13. For some adjournments accused was called absent. Hence delay.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 504-2012 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: VIJAYAWADA.

COMPLAINANT :The State, Sub-Inspector of Police, L & O, Suryaraopet P.S, Vijayawada City.

Description of the Accused: Pandiri Prasad, S/o. Subba Rao, 25 years, Reddy, Cheruvu Centre, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada.

OFFENCE : Dishonestly receiving stolen property

SEC. OF LAW : 411 IPC

FINDING : Accused found NOT GUILTY

RESULT : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge u/sec. 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled. The sureties are discharged. MO1-Cycle and MO2-Cycle which were given to PW1-A.Ramu and PW2-R.Durga Rao for interim custody shall be made absolute.

8

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Copy submitted to: 1.The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vja. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada.

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT : SRI K.JAYA KUMAR,B.SC., LL.M.,

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 6th day of August, 2013

C.C.No.360-2011

Kotha Raghava Rao, S/o. Ram Chandra Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, Properties & Business, D.No. 31-10- 17/4, V.S.N Street, Machavaram, Vijayawada. ….Complainant

Vs

V.S.M.Nageswara Rao Rali, Hindu, aged about 43 years, Employee, D.No. 23-24-15, SVL Towers, TF-2, Brahmaiah Pantulu Street, Satyanarayana-puram, Vijayawada. ….Accused.

This case coming on 6-8-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.S.N.V.Mani Kumar, advocate for Complainant and of Sri Md.Hayad, advocate for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Complainant, Kotha Raghava, filed this complaint against the accused, V.S.M Nageswara Rao Rali, for the offence punishable u/sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are:-

Accused, V.S.M Nageswara Rao Rali, borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) from the complainant-

K.Raghava Rao to meet his family expenses on 20-1-11 by way of

Hand Loan, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a either to the complainant or his order.

3.It is alleged that the accused issued a cheque bearing No.

315521, dated 13-4-2011 for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., M.G Road branch, Vijayawada, towards part payment of the said debt. The complainant presented the said cheque on 15-4-2011 for collection through his banker namely- Oriental Bank 2 of Commerce, Governorpet branch, Vijayawada. The said cheque, however, returned unpaid with an endorsement “payment stopped by drawer” on 15-4-2011. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a statutory notice dated 21-4-2011 demanding the accused for the amount covered under Ex.P1 cheque through a registered post with acknowledgment due. The accused received the notice on 25-4-2011 and got issued a reply notice with false and baseless allegations. He did not pay the amount and kept quiet forcing the complainant to file this complaint.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 138 of N.I Act against the accused.

5. In response to the summons issued by this court, the accused made his appearance through his counsel. Copies of documents supplied to the accused as required U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C. The allegations levelled against him in the complaint put to him in his language for which he denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty for the offence

U/s.138 of N.I. Act and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of the complainant, K.Raghava Rao himself is examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 marked.

8. After closure of the evidence on complainant side, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of PW1. He denied the offence.

9. On behalf of the accused side, one K.Srinivas is examined as

DW1. The counsel for the accused filed written arguments.

10.While the matter is coming on for arguments, on 6-8-13, the counsel for the complainant filed the petition U/s.257 Cr.P.C seeking permission of the court to withdraw his complaint against the 3 accused. After hearing the both parties and their respective counsel, this Court, in the interest of justice, allowed the said petition filed

U/s.257 Cr.P.C permitting the complainant to withdraw the case against the accused.

11.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 138 of N.I Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

The bonds and bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled.

The sureties are discharged.

Typed to my dictation by P.A, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 6th day of August, 2013.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

COMPLAINANT; PW1 : K.Raghava Rao

DEFENCE : DW1: K.Srinivas

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

COMPLAINANT: Ex.P1 : Cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- dt 13-4-11 Ex.P2 : Cheque Return Memo issued by the accused banker Ex.P3 : O/c of the Legal Notice Ex.P4 : Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P5 : Reply Notice issued by the accused.

DEFENCE : -Nil-

III Addl. C.M.M., Vijayawada.

4

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of : Krishna. CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

VIJAYAWADA.

DATE OF

OffenceTaken AppreheRe- Com-Close Sen- on Filension of leased mence-of trialtence or accusedon bailment of Order trial 15-4-1121-6-11----4-1-136-8-136-8-13

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : This Case was taken on file on 21-6-11. On 24-8-12 accused was appeared and copies of documents furnished to the accused U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C on 3-10-12 for which he denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. On 4-1-13 PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit. Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 marked. PW1 is cross examined on 25- 2-13. On 10-6-13, DW1 filed his examination in chief. On 20-6-13, DW1 was cross examined. On 6-8-13 Complainant filed a petition u/sec. 257 Cr.P.C permitting him to withdraw the case against the accused. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Judgment pronounced on 6-8-13. For some adjournments, Complainant and accused were absent. Hence, delay.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 360-2011 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : VIJAYAWADA.

DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPLAINANT: Kotha Raghava Rao, S/o. Ram Chandra Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, Properties & Business, D.No. 31-10-17/4, V.S.N Street, Machavaram, Vijayawada.

DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED: V.S.M.Nageswara Rao Rali, Hindu, aged about 43 years, Employee, D.No. 23- 24-15, SVL Towers, TF-2, Brahmaiah Pantulu Street, Satyanarayana-puram, Vijayawada.

OFFENCE : Cheque bouncing.

SEC. OF LAW : Under Section 138 of N.I Act.

FINDING : Accused found NOT GUILTY

RESULT : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 138 of N.I Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

The bonds and bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled.

The sureties are discharged.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE ,VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VIJAYAWADA

I ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA.

This the 10 th day of February, 2017

Calendar Case No.729/2010

Between :

Asst. Director of Agriculture. … Complainant

And

Tella Srinivasa Rao … Accused * * *

This case is coming for hearing before me on this day for final hearing

before me in the presence of Learned APP for State and the accused in person

and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Complainant is called absent. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are present. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are examined U/s 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/s 19

(a) of Seeds Act for contravention of Secs. 6 (a) and 7(b) of Seeds Act, by explaining the accusation made against them, for which they admitted the commission of offence. \ Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and voluntarily admission of accused Nos.1 and 2, I find accused Nos.1 and 2 are guilty.\ In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 19 (a) of Seeds Act for contravention of Secs. 6 (a) and 7(b) of Seeds Act, and they are convicted U/s 252 of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Thus, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500// (Rupees Five Hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence punishable U/s 19

(a) of Seeds Act for contravention of Secs. 6 (a) and 7(b) of Seeds Act,\ NBW pending against accused No.2 is recalled suomotu.\ The Total fine amount is Rs.1,000// (Rupees One Thousand only).

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxx

I ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL.

Sd/xxxxx

I AJCM,VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VIJAYAWADA

I ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA.

This the 21 st day of January, 2017

Calendar Case No.860/2014

Between :

Gandu Rangarao … Complainant

And

Devathula Ravi Kumar … Accused * * *

This case is coming for hearing before me on this day for final hearing

before me in the presence of Learned APP for State and the accused in person

and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Complainant is called absent. No representation on behalf of the complainant Process is not deposited to issue NBW against the accused. A perusal of the case docket it reveals that the complainant did not attend the court even on the earlier date, As the police concerned failed to execute NBW issued against the accused, on 17/06/2016 an advocate commissioner was appointed to get execute NBW issued against the accused. Since then the complainant is not attending the court and even he did not deposit the commission fee as ordered by this court on 17/06/2016. It shows, the complainant has no interest to proceed further in this case by paying the commission fees to get execute NBW issued against the accused and also by depositing the process to issue NBW against the accused. In these circumstances, there is no other alternative left to the court except to dismiss the complaint for default. \ Hence, the complaint is dismissed for default for non appearance of the complainant U/s 256 (1) of Cr.P.C. and non/depositing of the process to issue NBW against the accused and nonpayment of commission fee and consequently the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 138 of NI Act.

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxx

I ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL.

Sd/xxxxx

I AJCM,VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VIJAYAWADA

I ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA.

This the 10 th day of February, 2017

Calendar Case No.63/2013

Between : State: SI of Police … Complainant

And

Moka Madhava Rao … Accused * * *

This case is coming for hearing before me on this day for final hearing

before me in the presence of Learned APP for State and the accused in person

and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Accused Nos.1 and 2 are present. Judgment is pronounced in the open court. (vide separate typed one) In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences punishable U/sec. 323 r/w 34 of IPC and they are Convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/secs. 341 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. \ Thus, A.1 and A.2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500// each in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo SI for a period of one month each for the said offence punishable U/s 323 r/w 34 of IPC. The total fine amount of Rs.1,000//.

Sd/-XXXXXX

I ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL.

Sd/xxx

I AJCM,VJA.