Sri MV. Bhaskar Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri. M.V.BHASKAR RAO, XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MAY, 2015

C.C No.245 of 2013

Between :- The State of A.P. represented through Sub-Inspector of Police

PS Habeebnagar , Hyderabad ...Complainant

A N D

Hafeezullah Anwar @ Ashwaq S/o. Rahamathullah, Age: 39 years Occupation: Business R/o. H.No.5-7-609, Dargah Yousufian Road, Nampally, Hyderabad ….Accused

This case is coming on 04-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the State and Sri. D. Raji Reddy, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day this court, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the accused got two 1.

passports in which one is fictitious passport in the name of Ravi Kishore

Sharma with the help of passport broker and also opened account bearing

No.0421000057302 on the factious name of Ravi Kishore Sharma at HDFC

Bank Limited, Secunderabad as such indulging in criminal case by violating passport act under section 120(b) of India Passport Act and Sections 471, 420 IPC and he has cheated Passport officials and HDFC Bank Officials by submitting false documents in the name of Ravi Kishore Sharma. Thereby 2 the accused committed and offence punishable under section 420, 471 IPC and 12(1) (b) of Passport Act. Hence the charge.

2. This case was taken cognizance for the offence under section 420, 471 IPC and 12(1) (b) of Passport Act.

3. On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. When he was examined

U/sec.239 Cr.P.C, he denied the alleged offence. A charge under section 420, 471 IPC and 12 (1) (b) of Passport Act has been framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In this case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P11.

On behalf of the accused neither witnesses examined nor documents marked.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined under section 313 Cr.PC. He denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard the arguments.

7. Now the point for determination is,

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for the charge under section 420, 471 IPC and 12 (1) (b) of Passport Act beyond all reasonable doubt.?

3

8. In view of the case of the prosecution, the burden to prove the same rests on it, in the first instance it is pertinent to consider the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

9. PW1 deposed that on 10-10-2007 at about 5:00 PM he received credible information and informed the same to his superior officers. Then himself and his team consisting of G. Bhasker, Police Constable, Ravi Kumar, Head

Constable (L.Ws.4 and5) rushed to Bazarghat, Nampally area and found the accused moving in suspicious circumstances, for which he took custody of the accused and on interrogation accused confessed that he was making fabricating passports and other documents. Then he secured two panch witnesses by name

S. Satish (L.W.2) and P. Hari (L.W.3) and seized two passports, which registered in the name of Hafeez and Ravi Kishore Sharma on fictitious names and also seized fabricated bank cheques from his possession. Then approached the Police Station alongwith accused and seized material and presented complaint – Ex.P8 by furnishing Ex.P1 – Confession-cum-seizure panchanama,

Ex.P2 – Original Passport in the name of Hafizullah Anwar bearing

No.F5929785, Ex.P3 – original HDFC ATM card bearing No.5004 9235 0193 5993, Ex.P4 – HDFC Credit Card No.4346 7710 0244 2490, Ex.P5 – HDFC

Bank cheque bearing no.377250, Ex.P6 – Xerox copy of Passport in the name of Ravi Kishore Sharma bearing No.A7588205, Ex.P7 is Xerox coy of passport in the name of Hafizullah bearing No.P997008.

4

10. In view of the above version given by PW1 it is appropriate to refer Ex.P8 complaint. On perusal it is found that version given by P.W.1 is corroborated with the contents of Ex.P8 on material aspects.

11.P.W.2 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on receipt of complaint from P.W.1 he registered the same as a case in crime No.219/2007 under 12(1)

(b) of Indian Passport Act and 471, 420 IPC. Then he took up investigation.

He examined PWs 1 to 6 and recorded their detailed statements and effected the arrest of the accused, who admitted his guilt and sent him for judicial custody.

He further stated that he addressed a letter to HDFC Immigration Officer

Gandhi International Airport. Then they reply to that letter. On 30-3-2009 on his retirement, he handed over the case file to his successor C. Sudhaker, SI of

Police for further investigation.

12. P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that after receipt of FIR he interrogated the accused. The accused admitted his guilt and sent him for judicial remand. Later he sent Xerox copies of both passports seized from the possession of the accused to the Regional Passport Office for verification and received a report in which the verification particulars were issued by their office and enclosed the copy of application and documents. Then he sent letter to the

Immigration Officer, Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi as to whether the passport bearing No.A-7588205 is on the name of Ravi Kishroe

Sharma detained by New Deolhi authority. He also addressed a letter to the

Passport Authorities in the name of Ravi Kishore Sharma not detained by

Immigration unit. After completion of investigation he field Charge Sheet against the accused. Ex.P10 is the letter addressed by the Regional Passport 5

Office, dt.1-1-2010 alongwith xerox copy of police verification report, xerox coy of bank account details, xerox copy of LIC Premium receipt, Xerox copy of passport on the name of Hafeezullah, Xerox copy of passport application form,

Xerox of statement of BSNL, Xerox copy of LIC premium intimation letter,

Xerox copy of Affidavit by the accused, Xerox copy of marriage certificate,

Xerox copy of Declaration form, Xerox copy of on-line registration form, all documents of Hafeezullah and also Xerox copies of passport of Ravi Kishroe

Sharma, Xerox copy of ration card of Ravi Kishore Sharma, Xerox copy of SSC certificate of Ravi Kishore Sharma, Xerox copy of CID copy of Hameedualah

Anwar. Ex.P11 is the letter addressed by Foreign Regional Officer, dt.8-5- 2008.

13. It is the contention of the counsel for the accused that there is no description with regard to Regional Passport Office and it is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused obtained subsequent passport by furnishing factitious documents. But no evidence is adduced to prove the documents alongiwth applications submitted by accused are fictitious and no passport officials examined to prove that accused made an application for subsequent passport and the signatures of the accused are not proved. As such the prosecution failed to place any material evidence to show that the accused obtained passport in the name of Ravi Kishore Sharma by furnishing fictitious information.

14. So far as this aspect is concerned, the prosecution failed to examine the passport officer who issued passport in the name of Hafeesullah bearing

No.P997008 and also failed to examine the Passport Officer with regard to 6 issuing passport to the accused in the name of Ravi Kishore Sharma bearing

No.A-7588205. The prosecution also failed to examine the Foreigner Regional

Officer, New Delhi to prove that letter issued by their office regarding Passport

No. A-7588205 issued in the name of Ravi Kishroe Sharma not detained by immigration of Rajiv Gandhi International Air Port, New Delhi. The prosecution evidence revealed that they seized the passports and ATM Cards and cheques from the possession of the accused. However they have not placed the attested copies of passport alleged to have been issued in the name of Ravi

Kishore Sharma. P.W.1 stated in the cross-examination that he did not carry material to the spot except white papers and Laptop. But he did not explain as to how he obtained signatures of the panch witnesses on the seizure panchanama without any printout. The prosecution also failed to examine panch witnesses to support the version of P.W.1. As such preparation of alleged Confession-cum-seizure panchanama at the scene of offence is highly doubtful. The prosecution must prove that the accused gave application to the

Passport authorities in the name of one Ravi Kishore Sharma to obtain fictitious passport. No application alleged to have been given by the accused is placed

before this court and no attempt made by the Investigating Officer to prove the

signatures of the accused on fictitious documents. In absence of evidence from the passport authorities as well production of original application of the accused and in absence of proof with regard to writing and signatures of the accused in the alleged passport application submitted to passport authorities. It cannot be said that he applied for passport by furnishing false information in the name of one Ravi kishore Sharma. Hence I am inclined to accept the contention raised by the counsel for the accused.

7

15. It further contention of the counsel for the accused that the prosecution did not obtain sanction to prosecute the accused under Section 15 of Passport Act and on that count the accused is entitled for acquittal. So far as this aspect is concerned, a perusal of Section 15 of the Passport Act 1967 reveals that previous sanction of Central Government is necessary to ensure the prosecution against any person. Section 15 reads of the Act s follows:

“No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorized by that Government by order in writing in this behalf “

In the present case on hand no such authorization or sanction orders placed by the prosecution to institute the criminal proceedings against the accused.

Therefore I am inclined to accept the contention raised by the counsel for the accused.

16. So far 420 IPC is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the accused dishonestly induced any person to deliver any property of any person or to make other or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security and thereby cheats any person.

17.The prosecution did not examine any Passport Authorities to show that accused deceived them to get Passport by furnishing false information and thereby cheated them. Hence no evidence adduced by the prosecution to testify the ingredients of 420 IPC.

8

18. So far as Section 471 IPC is concerned, the prosecution must prove that the accused used forged as genuine having knowledge that the documents are forged . They did not place any oral or documentary proof before this court to show that the accused forged any document which submitted to the

Passport authorities and thereby used as genuine and obtained the passport in the name of one Ravi Kishore Sharma. Therefore the prosecution also failed to place any evidence to attract the ingredients of Section 471 IPC.

19.In the light of the above circumstances, I have no hesitation to say that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the offence of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, accused found not guilty for the charge 420, 471 IPC and 12(1) 20.

(b) of Passport Act and he is acquitted U/sec.248(1)Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as contemplated Us/ec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11thDay of May, 2015.

XVI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: PW.1 R. Rajeshwar Rao, Complainant 9

P.W.2 Krishna Gopal – 1st Investigating Officer P.W.3 C. Sudhakar, Inspector of Police – 2nd Investigating Officer

For Defence : Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P2 – Original Passport in the name of Hafizullah Anwar bearing No.F5929785, Ex.P3 – original HDFC ATM card bearing No.5004 9235 0193 5993, Ex.P4 – HDFC Credit Card No.4346 7710 0244 2490, Ex.P5 – HDFC Bank cheque bearing no.377250, Ex.P6 – Xerox copy of Passport in the name of Ravi Kishore Sharma bearing No.A7588205, Ex.P7 Xerox coy of passport in the name of Hafizullah bearing No.P997008 Ex.P9 Complaint Ex.P10 Letter addressed by Regional Passport Office, dt.1-1-2010 Ex.P11 Letter addressed by Foreign Regional Registration Officer, dt. 8-5-2008

For Defence: Nil

M.Os MARKED: NIL

XVI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

***

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri. M.V.BHASKAR RAO, XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MAY, 2015

C.C No.46 of 2014

Between :- The State of A.P. represented through Sub-Inspector of Police

PS Shainayathgunj, Hyderabad ...Complainant

A N D

A1) Moddu Devadas @ Devadas, S/o. Chandraiah, Age: 44 years, Occupation: Private Job

A2) Moddu Ramu @ Laddu, S/o.Devdas, Age: 20 years, Occupation: Private job

Both A1 and A2 R/o. H.No.14-8-417/86, Devinagar, Jummerath Bazar, Hyderabad ….Accused

This case is coming on 4-5-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the State and Sri.Rakesh Pathak, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day this court, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that there were property 1.

disputes in between the complainant B. Ramulu (P.W.1) and his brother

Devadas (A1) and they oftenly quarrelling and while so on 9-11-2012 at about 10:30 AM the Officer from MRO visited the premises No.14-8- 417/80, situated at Devinagar, Jummerath Bazar, Hyderabadand while causing enquires, A1 picked up a quarrel, for which the Officer went away and then A1 and A2 at 2 PM entered into the house of the complainant, 2 picked up a quarrel with him by saying as to why he was lodged complaint with MRO and attacked with pestle. Due to which P.W.1 sustained injuries over his left hand wrist and thereby A1 and A2 committed and offence punishable under section 448 and 324 read with 34 IPC. Hence the charge.

2. This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Section 448 and 324 read with 34 IPC against A1 and A2.

3. On appearance of A1 and A2, they were furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. When they were examined

U/sec.239 Cr.P.C, they denied the alleged offence. A charge U/sec. 448 and 324 read with 34 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In this case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P6 and

MO1. On behalf of the accused neither witnesses examined nor documents marked.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under

Section 313 Cr.PC, they denied the incriminating evidence against him and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard the arguments.

3

7. Now the point for determination is,

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against A1 and A2 for the charge

U/Sec. 448 and 324 read with IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. In view of the case of the prosecution, the burden to prove the same rests on it. In the first instance it is pertinent to consider the overt acts attributed to the accused. So far as this aspect is concerned, P.W.1 deposed that

Human Rights Commission people on the basis of the letter addressed by his mother – Chennamma came to their house for enquiry and shown the letter addressed by Chennamma, by then A1 who is residing adjacent portion of their house questioned him as to why the said letter addressed and pushed him. Then he rushed to the Shainayathgunj Police Station and gave complaint to the police and returned to his house. Then A2 who is no other than the son of A1 questioned as to why he gave complaint in the Police

Station and beat him with a pestol on his left hand above wrist, for which they rushed to the Police Station, police shifted him to Osmania General

Hospital for treatment and after treatment he came to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint.

9. In view of the above overtacts attributed to the accused, it is appropriate to refer Ex.P1 complaint contents. A perusal of Ex.P1 reveals that there were property disputes in between PW1 and accused and who are no other than the brothers and the officials from MRO office came to their house for 4 enquiry for which A1 raised galata as a result the people form MRO office went away. At 2 PM A2 questioned PW1 as to why they gave complaint to the MRO and beat him with a stick and caused fracture on his left hand.

The evidence given by P.W.1 is corroborated with Ex.P1 contents on material aspects.

10. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1 she supported the version given by P.W1 by stating that after MRO officials left the place at 2 PM A1 and A2 attacked

P.Ws.1 and 2, beat P.W.1 with a pestle on his left hand and A1 beat with hands.

11. In view of the versions given by P.Ws. 1 and 2 with regard to overtacts, it is appropriate to consider the medical testimony. P.W.7 is the Medical

Officer who treated P.W.1. He deposed that on 9-11-2013 at about 2:05 PM

P.W.1 was brought by the Home Guard of Shainayathgunj Police Station and he examined P.W.1 and found blunt injury with swelling over left forearm. He issued Ex.P6 wound certificate. The injury is on the left arm of

P.W.1 is proved from the evidence of PW6 under Ex.P7.

12. PWs 2 and 3 are panch witnesses they did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to seizure of pestle under the cover of panchanama by the police.

13. P.W.5 is the HC, who registered Ex.P4 FIR and P.W.6 is Investigating

Officer. He stated that on 9-11-2013 he received FIR and commenced investigation and recorded statement of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Chennamma and 5 visited the scene of offence and recovered MO1 pestle under the cover of

Ex.P5 Confession-cum-seizure panchanama and effected the arrest of the accused and sent them for judicial remand.

14.It is the contention of the counsel for the accused that the alleged incident took place at about 2 PM whereas complaint presented at 7:30 pm and there is no explanation from P.W.6 as to what happened to the earlier complaint given by P.W.1 as such no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. He relied upon a decision in 2009 CRI L.J. (NOC) 602 (GAU ) between State of Assam Vs. Sonahar Ali. He also relied upon a decision reported in Korra Goverdan Vs. State of AP 2013 (1) ALD (Criminal) 209 (AP). The reported decisions discloses that FIR lodged on next day of the incident and there is no explanation for delay for which there is every possibility of necessary improvements of the case to implicate the accused and every possibility of due concoction deliberation and embellishment and non explanation of delay is fatal to the case.

15. After careful perusal of the above reported decisions and facts on hand it is found that P.W.1 rushed to the Police Station and from there to the hospital and after treatment he came to Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint.

Whereas P.W.6 who investigated the offence stated in the cross-examination that P.W.1 came to the Police Station with injuries at 7:30 PM and after recording statement of P.W.1 he referred to Osmania General Hospital for treatment with a requisition. However a careful perusal of Ex.P6 wound certificate of P.W1 discloses that the medical officer treated P.W.1 on 9-11- 6 2013 at 2:05 PM . It is also clear from the evidence of Ex.P6 MLC that

P.W.1 was brought by the Homeguard of Shainayathgunj Police Station to the hospital. Therefore the evidence given by PW..6 that he sent P.W.1 to the hospital for treatment at 7;30 PM is nothing but a falsehood. On the other hand the version given by P.W.1 that immediately at 2 PM he rushed to the Police Station and police sent him to the hospital is highly probable and cannot be brushed aside on the basis of evidence of PW6. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that after return from the hospital he gave complaint and as such I am inclined to rely upon the testimony of P.W.1 and the version given by P.W.6 will not shake the cogent and consistent version of PW1. In view of the clear evidence from P.W.1 that after treatment he gave Ex.P1 complaint I feel that there is a proper explanation from P.W.1 for presentation of complaint at 7:30 PM. Therefore the reported decisions are not applicable to the case on hand. Hence I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the accused.

16. So far as first complaint of P.W.1 is concerned admittedly, PW1 stated that when A1 picked up quarrel and pushed him for giving a complaint to the

Revenue officials, he rushed to the Police Station and gave complaint and thereafter at 2 PM the second incident took place. It is not the evidence of

P.Ws 1 and 2 that P.W.1 received any injury from the hand of A1 in the incident prior to 2 PM. The only evidence available is A1 pushed him.

Even assuming for a moment that P.W1 gave a complaint in the earlier incident as the alleged earlier incident is the non-cognizable offence there is no scope to register FIR against A1 for the alleged incident. To cover up the latches on the part of the police for not making any GD entry, they 7 suppressed the earlier complaint and P.W.6 stated that he received complaint at 7:30 PM. Therefore I feel that the above earlier incident and complaint cannot be taken into consideration to thrown out the cogent and consistent versions of P.W.1 and 2.

17.It is well settled law that the presence of injuries in the person of a witnesses ensures in presence on the spot at the time of the occurrence, hence court attach great sanctity to the testimony of a injured witness. It is also well settled law that the injured witness never leave the real culprit and falsely implicate the innocent.

18. In the light of the above discussion I have no hesitation to say that the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the charge under Section 448 and 324 read with 34 IPC and they are convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.PC.

XVI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

When A1 and A2 are questioned about quantum of sentence he pleaded mercy. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the accused I am not inclined to apply the provisions of Probation of 8

Offenders Act in favour of the accused and I feel that if the accused is sentenced to certain imprisonment the ends of justice will be met.

The A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Four (4) months for the charge 448 IPC and shall undergo R.I. for a period of

Four (4) months for the charge under section 324 read with 34 IPC.

The above sentences shall run concurrently and the remand period already undergone by A1 and A2 shall be given set off under section 428 Cr.PC.

MOs 1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15thDay of May, 2015.

XVI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 B. Ramulu, Complainant

P.W.2 B. Amrutha, Eye Witness

P.W.3 M. Bala Narasimha, Panch Witness

P.W.4 Gopi Narasimha, Panch Witness

P.W.5 Ch. Dhanraj, Head Constable (issued FIR)

P.W.6 M. Shanker, Investigating Officer

P.W.7 Dr. K. Jaya Chandra Mohan, CMO of Osmania General Hospital.

For Defence : Nil 9

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 - Complaint

Ex.P2 – Signature of P.W.3 on Ex.P5

Ex.P3 – Signature of P.W.4 on Ex.P5

Ex.P4 – FIR

Ex.P5 – Confession-cum-seizure panchanama

Ex.P6 – Wounds certificate

For Defence: Nil

M.Os MARKED:

MO1 – Pestle

XVI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

***

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri. M.V.BHASKAR RAO,

XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

DATED: THE 11th DAY OF MAY, 2015

C.C No. 438 OF 2013

Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station

Falaknuma, Hyderabad. ...Complainant

A N D

Papu Ram Kumawat, S/o. Biya Ramji kumavat Age: 37 years, Occupation: Pawn Broker Business R/o. H.No.18-4-143/A/58, Opp. Hanuman Temple Kalwagadda, Shamsheergunj, Falaknuma, Hyderabad … Accused

This case is coming on 6-5-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the State and Sri.Raj Gopal, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day this court, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The case of the prosecution in nut shell is that the accused is doing Pawn

Broker business in the name and style of “Baba Ram Dev Rehan Centre and

Pawn Brokers” at shop No.18-4-76/2, Shamsheergunj, Falaknuma,

Hyderabad without having any license for last two and half years. The accused decided to earn easy money by giving money for higher rate of interest to the needy people and thereby extorting more money from them in the form of interest, which is against the rules. He has not mentioned the rate of interest in the receipt books and sales books. He used to do pawn broker 2 business by investing the prime amount by keeping the gold ornaments as security. He used to lend the money to the needy people for higher rate of interest ranges from 30% to 36% by using cohesive methods and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 29 and 24 of AP Pawn

Broker Act 2002 and 384 IPC.

2. This case was taken cognizance for the offence under section 29 and 24 of

AP Pawn Broker Act 2002 and 384 IPC against the accused.

3. On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. He denied the alleged offence and claimed to be tried.

4. In this case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MOs 1 to 4. On behalf of the accused neither witnesses examined nor documents marked.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard the arguments.

3

7. Now the point for determination is,

Whether the prosecution is proved its case against the accused for the offence under section 29 and 24 of AP Pawn Broker Act 2002 and 384 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. In view of the case of the prosecution, the burden to prove the same rests on it. The prosecution has to prove firstly that the accused is running money lending business in the name and style as “Baba Ram Dev Rehan Centre and

Pawn Brokers” at shop No.18-4-76/2, Shamsheergunj, Falaknuma,

Hyderabad. Secondly that the accused is giving money to the public on higher rate of interest without any authority or license and extorting the money from the public. Thirdly the police seized bill books, registers and amount under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama from the alleged shop of the accused.

9. The first point for consideration is whether the accused running money lending business in the name and style as “Baba Ram Dev Rehan Centre and

Pawn Brokers” at shop No.18-4-76/2, Shamsheergunj, Falaknuma,

Hyderabad. P.W.4 who investigated the offence stated that the accused has

Pawn Broker shop at Shamseergunj and not having any valid license.

However P.W.4 failed to place any documentary proof before this court as to who is the owner of the premises at scene of offence. He specifically stated in the cross-examination that he did not verify as to who is the owner of the shop at scene of offence. It is clear that he did not examine any witnesses at scene of offence to show that the accused is running Pawn Broker business.

Therefore without any corroborative evidence, the version given by P.W.4 4 cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, P.W.4 also failed to state that the pan broker is in the name of “Baba Ram Dev Rehan Centre and Pawn

Brokers” and as such the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is running pawn broker shop under the name of “Baba Ram Dev Rehan Centre and Pawn Brokers” at shop No.18-4-76/2, Shamsheergunj, Falaknuma,

Hyderabad.

10. The second point for consideration is where the accused lending money for higher rate of interest to the public and extorting money from the public in cohesive method. So far as this aspect is concerned, P.W.4 who investigated the offence stated in the cross-examination that he did not receive any information from any person against the accused about the business. He also admitted that customers names are found place in the bill books but he did not examine any customers from whom the accused is collecting higher rate of interest and he specifically stated that no customers came forward. If that is the case it is not known to me as to how P.W.4 has came to conclusion that the accused is collecting higher rate of interest from the customers as against the Act. It is not the evidence of P.W.4 that the accused mentioned higher rate of interest in the bill books, registers and pawn books etc. As such there must be a definite information from the customers that the accused is collecting higher rate of interest against the interest mentioned in the books by using cohesive methods. But no such customer was examined by P.W.4 as such I feel that there is no material 5 evidence placed before the prosecution to show that the accused is collecting higher rate of interest from the customers by using cohesive methods.

11. The third point for consideration is whether the police conducted the raid on the premise at scene of offence and seized MOs 1 to 4 bill books, registers, pawn tickets as well as cash of Rs.1470/-. P.W.3 is the panch witness. He did not support the case of the prosecution by stating that police called him to the Police Station Falaknuma and obtained his signatures covered under Ex.P1 and P2 on the papers but he does not know the contents. He denied the alleged raid conducted at scene of offence and seizure of registers, bill books and cash under cover of confession-cum- seizure panchanama. P.W.4 stated in the cross-examination that he did not made GD entry in connection with this case after receipt of credible information. He further stated that he did not mention the particulars of the property seized in the column No.9 in Ex.P6 - FIR. He specifically stated that he did not take any material to the scene of offence alongwith him. But

Ex.P4 – Search Proceedings, Ex.P5 – Confession-cum-seizure panchanama were prepared on the Laptop and also print out was taken. It is not the evidence of P.W.4 that he took laptop and printer to the scene of offence.

When he specifically stated that he did take any material to the scene of offence for raid. Then preparation of Ex.P5 – Confession-cum-seizure panchanama is highly doubtful and giving scope for suspicion. As per the evidence of P.W.3 the police obtained their signatures in the Police Station.

6

In the above circumstances I feel that the alleged seizure of bills books, registers, pawn books and cash of Rs.1470/- is highly doubtful.

12. In the light of above discussion and as the prosecution did not place any material with regard to violation of the provision of Pawn Brokers Act, the accused collecting higher rate of interest from the public by using cohesive methods and the accused is running the alleged business, I feel that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 29 and 24 of AP Pawn Broker Act 2002 and 384 IPC and he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as contemplated under section 437(A) OF Cr.PC.

MOs 1, 2 and 4 shall be destroyed and MO3 shall be confiscated to the state after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11th day of May, 2015.

XVI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined 7

FOR PROSECTION: PW.1 S.R. Arjun, Police Constable (Eye witness) P.W.2 Ranga Swamy, Police Constable (Eye witness) P.W.3 Om Prakash, Panch witness P.W.4 K. Brahmam, Investigating Officer

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 Signature of P.W.3 on Search Proceedings (Ex.P4) Ex.P2 Signature of P.W.3 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama (Ex.P5) Ex.P3 Search Warrant Ex.P4 Search Proceedings Ex.P5 Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P6 Suo-moto FIR

FOR DEFENCE : Nil

MOs Marked: MO1 - Three Bill Books MO2 – One Register MO3 – Cash of Rs.1470/- MO4- Pawn Tickets 10

XVI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri. M.V.BHASKAR RAO,

XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

DATED: THE 15th DAY OF MAY, 2015

C.C No. 281 OF 2013

Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station

Mangalhat, Hyderabad. ...Complainant

A N D

A1) Rajender Singh, S/o. Satyanarayan Singh Age: 23 years, Occupation: Scooter Mechanic R/o. H.No.13-2-270, Baba Balakdas Mutt Balramgalli, Mangalhat, Hyderabad

A2) Madhu Singh, S/o. Dharam Singh Age: 37 years, Occupation: Auto Driver R/o.H.No.13-1-1112, Balramgalli Upper Dhoolpet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad

A3) Y. Sunil Kumar, S/o.Y. Subash Kumar, Age: 30 years, Occupation: Photographer R/o. Balramgalli,Upper Dhoolpet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad

A4) Durganath, S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 34 years, Occupation: Business R/o.H.No.11-3-262, New Mallepally, Hyderabad

A5) Narender Varma, S/o. Ramesh Varma Aged; 31 years, Occupation: Cable Technician R/o. H.No.12-1-314/1, Seetarampet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad

A6) Suresh Singh, S/o. Balram Singh, 2

Age: 31 years, Occupation: Kirana Shop R/o. H.No.13-1-1112, Balramgalli, Upper Dhoolpet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad

A7) Avinash Singh, S/o. Ravinder Singh, Age: 29 years, Occupation: Student R/o. H.No.13-2-270/2, Balramgalli, Upper Dhoolpe, Mangalhat, Hyderabad

A8) Babulal Singh, S/o. Sheetal Singh, Age: 31 years, Occupation: Motor Mechanic, R/o. H.No.13-2-570, Balramgalli, Upper Dhoolpe, Mangalhat, Hyderabad

A9) Veerender Singh, S/o. Rajender Singh, Age: 21 years, Occupation: Businsess R/o. H.No.13-1-1065, Upper Dhoolpet, Near Ghandi Baitak, Mangalhat, Hyderabad

A10) Suresh Singh, S/o. Laxminarayan Singh, Age: 30 years, Occupation: Ganesh Idol Maker R/o. H.No.13-1-1111, Balramgalli, Upper Dhoolpe, Mangalhat, Hyderabad … Accused

This case is coming on 04-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the State and Sri. Rakesh Pathak, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day this court, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The case of the prosecution in nut shell is that on 11-7-2012 at about 20:45 hours on information the police conducted raid in the premises bearing

No.13-2-270, Baba Balakdas Mutt, Balramgalli, Mangalhat, Hyderabad and apprehended the accused i.e. A1 to A10 and seized an amount of Rs.8110/- and 11 Cell phones, 208 playing cards and two blankets from the gaming house under confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses and brought the accused alongwith seized material to the Police 3

Station. Thereby A1 to A10 committed an offence punishable under section 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act.

2. This case was taken cognizance for the offence under section 3 and 4 of AP

Gaming Act against A1 to A10.

3. On appearance of A1 to A10 they were furnished with copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. When the accused were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. They denied the alleged offence and claimed to be tried.

4. In this case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs 1 to 4. On behalf of the accused neither witnesses examined nor documents marked.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A10 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard the arguments.

7. Now the point for determination is,

Whether the prosecution is proved its case against A1 to A10 for the offence under section 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

4

8. In view of the case of the prosecution, the burden to prove the same rests on it. In the first instance the prosecution must prove that A1 is running common gaming house at scene of offence. So far as this aspect is concerned, P.W.1 deposed that after information he conducted raid at scene of offence.

9. P.W.2, 3 and 5 also stated that on information raid was conducted on the premises at scene of offence. No witnesses deposed that accused (A1) opened or keeps or uses the premises at scene of offence as common gaming house. Therefore no evidence against the accused (A1) that he is keeping the scene of offence as common gaming house in terms of Section 3 of AP

Gaming Act.

10. P.W.1 stated in the cross-examination that he did not enquired as who is the owner or occupant of premises at scene of offence and also did not collect any documentary proof with regard to ownership of the premises at the scene of offence. If that is the case how he came to conclusion that A1 is the owner of the premises at scene of offence and running common gaming house not explained. Moreover his evidence further reveals that number of tenants present but he did not examine any witnesses at scene of offence to show that A1 is running common gaming house. Hence I am of the view that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused (A1) for the alleged offence under section 3 of AP Gaming Act.

5

11. The second point for consideration is whether the accused are playing three cards game by betting the amount. So far as this aspect is concerned,

P.W.1’s evidence revealed that on information he obtained search warrant from ACP and secured panch witnesses and prepared search proceedings and rushed to the spot alongwith staff and panch witnesses and found the accused at scene of offence playing three cards game and thereby he apprehended them and seized MO1 – Cash of Rs.8110/-, MO2 – 11 Cell

Phone, MO3 – 208 Playing Cards, MO4 – Two Blankets and brought the accused to the Police Station and presented Ex.P4 – complaint and he himself registered suo-moto FIR and examined witnesses and after completion of investigation filed Charge Sheet.

12. P.W.4 is the Panch witness. He did not support the case of the prosecution by stating that police called him to the Police Station and obtained his signatures covered under P6 and P7 and denied apprehension of the accused and seizure of cash, cell phones, playing cards and blankets at scene of offence under the confession-cum-seizure panchanama.

13.P.W.3 and 5 are police constables who assisted P.W.1. their evidence revealed that after information they accompanied P.W.1 and conducted raid at scene of offence and found all the accused playing 3 cards game for which

P.W.1 seized MO1 to 4 in the presence of panch witnesses.

6

14. P.W.2 is Investigating Officer. He deposed that he received CD File form

P.W.1 on 11-7-2012 in crime no. 206/2012 under section 3 and 4 of AP

Gaming Act and examined witnesses and effected the arrest of the accused and sent them for judicial custody.

15.After careful perusal of evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 it is found that except the evidence of panch witnesses, the evidence of other witnesses is cogent, consistent with each other and nothing elicited in the cross-examination of witnesses to discard their evidence. As such I feel that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 can be relied upon to the effect that the accused persons present at scene of offence for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house.

16.It is clear from Section 6 of the Act that any instrument of gaming are found in any place entered or searched under the provisions of Section 5, on or about the person found in it shall be presumed that such place is used as common gaming house and that the persons found therein were present there for the purpose of gaming although no gaming was actually seen by the police officer or any of his assistants.

7

17. In the light of the above discussion I have no hesitation to say that the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused under section 4 of AP Gaming act.

18. In the result, A1 to A10 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 4 of AP Gaming Act and they are convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C and they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default they shall undergo SI for a period of 5 days each. A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 of AP Gaming Act and he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C

MO 1 Cash of Rs.8110, MO2 – 11 Cell Phones shall be confiscated to the state,

MO3 - 208 Playing Cards and MO4 – 2 blankets shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15th day of May, 2015.

XVI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECTION:

P.W.1 B. Goverdan Reddy, Complainant

P.W.2 L. Badraiah, Investigating Officer

P.W.3 Krishna, Police Constable

P.W.4 Yogeshwar, Panch witness 8

P.W.5. Purshotham Reddy, Police Constable

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 Search Warrant

Ex.P2 Search Proceedings

Ex.P3 Confession-cum-seizure panchanama

Ex.P4 Complaint

Ex.P5 FIR

Ex.P6 Signature of P.W4 on Search Proceedings

Ex.P7 Signature of P.W4 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama

FOR DEFENCE : Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO1 – Cash of Rs.8110/-

MO2 – 11 Cell Phones

MO3 – 208 Playing Cards

MO4 – 2 Blankets

XVI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri. M.V.BHASKAR RAO, XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF MAY, 2015

C.C No.83 of 2009

Between :- The State of A.P. represented through Sub-Inspector of Police

P.S. Shainayathgunj, Hyderabad ...Complainant

A N D

A1) Mohd. Noor, S/o.Yousuf, Age: 56 years , Occupation: Driver R/o. 14-4-144, Bedarwadi, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad

A2) Mohd. Malik, S/o. Mohd. Gouse, Age: 51 yrs., Occupation: Driver R/o. Qr. No.249, Mohammed Lines, Tolichowki, Hyderabad

A3 ) Mohd. Habeeb, S/o. Mohd. Hussain, age: 27 years, Occupation: Business R/o. 13-3-234/1/A, Langer House Hyderabad

A4) Rayees Ahmed Khan, S/o. Mazeed Ahmed Khan Age: 46 years, Occupation: Business R/o. 12-2-790/183, Ayodya Nagar Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad

A5) Mohammad, S/o. Hussain, Age: 30 years Age: 30 years, Occupation: Business R/o. 9-14/B, Kishan Bagh, Hyderabad

A6) Mohd. Muqtaar, S/o. Shareef, Age; 38 years, R/o. Near Maatha Mandir, Langer House Hyderabad 2

A7) Mohd. Javed, S/o. Haroon, Age: 43 years Occupation: Business R/o. 12-2-229/1/A, Syed Aliguda, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad

A8) Smt. Meena Laxmichand ( Case against A2 to A6 and A8 split up and numbered as CC 395/2014) ….Accused

This case is coming on 05-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the State and Sri. Mahender Deshmouni, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day this court, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 25-1-2006 at about 1.

10:30 Hours accused alongwith 5 others formed an unlawful assembly at premises No.14-2-335, Goshamahal, Hyderabad and trespassed into the said premises, broken the compound wall on the western side, cut off trees and also erected the gate in the western side with the help of hired labour. When

M.A. Kadeer (L.W.2) and Raja Mahendragir Dhanrajgir (L.W.3) objected the accused, they beat them with hands and pushed them and the same was photographed by Smt. Indira Devi (L.W.4). Thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 147, 148, 448, 427, 323 read with 149

IPC.

This case was taken cognizance for the offence under section 147, 2.

148, 448, 427, 323 read with 149 IPC against the A1 and A7.

3. On appearance of A1 and A7, they were furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. When they were examined

U/sec.239 Cr.P.C, they denied the alleged offence. A charge under section 147, 148, 448, 427, 323 read with 149 IPC has been framed, read over and 3 explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In this case, prosecution examined P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1. On behalf of the accused neither witnesses examined nor documents marked.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence against A1 and A7, the examination of the accused Under Section 313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.

6. Heard the arguments.

7. Now the point for determination is,

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against A1 and A7 for the charge under section 147, 148, 448, 427, 323 read with 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.?

8. In view of the case of the prosecution, the burden to prove the same rests on it, in the first instance it is pertinent to consider the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

9. PW1 is the SI of Police, who issued FIR. He depsoed that on 28-1-2006 at about 7:00 PM he received the complaint from ACP, Goshamahal and registered the same as a case in crime No.29/2006 under Section 147, 148, 447 and 323 read with 149 IPC and issued Ex.P1 – FIR. Then he forwarded the FIR to Assistant Commissioner of Police, Goshamahal Division, Hyderabad.

4

Except the evidence of P.W.1 no other evidence adduced by reporting that whereabouts of the complainant and eye witnesses are not known.

10. In view of the above circumstances it can be said that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused to connect him with the alleged offence. As such I have no hesitation to say that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of A1 and A7 beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, A1 and A7 are found not guilty for the charge 147, 148, 448, 11.

427, 323 read with 149 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec.248(1)Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of A1 and A7 shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as contemplated Us/ec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

The case property if any shall be transmitted to CC 395/2014 pending against

A2 to A6 and A8.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8thDay of May, 2015.

XVI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: PW.1 Bhasker Reddy, SI of Police, (issued FIR) For Defence : Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 FIR 5

For Defence: Nil

M.Os MARKED: NIL

XVI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

***