Smt N Prasanthi

X Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex · Hyderabad · Telangana

Smt N Prasanthi, X Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, is posted at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 634 court orders on record since 2022. 21 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, PRC cases.

634

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/101530/2015 Acquitted

P.S Gandhinagar vs K Shekar

27 Jun 2023

1 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Present : SMT. N. PRASANTHI

X ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this, the 27th Day of June, 2023

C.C. No. 1530 of 2015

Between:- The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Secunderabad.…Complainant

And

K. Shekar, S/o. K. Mallesh, age: 33 years, occ: Painting work, r/o. H. No. 6-2-129/47, Jaya Prakash Nagar,

New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.....Accused

This case is coming before me on 06-06-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Shekara Chary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri A.C. Srinivas and Smt. Annapurna, the learned counsels for the accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E NT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandhi Nagar P.S., Secunderabad has filed charge sheet against the above named accused person in Cr. No. 356/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC.

2.On 23-10-2015 at about 18:30 hours LW1/Miss. Joseph Celine lodged a report as follows: That on 23-10-2015 at about 03:30 PM the accused used criminal force on them and beaten them with stones and physically assaulted and abused her mother and her sister and also manhandled them and thrown the paint on smeared paint on their body with his hands and touched their personal parts with an intention to outrage their modesty in a public place by dragging them out and assaulted them and touched their body with intent to dominate them physically. Hence, she requested to take necessary action in this regard.

2(ii)Basing on the above report given by LW1/Miss Joseph Celine, a case was registeredin Cr. No. 356/2015 for the offence punishable U/s. 354 of IPC. During the course of investigation the accused person was apprehended by police and on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. opining that the accused person has committed the offence punishable U/s 354 of IPC.

2 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015

3.After taking cognizance for the offence punishable U/s 354 of IPC against the accused, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused and a charge for the offence punishable U/s 354 of IPC is framed against him, read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in prosecution evidence for which he denied and further, the accused reported no evidence in their support. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

4.Now the point for determination is Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 354 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

5.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 in support of their evidence.

6.The defacto complainant is examined as PW1 and during her chief examination she deposed that LW2 is her sister and LW3 is her mother and she know the accused who resides opposite to her house and in the month of October 2015 in the afternoon hours the accused was fully drunk and had pelted stones on her house door and also passed urine on the door and on seeing the same her mother asked the accused as to why he was doing like that and then the accused bet her mother and pushed her down and then she along with her sister came to the scene asking the accused and then the accused pushed her, she fell down and kicked on her stomach and the accused held her clothes and her mother clothes and pulled their clothes and the accused touched her body parts and the accused also touched her private parts. PW1 further deposed that due to the acts of the accused herself and her mother were unable to save themselves and the accused also used abusive language at them and also uttered that “He will Rape Her” and the accused physically applied blue color paint on her and her mother and thereafter she went to the

Police Station and lodged a report with the police marked as Ex.P1 and was examined by the 3 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015 police and her statement was recorded and LW4 and LW5 were present there and witnessed the incident and rescued them from the clutches of the accused.

7.At that stage the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared the PW1 as hostile and during her cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor PW1 admitted that the accused did the act outraging the modesty of her and her mother.

8.During her cross-examination PW1 stated that she has been residing in the said locality from her birth and along with her, her mother, her husband and her children are living in the said house and she admitted that her husband has been residing in the house due to his ill health and admitted that her house is a 40 square yards patta house and the accused resides opposite to her house. PW1 further deposed that according to her knowledge the accused has a house in front of her house and admitted that even the accused is residing in that house from his childhood and he is residing alone in his house and added that at the time of incident his parents were also residing in the said house. PW1 admitted that the accused used to ask them for left over food. PW1 further stated that she was working as Auditor in

Singareni International Limited by the time of incident and her working hours are from 09:00 AM to 04:00 PM and admitted that Ex.P1 was not written by her. PW1 further admitted that she has not mentioned in her complainant and in her 161 statement that the accused was in drunken condition and passed urine on their house door and further admitted that she did not mention in her 161 statement that her mother questioned the accused as to why he was doing like that and the accused bet her mother and pushed her down and also she did not mention in her complaint and her 161 statement that the accused kicked her on her stomach and she did not mention in her complaint and her 161 statement specifically that the accused held her clothes and her mother clothes and pulled their clothes and she did not mention in her complaint and 161 statement that the accused stated that he will rape her and also she did not mention in her complaint and 161 statement that the accused has put blue color paint on her and her mother. PW1 denied the suggestion that the accused has never committed the alleged offence and she lodged a false complaint against the accused only to grab his house and that she is deposing false. PW1 also denied that no alleged incident took 4 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015 place as stated by her and the accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence and he never applied criminal force nor pelted stones at her house.

9.The next witness i.e., another victim is examined as PW2 and during her chief examination she stated that PW1, LW2-Mary Fathima are her daughters and she know the accused who is their neighbor and she can identify him and about 7 years back in the after noon at 03:00 to 03:30 PM the accused came in a drunken condition to her house and has thrown a brick at her door and started abusing them in filthy language and she came out and asked him as to his behavior and he continued abusing them in filthy language and bet her with his hands on her head and all over her body and in the meanwhile her daughters came to her rescue and then the accused has torned the blouses of PW1 and LW2 and touched their private parts and in that regard PW1 went and lodged a police complaint and accused also poured some color on her face and chest and in that regard police examined her and recorded her statement.

10.During her cross-examination PW2 stated that her daughter PW1 works at

MNC Company in Jayaprakash Nagar and her daughter goes for work at 11:00 AM and comes back at 12 in the midnight and she is alone at her house and she admitted that along with her the husband of PW1 and her children reside in the same house. PW2 denied the suggestion that on the date of incident also her daughter went for work. PW2 admitted that the parents of accused also died and he resides alone in his portion and added that his brother resides in another portion. PW2 further admitted that they did not have any disputes earlier with the accused. PW2 denied the suggestion that they wanted to purchase the house of accused for lesser price and as he refused to sell it they lodged this false complaint and also denied that the accused never abused her and never bet her on that day with his hands on her head and her body parts and that PW1 and LW2 did not rescue her and the accused never torn the blouses of PW1 and LW2 and did not touch their private parts and did not pour color on her face and that she is deposing false only to support PW1.

11.One of the eye witness is examined as PW3 and during his chief examination 5 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015 he stated that he knows PW1 and PW2 and LW2-Mary Fathima and accused who are his locality people and on 23-10-2015 around 03 to 03:30 PM the accused was in a drunken condition and he was abusing the PW1 and PW2 and LW2 in filthy language and also started beating them and sprinkled paint on their chest and clothes and it resulted in a galata and in that regard police examined him and recorded his statement.

12.At that stage he was declared hostile by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and he admitted in his cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor he admitted that he has mentioned in his 161 statement that the accused has touched the chest and private parts of PW1 and PW2 and LW2 in that galata intentionally and also admitted that he mentioned in his 161 statement that the accused has sprinkled the paint on their face also.

13.During his cross-examination by the accused counsel PW3 stated that his house is in the same lane at a distance of 4 to 5 houses from the house of PW1 and both the accused and PW1 family have been residing in the locality from past 40 years and admitted that prior to this incident there are no disputes between the accused and PW1 family and that he is a Railway Employee and that he went to duty on the date of incident and he came to give evidence at the request of PW1 and PW2 and added that he came to give evidence as he has witnessed the incident and that he was examined on the same date of incident. PW3 denied the suggestion that the accused never sprinkled color on PW1 and PW2 and LW2 and never abused them in filthy language and never touched their private parts. PW3 admitted that the specific words as to filthy language has not been mentioned in his 161 statement.

14.The scene panch is examined as PW4 and during her chief examinations he stated that she knows PW1 and accused and another panch LW7-C. Chandraiah who are her neighbors and on 24-10-2015 at 09:00 AM police Gandhinagar conducted scene observation panchanama at the residence of PW1 and drawn the rough sketch in their presence and they noticed blue colour on the surface at the scene of offence and on completion of panchanama she along with LW7-C. Chadraiah attested the same and Ex.P2 is the scene observation 6 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015 panchanama along with rough sketch.

15.During her cross-examination PW4 stated that she was not issued any summons to act as panch by the police and admitted that she do not know reading and writing in Telugu and she do not know the contents of the panchanama and affixed her signatures on blank white papers at the Police Station and no panchanama was conducted and rough sketch drawn in her presence. PW4 denied the suggestion that on 24-10-2015 police conducted scene observation panchanama and drawn rough sketch in her presence and that she has affixed her signature at the scene of offence.

16.Another eye witness is examined as PW5 and during her chief examination she stated that she know PW1 to PW3 and LW2-Mary Fatima who are her family relatives and she do not know whereabouts of Mary Fatima and she know the accused who is standing in the court hall and on 23-10-2015 at 03:30 PM she was at her house which is situated opposite to the house of PW1 and she heard noises from the house of PW1 and observed from her house window that the accused was creating nuisance and he was using very abusive language and describing the private parts of PW1, LW2 and PW2 and he pushed the

LW2 and when PW1 came there he also pushed PW1 and he stamped them on their breast and when PW2 came out to find out what has happened, the accused has brought blue colour and smeared them with the said colour all over their body on their private parts with his hands and later he pushed them on to the ground and bet all of them and in that regard police examined her and recorded her statement.

17.During her cross-examination PW5 admitted that PW1 and herself are relatives and the mother of PW1 is her aunt and it is true that she is residing in the back side lane of house of PW1 at present and added that earlier she used to reside diagonally opposite to the house of accused and the house number of PW1 is around 70 to 73 and towards the right side of the PW1 one Shanta used to reside and towards the left side of the PW1, one Akkamma used to reside and admitted that it is thickly populated area. PW5 admitted that she do not know that the accused was taking treatment for mental illness and her house number is 6-2- 7 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015 129/65 A and that she was working even by the date of the incident and she used to go for her work two days in a week from 07:00 AM to 05:00 PM and she do not remember the day of the week when the said incident took place. PW5 denied the suggestion that she has not mentioned in her 161 statement that the accused has used very abusive language describing the private parts of PW1 and PW2 and LW2 and PW2 came there and the accused stamped on their breast and she also denied that she has not mentioned in her 161 statement that the accused has smeared PW1 and PW2 and LW2 with the blue colour on their private parts with his hands and as they are her relatives and that she never witnessed any incident and the accused never misbehaved with them.

18.The Investigating Officer in this case is examined as PW6 and during his chief examination he deposed that he knows LW8-Mohammed Syed, the then ASI of Police,

Gandhinagar P.S. and he can identify his signature and that on 23-10-2015 at 1830 hours

LW8 received a report from PW1 basing on it LW8 registered a case in crime no.356 of 2015 U/sec.354 of IPC and issued FIR as in Ex.P3 and handed over the CD file to him for further investigation and during the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 and LW2 and on 24-10-2010 in the morning hours he visited the scene of offence situated at Jayaprakash Nagar, New Bhoiguda and there he secured the presence of PW4, LW7-C. Chandraiah and in their presence he conducted scene observation panchanama and drawn the rough sketch and while investigation is under progress on 24-10-2015 accused was arrested and produced before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand and as per his investigation it is established that the accused has committed the offence U/sec.354 of IPC and Ex.P4 are the four photographs collected from the scene of offence which are marked subject to objection that the photos do not contain the CD and negatives and later he filed the charge sheet against the accused. These are the brief contents of the complaint which is lodged against the accused herein. In order to prove that the accused has committed this offence under section 354 of IPC as stated earlier the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6. PW1 is the defacto complainant who almost stated the complaint contents in her chief examination. But there has been a lot of improvisation in her 8 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015 chief examination before the court as she has not stated several things in her complaint but has stated in her chief examination and the same has been admitted by her in her cross- examination made by the counsel for the accused i.e.,

19.During his cross-examination PW6 admitted that PW1, PW2 and PW5 and

LW2-Mary Fathima belongs to same family and that there is no prior written complaint to this case filed by the complainant against the accused and also admitted that he has not served summons on the panchas and he has not collected any material object from the scene of offence. PW6 denied the suggestion that accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence and that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the accused never smeared the complainant and her daughters with any colour and never misbehaved with them as alleged.

20.The police have filed the DC of LW7 and accordingly his evidence has been closed and as the whereabouts of LW2 are not known as stated by PW5 her evidence also been closed and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW8 as

PW6 deposed on his behalf.

21.The prosecution case in brief is that a complaint has been lodged on 23-10- 2015 by PW1 that on the said date around 03:30 PM the accused herein has used criminal force on the complainant and her family members i.e., her mother and sister and physically assaulted them and beat them with stones and smeared their body with his hands with paint and assaulted them and touched them to intimidate them and outraged their modesty by touching their private parts and there has been no safety to their life and family members and requested to take action against this accused and accordingly a case has been booked against the accused for the offence under section 354 of IPC. In order to prove that the accused has committed the alleged offence the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

22.In the present case the allegation against the accused is that he came in a drunken condition to the house of the defacto complainant and started abusing them in filthy 9 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015 language and have threw and beat them and also thrown colour on their body parts and have also touched their private parts and misbehaved with them and have outraged their modesty for which this case has been booked against the accused. These are the brief contents of the complaint which is lodged against the accused herein. In order to prove that the accused have committed this offence under section 354 of IPC as stated earlier the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and PW1 is the defacto complainant who almost stated the complaint contents in his chief examination. But there have been a lot of improvisation in her chief examination before the Court as she has not stated several things in her complaint but has stated in her chief examination and the same has been admitted by her in her cross- examination made by the counsel for the accused i.e., the PW1 stated that she has been working as Auditor in Singareni International Limited by the time of incident and her working hours are from 09:00 AM to 04:00 PM and it is not clear whether on the date of the incident the PW1 is working or not and whether she was on leave on that particular date and on the other hand she admitted that Ex.P1 was not written by her and the scribe of Ex.P1 was not examined as witness before this court and she admitted about not mentioning in her complaint and 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the accused was in drunken condition and passed urine on her house door and also not mentioned about her mother questioning about the accused doing so and then the accused beating her mother and pushing her down and not mentioning in her complaint that the accused kicked her on her stomach and also not mentioning in the complaint and 161 Cr.P.C. statement specifically whether the accused held her and her mother clothes and pulled their clothes and she did not even mention in her complaint and 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the accused will rape her and she did not even mention that the accused have put specifically blue colour paint on her and her mother. So these are all the omissions made by PW1 in her complaint as well as 161 Cr.P.C. statement and she has stated all these facts before the court which shows that there has been lot of improvisation made by her in her chief examination before the court which raises a doubt as to the evidence given by her before the court and as to the trustworthiness of this particular witness as to the alleged incident on that particular date.

10 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015

23.The next witness is the mother of this defacto complainant who is also shown as one of the victim by the prosecution i.e., PW2 and she also stated almost the same facts as that of PW1 but she stated that the accused came in a drunken condition and has thrown a brick at their door and started abusing them in filthy language and later beat her on her head and all over her body and also her daughters came to her rescue then the accused has torned the blouses of PW1 and LW2 and touched their private parts and putting colour on her face and chest. But in her cross-examination even PW2 made certain admissions that her daughter goes for work at 11:00 AM and comes back at 12 in the midnight and she is alone at her house and that the husband of PW1 and her children reside in the same house. PW2 though denied certain suggestions that the accused did not torn the blouses of PW1 and LW2 and did not abuse them all. But in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement PW2 stated that the people around the locality i.e., in the locality came there to stop this galata. But in her chief examination she stated that her daughters came there and rescued her and then the accused have misbehaved with her daughters by tearing their blouses and by putting hands on their private parts. So there has been variation of these versions of PW2 as compared to her 161

Cr.P.C. statement and her chief examination before the court and she stated that the accused has thrown a brick whereas PW1 stated that the accused has pelted a stone at their house and urinated in front of their house. So this is a different version given by PW2.

24.PW3 is an eye witness who stated that he has witnessed this accused misbehaving with the women i.e., PW1 and her mother and sister and abusing them in filthy language and beating them. But he has omitted certain part of his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and he was declared hostile by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and later he admitted in his cross- examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor that the accused touched the chest and private parts of these victims and then sprinkled the paint on their face also. But in his cross- examination by the counsel for accused he admitted that he is a railway employee and on the date of the incident also he went to the duty and he came to the court to give evidence at the request of PW1 and PW2. But added that he came to give evidence as he has witnessed the incident. He also admitted that he did not mention the specific words as to the filthy 11 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015 language in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. So what are the timings of work of PW3 who is a railway employee is not been specifically mentioned and how he was present at that point of time on that day is also not been explained by the prosecution because according to his own admission he has gone to his duty but in spite of that he was present on the date of the incident and he came to the court to give evidence at the request of PW1 which shows that he might be a interested witness in this particular case who is giving evidence at the request of PW1 and initially he did not even tell about the accused misbehaving with the PW1 and

PW2 and LW2 and sprinkling the paint on their faces. So even his evidence also cannot be completely relied upon about the misbehavior of the accused with the victims.

25.The scene panch though stated that the panchanama was conducted and rough sketch drawn in her presence and later she stated that she was not received any summons and she do not know reading and writing Telugu and also stated that she affixed her signatures on the blank white papers at the Police Station and no panchanama conducted and rough sketch drawn in her presence. With the admissions of the scene panch it is clear that no panchanama has been conducted and rough sketch drawn in her presence but only her signatures were obtained and her evidence is also of no use to establish as to the involvement of accused in comission of alleged offences. Another witness is eye witness i.e., PW5 who is a relative of PW1, PW2 and LW2 and she admitted the same in her chief examination and she gave a detailed picture about how the accused have misbehaved with the victims in her chief examination which she has not stated in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and on the other hand she admitted that she has witnessed this entire incident from the window of her house which is diagonally opposite to the house of the accused and also stated that by the date of the incident she was working and that she used to go for work every two days in a week from 07:00 AM to 05:00 PM. So the incident took place between 03:00 to 03:30 PM and she could not even tell at what day of the week it was and whether she went to work or not is also not clarified by her in her evidence before the court. So the chances of this witness witnessing the alleged incident is also less because she is one of the relative of the victims she isalso interested witness and she might be giving the evidence only to help the victims 12 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015 and the chances are her seeing the incident very clearly is also very less and she has been witnessing the incident only from the window and she cannot even tell the exact abusive language used by the accused also. So her evidence also cannot be considered completely as to the alleged incident.

26.The Investigating Officer in this case is examined as PW6 and though he stated about the investigation conducted in detail in his chief examination and got marked Ex.P4 the photographs of the victims PW1 and PW2 with blue colour paint on their faces. The said photographs did not contain any CD and negatives and technically those photographs does not hold any evidentiary value without a CD and negatives and cannot be considered as evidence and hence, they are not considered as the documentary evidence due to their lack of

CD and negatives and they are only just filed without any negative and CD and on the other hand certain admissions were made by PW6 about these PW1, PW2 and PW5 belonging to the same family which shows that they are interested witnesses and also admitted that he has not collected any material object from the scene of offence because as per complaint a stone was thrown and even as per the chief examination a stone was thrown and even as per PW1 a stone was thrown by the accused at the house of PW1 and a brick was thrown as per the version of PW2. But no such material object has been seized from the scene of offence and as per the version of PW5 it is thickly populated area and as per the version of PW2 some persons have come to their rescue and got them out of that galata. But the persons who are examined as witnesses i.e., as eye witnesses are one is the family relative of these victims and another is a neighbor. But no other witnesses were chosen to be examined by the

Investigating Officer and non-collecting of the material object raises a doubt as to whether actually the accused has thrown a stone or a brick whatever at the house of the PW1 and with the interested witnesses being examined and with discrepancies in the evidence of these prosecution witnesses i.e., PW1 and PW2 with different versions being given from their complaint and 161 Cr.P.C. statements and their versions cannot be completely believed as to the alleged incident that the accused has misbehaved with them and outraged their modesty it cannot be said that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond 13 of 13 Dated: 27-06-2023

CC. No. 1530/2015

Cr. No. 356/2015 all reasonable doubt and a benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is entitled for acquittal.

27.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.354 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. There is no case property deposited in this case.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 27th day of June, 2023.

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW1: Smt. Joseph Celine: Complainant and victim.-Nil- PW2: Smt. Anna Mary: Victim PW3: Sri R. Gajanand: Eye witness. PW4: Smt. Rajpath Madhavi: Panch witness. PW5: Kum. Catherine Xavier: Eye witness. PW6: Sri S. Kanakaiah: the then Sub-Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Report of PW1.-Nil- Ex.P2: Scene observation panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P3: First Information Report. Ex.P4: Four photographs collected from the scene of offence.

M.Os MARKED

-Nil-

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

CC/100906/2017 Acquitted

Chilkalguda vs Mannem Sriman Narayana Prasad

04 Sep 2024

1 of 12

Dated: 04-09-2024

CC. No. 906/2017

Cr. No. 406/2017

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Present : SMT. N. PRASANTHI

X ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this, the 4th Day of September, 2024

C.C No. 906 of 2017

Between: The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Chilkalguda Police Station, Secunderabad.…Complainant

And

Manyam Sriman Narayana Prasad, S/o. M. Laxmi Narsaiah, age: 53 years, occ: Dismissed Inspector of Police, G.R.P. Rail Nilayam, S.C. Railways, Secunderabad, r/o. Flat No.401, Kakatiya Apartments, Street No.2, Habsiguda, Secunderabad, n/o. Karampodi (V&M), Guntur District,

Ph. no. 8341170723.....Accused

This case is coming before me on 23-08-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. S. Susheela Mayuri, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A.C. Srinivas and Smt. Annapurna, the learned counsels for the accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E NT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda P.S., Secunderabad has filed charge sheet against the above named accused person in Cr. No.406/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 511 of IPC.

2(i).On 14-07-2017 at about 15:00 hours LW1/P. Raja Shekar lodged a report as follows: That he received credible information that the accused were moving near Sai White

House Bar & Restaurant, Mylargadda, Secunderabad and he is trying to sell some banned/out dated foreign currency for a good price and looking for prospective customers and on believing the said information, he along with his staff and mediators proceeded to the spot and apprehended the accused person and took him into custody. Later he recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused person and seized MO1 and MO2 from the possession of the accused person. Therefore, he requested to take necessary action in this regard.

2(ii)Basing on the above report given by LW1/P. Raja Shekar, a case was 2 of 12

Dated: 04-09-2024

CC. No. 906/2017

Cr. No. 406/2017 registeredin Cr. No.406/2017 for the offence punishable U/s. 420 r/w 511 of IPC. During the course of investigation the accused person was apprehended by police and on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. opining that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable U/s 420 r/w 511 of IPC.

3.After taking cognizance for the offence punishable U/s 420 r/w 511 of IPC against the accused persons, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused and a charge for the offence punishable U/s 420 r/w 511 of IPC is framed against him, read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and

MO1 and MO2. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313

Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in prosecution evidence for which he denied and further, the accused reported no evidence in his support. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

4.Now the point for determination is Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 420 r/w 511 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

5.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and

MO1 and MO2 in support of their evidence.

6.The defacto complainant is examined as PW1 and he deposed in his chief examination that he knows LW2-R.Srinivasulu and LW3-Raju who are the then Police

Constables of P.S. Chilkalguda and that he knows LW6-MD. Munawar Shareef who is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Chilkalguda and he worked along with him and he can identify his signature and that on 14-07-2017 at 1320 hours he received credible information that one person near Sai White House Bar Restaurant, Mylargadda is trying to exchange some banned foreign currency for a good price and looking for the customers and believing the information received to be true and authentic, he informed the same to superior officials 3 of 12

Dated: 04-09-2024

CC. No. 906/2017

Cr. No. 406/2017 and secured two mediators i.e., LW4-A. Gangadhar and LW5- B.Akash and he along with

LW2 to LW5 visited the Sai While House Bar and Restaurant, Mylargadda, Chilkalguda and deputed LW2-Srinivasulu as decoy along with the informant to trace the person and manage a deal with him as a customer for the purpose of foreign currency and to give them a suitable sign accordingly. PW1 further stated that after some time LW2 showing a sign by hand from the scene of offence and then he along with his staff reached beside the Sai White House Bar and Restaurant and took positions differently concealing their presence and within view of the decoy who was waiting for the suspected persons to deliver the foreign currency.

7.PW1 further stated that after some time two persons came to Mylargadda,

Secunderabad and one of them took out foreign currency from his pant pocket and his description given by the decoy he approached him and opened and showed the foreign currency to the decoy and also showed two persons who were already present at Mylargadda lane and on sign given by decoy/LW2 he along with his staff surrounding the suspected accused and took him into custody and on their enquiry he revealed his name as Manyam

Sriman Narayana Prasad i.e., accused and accused is the same person who is present in the court hall and immediately he along with their staff also apprehended the person who are available near Mylargadda lane and they revealed their names as Manoj and Kumar and on their enquiry they informed them that the said accused was trying to cheat them by showing the banned turkey currency and later in front of the mediators he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of accused and during the enquiry accused confessed his guilt and accordingly case property i.e., MO1 i.e., 100/- notes of banned Turkey currency and MO2 is the one Samsung cellphone with SIM No.8341170723 from the possession of accused were seized and on completion of panchanama he obtained the signatures of LW4 and LW5 and

Ex.P1is the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused.

8.PW1 further stated that after the seizure formalities he brought the above said accused person to Police Station along with the panchanama and seized property to the

Police Station and lodged report i.e., Ex.P2before LW6 and basing on his report LW6 4 of 12

Dated: 04-09-2024

CC. No. 906/2017

Cr. No. 406/2017 registered a case in Cr. No. 406 of 2017 U/sec. 420 and 511 of IPC and issued FIR as in

Ex.P3 and dispatched the same to all concerned and during the course of investigation as per the instructions of the superior officials the CD file was handed over to him for further investigation and during the course of investigation he secured the presence of LW2 and

LW3 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements and the same is incorporated in Part-II of

CD file and on the same day he effected the arrest of accused and produced before the

Hon’ble Court for judicial remand and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet

against the accused.

9.During his cross-examination PW1 admitted that material part of investigation is completed prior to reregistration of FIR and that he has not examined any independent eye witness and also admitted that MO1 and MO2 does not contained the panch chits and that he has not stated in his report that how much amount he has given to LW2/decoy to exchange it for foreign currency and also admitted that the scene of offence is a busy area and he has not mentioned the descriptive particulars of MO1 and MO2 and its serial numbers and not collected the CDR of MO2. PW1 denied the suggestion that list of witnesses were created for the purpose of this case and further denied that the accused is falsely implicated in this case and the case property also created for the purpose of the case and further denied the suggestion that the panch witnesses are their stock witnesses and also denied that the accused never confessed in the presence of panchas and MO1 and MO2 were not seized from the possession of accused and that the accused are illegally arrested his house. PW1 admitted that his report does not discloses specifically in which line of

Mylargadda the suspects were present.

10.The Police Constable who assisted this PW1 has been examined as PW2 and during his chief examination he deposed that he knows LW3-Raju who is his colleague

Police Constable of police P.S. Chilkalguda and that on 14-07-2017 at 12:00 hours PW1 received credible information that one person near Sai White House Bar Restaurant,

Mylargadda is trying to exchange some banned foreign currency for a good price and 5 of 12

Dated: 04-09-2024

CC. No. 906/2017

Cr. No. 406/2017 looking for the customers and believing the information received to be true and authentic,

PW1 informed the same to superior officials and secured two mediators i.e., LW4-A.

Gangadhar and LW5-B. Akash and immediately he along with PW1, LW3 to LW5 visited the Sai White House Bar and Restaurant, Mylargadda, Chilkalguda. PW2 further deposed that PW1 has deputed him as decoy along with the informant to trace the person and manage a deal with him as a customer for the purpose of foreign currency and to give them a suitable sign accordingly and after some time he showed a sign by hand from the scene of offence and then PW1 along with their staff reached beside the Sai White House Bar and Restaurant and took positions differently concealing their presence and within view of the decoy who was waiting for the suspected persons to deliver the foreign currency.

11.PW2 further deposed that after some time two persons came to Mylargadda,

Secunderabad and one of them took out foreign currency from his pant pocket and his description given by him and he approached him and opened and showed the foreign currency to the to him and also showed two persons who were already present at

Mylargadda lane and on sign given by him, PW1 along with their staff surrounding the suspected accused and took him into custody and on enquiry of PW1 he revealed his name as Manyam Sriman Narayana Prasad i.e., accused and accused is the same person who is present in the court hall and immediately PW1 along with their staff also apprehended the person who are available near Mylargadda lane and they revealed their names as Manoj and

Kumar on their enquiry they informed them that the said accused was trying to cheat them by showing the banned turkey currency and later in front of the mediators PW1 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. PW2 further deposed that during the enquiry accused confessed his guilt and accordingly case property i.e., MO1 i.e., 100/- notes of banned Turkey currency and MO2 is the one Samsung cellphone with SIM

No.8341170723 from the possession of accused and later PW1 conducted the confession cum seizure panchanama and obtained the signatures of panchas and after the seizure formalities PW1 brought the above said accused person to Police Station along with the panchanama and seized property to the Police Station and lodged report before LW6 and 6 of 12

Dated: 04-09-2024

CC. No. 906/2017

Cr. No. 406/2017 later police examined him and recorded his statement.

12.During his cross-examination PW2 admitted that material part of investigation is completed prior to registration of FIR and also admitted that he has not mentioned the descriptive particulars of the accused in his 161 statement and also admitted that that MO1 and MO2 does not contain the panch chits. PW2 further denied the suggestions that he has never being the decoy in the raid and PW1 never apprehended the accused on the said date from the scene of offence and that he is deposing false at the instance of superior officials and also denied that the accused is falsely implicated in this case and the case property also created for the purpose of the case and also denied that the accused never confessed in the presence of panchas and MO1 and MO2 were not seized from the possession of accused and that the accused has arrested illegally from his house.

13.Another Police Constable who assisted PW1 in this case is examined as PW3 and during his chief examination he deposed that he knows PW2 who is his colleague Police

Constable of police P.S. Chilkalguda and that on 14-07-2017 at 12:00 hours PW1 received credible information that one person near Sai White House Bar Restaurant, Mylargadda he is trying to exchange some banned foreign currency for a good price and looking for the customers and believing the information received to be true and authentic, PW1 informed the same to superior officials and secured two mediators i.e., LW4-A. Gangadhar and LW5-

B.Akash and immediately he along with PW1, PW2 and LW4 and LW5 visited the Sai

White House Bar and Restaurant, Mylargadda, Chilkalguda and PW1 have deputed PW2 as decoy along with the informant to trace the person and manage a deal with him as a customer for the purpose of foreign currency and to give them a suitable sign accordingly and after some time PW2 showed a sign by hand from the scene of offence and then PW1 along with their staff reached beside the Sai White House Bar and Restaurant and took positions differently concealing their presence and within view of the decoy who was waiting for the suspected persons to deliver the foreign currency. PW3 further deposed that after some time two persons came to Mylargadda, Secunderabad and one of them took out 7 of 12

Dated: 04-09-2024

CC. No. 906/2017

Cr. No. 406/2017 foreign currency from his pant pocket and his description given by him and PW2 approached him and opened and showed the foreign currency to the to him and also showed two persons who were already present at Mylargadda lane and on sign given by PW2, PW1 along with him surrounding the suspected accused and took him into custody and on enquiry of PW1 he revealed his name as Manyam Sriman Narayana Prasad/Accused and accused is the same person who is present in the court hall and immediately PW1 along with their staff also apprehended the person who are available near Mylargadda lane and they revealed their names as Manoj and Kumar on their enquiry they informed them that the said accused was trying to cheat them by showing the banned turkey currency and later in front of the mediators PW1 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. PW3 further deposed that during the enquiry accused confessed his guilt and accordingly case property

MO1 i.e., 100/- notes of banned Turkey currency and MO2 is the one Samsung cellphone with SIM No.8341170723 from the possession of accused and later PW1 conducted the confession cum seizure panchanama and obtained the signatures of panchas and after the seizure formalities PW1 brought the above said accused person to Police Station along with the panchanama and seized property to the police station and lodged report before LW6 and later police examined him and recorded his statement.

14.During his cross-examination PW3 admitted that material part of investigation is completed prior to registering of FIR and that he has not mentioned the descriptive particulars of the accused in his 161 statement. PW3 denied the suggestion that he has never participated in the alleged raid on the said date along with PW1 and PW2 and he is deposing false at the instance of his superior officials. PW3 denied the suggestion that the accused is falsely implicated in this case and the case property also created for the purpose of the case.

PW3 admitted that MO1 and MO2 does not contain the panch chits. PW3 denied the suggestion that the accused never confessed in the presence of panchas and MO1 and MO2 were not seized from the possession of accused and further denied that the accused are illegally arrested from his house.

8 of 12

Dated: 04-09-2024

CC. No. 906/2017

Cr. No. 406/2017

15.The confession panch is examined as PW4 and during his chief examination he deposed that at about 8 years back he was standing near wine shop at Mylargadda at about 02:30 PM police caught hold a person and seized banned turkey cash of Rs.100/- notes and cellphone from the possession of the said person under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama and he affixed his signature along with another panch and the accused standing

in the court hall is the same person from whom police seized the banned turkey notes and

cellphone.

16.During his cross-examination PW4 stated that he does Rs.5/- meals business and he can read and write in English and admitted that there are some cases pending against him. PW4 denied the suggestion that no panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized in his presence from the possession of the accused and further denied that he is identifying the accused at the instance of police and also denied that the panchanama was conducted at the Police Station and further denied that he has identified the accused at the instance of police as certain cases are pending against him and further denied that the accused never confessed and nothing was seized from his possession in his presence.

17.During his further cross-examination PW4 stated that he is active member of

BJP party in their area and that there were some criminal cases registered against him and that no written summons were served on him by the police and that he do not remember how many signatures he has affixed on that day and that he cannot tell the series of the turkey notes seized on the said date and that the police did not obtain his signature on the panch chits to the said seized notes and that he cannot tell the IMEI Number of the cell phone seized from the accused and further admitted that the White House Bar and Restaurant is a busy area. PW4 denied the suggestion that he was taken from the Police Station and denied that he was not taken to the scene of offence and the panchanama was conducted at the

Police station and further denied that he has acted as witness in several cases of P.S.

Chilkalguda and that no confession cum seizure panchanama was conducted in his presence and nothing was seized from the possession of the accused and also denied that he is 9 of 12

Dated: 04-09-2024

CC. No. 906/2017

Cr. No. 406/2017 identifying the accused at the instance of police and that he is deposing false.

18.The Investigating Officer who issued FIR in this case is examined as PW5 and during his chief examination he deposed that on 14-07-2017 at about 1500 hours he received a complaint from PW1 wherein he registered a case in Cr. No.406 of 2017 U/sec. 420 and 511 of IPC and issued FIR as in Ex.P3 and dispatched the same to all concerned.

19.During his cross-examination PW5 admitted that after the panchanama was conducted and later the FIR was registered and also admitted that the IMEI Numbers of the banned turkey notes was not mentioned in the FIR. PW5 denied the suggestion that based on the false report lodged by the complainant and that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and also denied that the accused is no way concerned with the alleged offences.

20.In the present case the evidence of LW5 has been given up by APP as PW4 deposed on his behalf.

21.The prosecution case in brief is that a credible information has been received by the PW1 i.e., the defacto complainant in this case that the accused has been attempting to cheat the innocent public by selling the banned turkey notes in the area of Mylargadda to prospective customers and on receiving the said information the defacto complainant along with the panchas whom he said i.e., the mediators he secured and his staff went there and with the help of his staff he sent as decoy and apprehended this accused and conducted this confession panchanama and seized this banned notes and a case has been registered against this accused for the offences under section 420 and 511 of IPC. In order to prove that the accused has committed the alleged the offences the prosecution could examine PW1 to PW5 and mark Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and MO1 and MO2.

22.In the present case the officer who has conducted this confession cum seizure panchanama and he has conducted the raid in this case and also most part of the investigation is examined as PW1 and he has explained in detailed the entire process and procedure followed by him after receiving the said credible information about the accused 10 of 12 Dated: 04-09-2024

CC. No. 906/2017

Cr. No. 406/2017 trying to sell this banned turkey currency notes to the prospective customers in his chief examination. In his cross-examination he has admitted about the material part of the investigation being completed prior to registration of the FIR. So before the crime itself was registered the investigation was completed and next thing is no independent witness was examined in this case to ascertain that this accused has made an attempt to sell this banned turkey currency notes to prospective customers and tried to cheat them and also that MO1 and MO2 i.e., banned turkey notes of 100 notes and this phone which was seized from the possession of this accused doesn’t have any panch chits and how much amount has been given to this decoy Police Constable is also not mentioned in the report and according to the complainant himself the scene of offence is a busy area. So when this person was trying to make this attempt of selling this banned turkey notes there is every possibility of many people watching but none of them were examined in this case to establish that the accused made an attempt to sell the banned notes. But descriptive particulars of MO1 and MO2 and their serial numbers were not mentioned in the panchanama and the CDR of this MO2 was also not collected. So these admissions of the PW1 show that there has been faulty investigation and the procedure is not completely followed or there has been discrepancies in the procedure followed by this PW1.

23.The Police Constables who have accompanied this PW1 in apprehending this accused and who have participated in this raid were examined as PW2 i.e., decoy Police

Constable was PW2 and other Police Constable was PW3 and they have stated on the same lines as that of PW1 as to the entire raid and the panchanama and seizure in their chief examination. But in their cross-examination they admitted that the material part of the investigation is completed prior to registration of the FIR and they have not even mentioned the descriptive particulars of the accused in 161 Cr.P.C. statement and they also admitted about this MO1 and MO2 have no panch chits. So this raises a doubt whether this MO1 and

MO2 were seized from the possession of the accused or were planted for the purpose of the case.

11 of 12 Dated: 04-09-2024

CC. No. 906/2017

Cr. No. 406/2017

24.The confession panch in this case is examined as PW4 and he stated about the panchanama being conducted in his presence and the accused admitting his guilt about the offence. But in his cross-examination he admitted the fact that there are some cases pending against him and also admitted about that he do not remember how many signatures he has affixed on that day and he could not even tell the series of the turkey notes that was seized on that date and he admitted about the police has not obtained his signatures on the panch chits to the seized notes and he could not even tell the IMEI number of the cell phone seized from the accused. So this shows that this panch witness could be a stock witness and his signatures could have been obtained at the Police Station in the panchanama because his signatures were not even obtained on the seized property on the panch chits and he could not even tell the IMEI number of this seized cell phone and cannot tell the series of the turkey notes seized also. So his version also cannot be believed as to the panchanama being conducted and also as to the confession and recovery made in his presence.

25.The PW5 is another Investigating Office who has only issued the FIR by registering the case. But in his cross-examination he even admitted about the panchanama being conducted earlier and later the FIR being registered and he also admitted about that the

IMEI numbers of the banned turkey notes in the FIR. So the admissions of the all the witnesses about not mentioning the numbers of the banned turkey notes in the report as well as in the panchanama raises a doubt as to whether this is genuine case or this accused has been falsely implicated in this case. On the other hand the version of the confession panch is also not completely reliable because his signatures were not even obtained on the case property i.e., MO1 and MO2 he was unable to tell the series of the numbers of the notes seized and also the IMEI number of the MO2 that was seized. So this shows the faulty investigation that has been conducted and procedure that has not being followed and there are no independent witnesses in this case and all the witnesses who are examined in this case are police officials and the confession panch though he supported their version his admissions show that he is a stock witness of the said police and with these discrepancies in the prosecution evidence it cannot be said that the prosecution succeed in proving the guilt 12 of 12 Dated: 04-09-2024

CC. No. 906/2017

Cr. No. 406/2017 of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, a benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is entitled for acquittal.

26.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.420 r/w 511 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. The property i.e., MO1 i.e., 100 notes of banned Turkey currency (each note value of Rs.5,00,000/- in Turkey Currency) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time is over and MO2 i.e., Samsung cell phone with SIM No.8341170723 shall be given to its original owner after expiry of appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 4th day of September, 2024.

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW1: Sri P. Rajashekar: Complainant. -Nil- PW2: Sri R. Srinivasulu: Witness. PW3: Sri K. Raju: Panch witness. PW4: Sri Gangadhar: the then Sub-Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer. PW5: Sri MD. Munawar Shareef: the then Sub-Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Confession cum seizure panchanama of accused.-Nil- Ex.P2: Report of PW1. Ex.P3: First Information Report.

M.Os MARKED

MO1: 100 notes of banned Turkey currency (each note value of Rs.5,00,000/- in Turkey Currency). MO2: Samsung cell phone with SIM No.8341170723.

X ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

CC/3735/2021 Convicted

State Government of telangana Chilkalguda vs Bablu

30 Sep 2022

1 of 12 Dated: 30-09-2022

CC. No. 3735/2021

Cr. No. 537/2021

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Present : SMT. N. PRASANTHI

X ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this, the 30th Day of September, 2022

C.C. No. 3735 of 2021

Between:- The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda Police Station, Secunderabad.…Complainant

And

Bablu, S/o. Late Jai Singh, age: 36 years, occ: Daily Labour, r/o. Under Sitaphalmandi Flyover,

Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. ....Accused

This case is coming before me on 22-09-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Shekara Chary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. A.C. Srinivas, the learned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E NT

The Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda P.S., Secunderabad has filed charge sheet against the above named accused person in Cr. No.537/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act.

2.On 22-09-2021 at about 09:00 hours LW1/N. Sanjay Kumar lodged a report as follows: That he received credible information that the accused is purchasing Ganja and making it into small sachets and selling the same to needy customers on high rates and earning good profits and that the accused came into contact with unknown person who supplies Ganja sachets and purchased Ganja from him and sell the same secretly to needy/known customers as well as habitual Ganja customers. On 22-09-2021 at about 06:00 hours at Seethafalmandi Bridge, Seethafalmandi, Secunderabad, the accused came to the said place in order to sell the Ganja sachets to the known and needy customers on higher rates, in the meantime the accused caught hold by the police in mufty and apprehended the accused and seized Ganja. Hence, he requested to take necessary action in this regard.

2(ii)Basing on the above report given by LW1/N. Sanjay Kumar, a case was registeredin Cr. No. 537/2021 for the offence punishable U/s. 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act.

During the course of investigation the accused person was apprehended by police and on 2 of 12 Dated: 30-09-2022

CC. No. 3735/2021

Cr. No. 537/2021 completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.

opining that the accused person has committed the offence punishable U/s 20(b)(ii)(A) of

NDPS Act.

3.After taking cognizance for the offence punishable U/s 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS

Act against the accused person, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused and a charge for the offence punishable U/s 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act is framed against him, read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked

Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 (Due to oversight the marking of documents series missed from Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4) and MO1. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in prosecution evidence for which he denied and further, the accused reported no evidence in his support. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

4.Now the point for determination is Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

5.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and

Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 and MO1 in support of their evidence.

6.The defacto complainant is examined as PW1 and during his chief examination he stated that on 22-09-2021 at 06:00 AM he received credible information that a person is selling Ganja under Seethaphalmandi Flyover and he gave information to his superior officers and proceeded to the scene of offence along with his staff and two panchas i.e. LW2 to LW6 and along with tool kit and weighing machine. PW1 further deposed that on seeing them a person tried to flee away and they caught hold of him and he told his name as Bablu and the accused is same person apprehended by him and the said person was in possession of 750 grams of Ganja and he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of LW5 and LW6 and seized the said Ganja and he has drawn four samples each 50 grams of 3 of 12 Dated: 30-09-2022

CC. No. 3735/2021

Cr. No. 537/2021 Ganja in four different packets to be sent to the FSL and he has sent S1 and S2 to FSL for report and S3 and S4 were sent to the Court and Ex.P1 is the confession cum seizure panchanama. PW1 further stated that he went to the Police Station along with the seized property and the accused and later lodged a complaint and Ex.P2 is the complaint and he was examined and his statement was recorded by LW10/Inspector of Police.

7.During his cross-examination PW1 stated that he has not reduced the credible information received by him into writing and that has not issued written summons to the panchas. PW1 also admitted that he has not received any complaint from any local persons about selling of Ganja at the scene and also admitted that company of the weighing machine is not mentioned in the confession cum seizure panchanama and admitted that the

Seethaphalmandi flyover comes under the limits of Chilkalguda, Osmania University and even Railway police. PW1 added that the scene of offence comes under the limits of the

Chilkalguda Police Station. PW1 denied the suggestion that he has procured the panchas from their Police Station and that he has not issued written summons to the Gazetted Officer.

PW1 further denied that he has mentioned in the confession cum seizure panchanama that the scene of offene is Seethaphalmandi Railway station and that the scene of offence does not come under our territorial jurisdiction but it comes under the territorial jurisdiction of railway police. PW1 admitted that the Seethaphalmandi flyover starts at left side Pathanjali, right side Vedhik Vidyalayam and ends at model school and further stated that it might be correct that the flyover is about one kilometer and that he has not mentioned exactly the place where he has conducted the confession cum seizure panchanama under the

Seethaphalmandi flyover and admitted that he has not obtained the signature of the accused on the confession cum seizure panchanama. PW1 further admitted that he has not prepared any arrest memo while apprehending the accused. PW1 denied the suggestion that he has illegally arrested that accused without complying section 100 of Cr.P.C. and section 50 of

NDPS Act.

8.The Police Constable who assisted PW1 is examined as PW2 and during his chief examination he deposed that on 22-09-2021 at 06:00 AM while he along with PW1 and

LW3 was on patrolling duty in Chilkalguda P.S. limits and PW1 received credible 4 of 12 Dated: 30-09-2022

CC. No. 3735/2021

Cr. No. 537/2021 information that one person is selling dry Ganja to customers and in that regard PW1 gave information to higher officials and obtained permission and accordingly he along with LW3 and PW1 obtained weighing machine and tool kit and PW1 secured the presence of two mediators and along with them they went to the scene of offence i.e. Seethaphalmandi

Railway bridge and there they found the accused who is standing in the Court hall who was in possession of dry Ganja weighing 750 grams. PW2 further stated about PW1 conducting the confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of Panchas and seizing the said

Ganja.

9.During his cross-examination PW2 stated that PW1 obtained permission from his higher officials at 06:00 AM and he obtained oral permission and that they did not make

GD entry about their raid. PW2 denied that no dry Ganja was seized from the possession of the accused by PW1.

10.The eye witness is examined as PW3 and during his chief examination he stated that on 22-09-2021 at 07:00 AM he was going to Tarnaka under Seethaphalmandi

Flyover bridge to have a tea and he observed that the police have apprehended the accused and found Ganja in the bag of the accused and the police seized the said Ganja from the possession of the accused and in that regard police examined him and recorded his statement.

11.During his cross-examination PW3 stated that he is a lift mechanic at

Neredmet and his office hours are from 09:30 AM to 05:30 PM and he do not have prior acquaintance with the accused and he has seen the accused when he was caught by the police.

12.PW4 is the panch for confession cum seizure panchanma and during his chief examination he stated that he knows LW6-Nani Sriram who is his colleague employee and on 22-09-2021 at 07:00 AM the concerned police Chilkalguda have conducted the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused and the accused is the same person who is standing in the Court hall and police requested them to act as panchas and as per their request they enquired the accused and on enquiry he revealed his name as Bablu and 5 of 12 Dated: 30-09-2022

CC. No. 3735/2021

Cr. No. 537/2021 confessed his guilt stating that he has purchased one KG Ganja from unknown person and has disposed 250 grams of Ganja and on that day he was in possession of 750 grams of

Ganja and he was found with that Ganja at Seethaphalmandi under bridge near

Seethaphalmandi Railway station and the police have seized the said 750 grams of Ganja from the possession of the accused and they have drawn four samples each 50 grams. PW4 further stated that after completion of the confession cum seizure panchanama in their presence the concerned police have obtained their signatures and MO1 is the 750 grams of

Ganja divided into some small sachets along with loose ganja in a packet.

13.During his cross-examination PW4 stated that he received written requisition from the police to act as panch but he do not know the crime number in which he has acted as panch witness and he has obtained permission from their MRO before leaving office.

PW4 admitted that there are no panch chits on MO1 and also admitted that he did not mention the pillar number where he was called to conduct the panchanama and that no railway police accompanied them.

14.The scene panch is examined as PW5 and during his chief examination he staed that on 22-09-2021 P.S. Chilkalguda called him along with LW8 at Seethaphalmandi flyover near Railway Track there they conducted scene observation panchanama and drawn the rough sketch and later they attested the same and Ex.P5 is the scene observation panchanama cum rough sketch.

15.During his cross-examination he deposed that he has not received any written summons from the concerned police and it took 30 minutes to draft Ex.P5.

16.The Investigating Officer is examined as PW6 and during his chief examination he deposed that on 22-09-2021 at 09 hours he received a complaint from PW1 along with seized property and accused and registered a case in crime no.537 of 2021

U/sec.20(b)(ii)(a) of NDPS Act 1995 and issued FIR i.e., Ex.P6 and on the same day he effected the arrest of the accused and produced him before the Court for judicial remand and during the course of investigation he sent the seized property to FSL and also sent the requisition to the Director FSL, Hyderabad through ACP Gopalapuram Division to analyze 6 of 12 Dated: 30-09-2022

CC. No. 3735/2021

Cr. No. 537/2021 the materials on 30-09-2021 which is marked as Ex.P7 and he received the FSL report on 27-10-2021 which is marked asEx.P8.

17.During his cross-examination PW6 denied the suggestion that based on the false report he registered a false FIR and arrested the accused from his house and implicated him in a false case. PW6 admitted that there is a delay of eight days in sending the collected material to the FSL for the purpose of analysis and he added that it was due to administrative reasons. PW6 denied the suggestion that the case property was planted and that hehas not complied section 100 of CR.P.C. and 50 of NDPS Act and falsely charge sheeted the accused.

18.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW6 and

LW8 as the other witnesses have deposed in favour of the prosecution.

19.The prosecution case in brief is that on 22-09-2021 the defacto complainant received credible information regarding a person moving with contraband drug i.e., Ganja in his possession under the Seethaphalmandi flyover to sell it to the needy customers to earn the profits by illegal means and believing such information to be true he has given information to his superior officers and obtained permission and accordingly he proceeded to the scene of offence and he has apprehended the said person who was trying to escape from the spot along with his team and in the presence of the mediators he conducted the panchanama and seized dry Ganja of 750 grams from the possession of the accused and has conducted the confession cum seizure panchanama and the present complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence under section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act.

20.In order to prove the accused to have committed the alleged offence under section NDPS Act the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and

Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 and MO1 which is the seized Ganja was also marked.

21.In the present case the accused alleged to have been in possession of dry Ganja and he is said to have been selling it to the needy customers for illegal gain and is said to have committed the offence under section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act and in support of the 7 of 12 Dated: 30-09-2022

CC. No. 3735/2021

Cr. No. 537/2021 said allegation the prosecution examined the six witnesses and also marked six documents and PW1 is the Inspect of Police who has received credible information regarding the accused having possession of the 750 grams of Ganja and he has caught the accused when he was in possession of the said Ganja in a bag under Seethaphalmandi flyover and at that time he has conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of the panchas. The counsel for the accused has raised objections that section 41 to 47 of the NDPS Act has not been followed while the search and seizure has been conducted and he has taken an objection saying that a Gazetted Officer has to conduct this search and seizure panchanama and that has not been followed in the present case and regarding that section 50 of the NDPS

Act deals with the conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted and in the present case the accused was found in possession of the said 750 grams of Ganja in a bag and he was trying to sell it to the customers but the application of sections 41 to 47 of the

NDPS Act i.e., to follow the procedure laid down under section 41 to 47 of the NDPS Act comes i.e., the conditions under which search of the person to be conducted comes into a picture only when the contraband is found on the person i.e., on the body of the person and it was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in between Bodaband Sunder Singh vs.

State of A.P. 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 928 (AP) where it was clarified that the search of a person cannot be equated to the search of the bags etc., belonging to the accused and therefore only when there is a search of a person then only the procedure contemplated under section 50 of the Act has to be resorted to. So in the present case the accused was in possession of the loose Ganja of 750 grams in a bag but not on his person. So section 50 conditions need not be complied and the procedure followed by PW1 will not be affected as objected by the counsel for the accused. For better appreciation of the said contention put forth on behalf of the accused the Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, is reproduced as under:

Section 50 of NDPS Act: Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted. - “(1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate.

(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him 8 of 12 Dated: 30-09-2022

CC. No. 3735/2021

Cr. No. 537/2021

before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1).

(3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made.

(4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female.

(5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section100 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.]”

22.The version of PW1 was also supported by PW2 i.e., the Police Constable who has assisted PW1 while confession cum seizure was being conducted by PW1 in the presence of the panchas and PW4 is the confession panch in whose presence the panchanama was conducted and he was examined as PW4 and he also supported the search and seizure that was being conducted in his presence and PW3 is the eye witness who has also supported the version of the prosecution as to the accused being apprehended and was found in possession of the Ganja in a bag and the police seizing the said Ganja from the possession of the accused and he is independent witness who has supported the prosecution story about the accused being found in possession of the contraband.

23.The counsel for the accused has taken an objection that the Railway police was not examined because the scene of offence was the Seethaphalmandi flyover that which was near the railway track. But there was no such necessity for examination of the railway police as the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused in the presence of the panchas and the panchas have stated in favour of the prosecution and even an independent witness has supported the version of the prosecution and there is no such ambiguity as to the territorial jurisdiction of the police as PW1 has stated specifically that the railway bridge comes within the jurisdiction of Chilkalguda police and the basic question is not as to the jurisdiction of the police. But as to the contraband that was found with the possession of the 9 of 12 Dated: 30-09-2022

CC. No. 3735/2021

Cr. No. 537/2021 accused. So the said issue raised by the accused counsel is answered in favour of the prosecution and even the scene of offence panch i.e., PW5 has also stated that the police conducted the scene panchanama at Seethaphalmandi flyover near railway track and also drawn rough sketch where the accused was found with the contraband and the panchanama was conducted.

24.The Investigating Officer who was examined as PW6 has also stated regarding the investigation has been conducted and sending the seized property to FSL and the report from the FSL has been marked as Ex.P8 which states that13 the contraband which is seized the dry Ganja that also is in favour of the prosecution case and establishes that the accused has been selling dry Ganja for the needy customers for the purpose of illegal gain and this establishes the prosecution story about the accused having in possession of dry Ganja which is a contraband product and he has been selling it to the needy customers.

Section 35 of NDPS Act: Presumption of culpable mental state. - “(1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence

for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act

charged as an offence in that prosecution.

Explanation.—In this section “culpable mental state” includes intention motive, knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. (2) For the purpose of this section , a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.”

Section 54 of NDPS Act: Presumption from possession of illicit articles. - “In trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an offence under this Act in respect of—

(a) any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance;

(b) any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant growing on any land which he has cultivated;

(c) any apparatus specially designed or any group of utensils specially adopted for the manufacture of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance; or

(d) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or any residue left of the materials from which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance has been manufactured, for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily]”

Both the above sections reproduced above of the NDPS Act deal with the presumption which goes against the accused in this case and as per the section 35 of the NDPS Act there is 10 of 12 Dated: 30-09-2022

CC. No. 3735/2021

Cr. No. 537/2021 presumption of culpable mental state of the accused established by the prosecution in this case where the accused had this intention to commit this offence of selling the contraband to the people for the purpose of earning more money and he has knowledge and the motive to commit this particular crime and the culpable mental state has been established by the prosecution through the evidence adduced by them and even as per section 54 of the NDPS

Act the presumption from possession of illicit articles is also been established by the prosecution i.e., the accused fails to account satisfactorily against the presumption that as to the possession of the contraband and he fails to account as to why he was in possession of the contraband and he could not establish any kind of defence in his favour as to why he was in possession of dry Ganja. Therefore the presumption is against him and both the sections i.e., section 35 and section 54 of the NDPS Act gives rise to the presumption that the accused has committed the alleged offence under the Act and it places reverse burden of proof upon the accused found to be in possession of the contraband for which he fails to account for satisfactorily. Therefore with the evidence adduced by the prosecution it has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence that he has been in possession of the Ganja and he could not prove his innocence and he is guilty for the offence under section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act.

25.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 20(b)

(ii)(A) of NDPS Act and accordingly he is convicted U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C. MO1 i.e., 750 grams of Ganja divided into some small sachets along with loose ganja in a pocket shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 30th day of September, 2022.

X ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

26.I have heard the accused on quantum of sentence and he pleaded mercy and that he is having small children. The prosecution did not produce 11 of 12 Dated: 30-09-2022

CC. No. 3735/2021

Cr. No. 537/2021 any evidence with regard to any previous involvement of the accused person in any other offences of similar nature. I have considered the family position of the accused.

27.Accordingly, the accused is convicted and sentenced the accused to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 01 YEAR and 09 DAYS for the offence u/sec.20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act. The remand period of One Year and Nine Days i.e., from 22-09-2021 to till date i.e., 30-09-2022 undergone by the accused shall be given set off U/sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

28.The accused is informed that he has got right to prefer an appeal and free copy of Judgment is furnished to him. He has stated that he has no means to engage an Advocate to prefer appeal.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 30th day of September, 2022.

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW1: Sri N. Sanjay Kumar: Complainant. -Nil- PW2: Sri M. Prakash: Eye witness. PW3: Sri B. Parasuram: Eye witness. PW4: Sri B. Hemanth Kumar: Panch witness. PW5: Sri P. Srikanth: Panch witness. PW6: Sri G. Naresh: Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Confession cum seizure panchanama.-Nil- Ex.P2: Complaint. Ex.P3: (Due to oversight the marking was missed) Ex.P4: (Due to oversight the marking was missed) Ex.P5: Scene observation panchanama cum rough sketch.

12 of 12 Dated: 30-09-2022

CC. No. 3735/2021

Cr. No. 537/2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P6: First Information Report. Ex.P7: Requisition to the Director FSL Hyderabad through ACP Gopalapuram Division to analyze the materials on 30-09-2021. Ex.P8: Forensic Science Laboratory Report.

M.Os MARKED

MO1: 750 grams of Ganja divided into some small sachets along with loose ganja in a pocket.

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

CC/100732/2017 Acquitted

Gopalpuram PS vs A-1 P. Rajesh

30 Jun 2023

1 of 10

Dated: 30-06-2023

CC. No. 732/2017

Cr. No. 153/2017

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Present : SMT. N. PRASANTHI

X ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this, the 30th Day of June, 2023

C.C No. 732 of 2017

Between: The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Gopalapuram Police Station, Secunderabad.…Complainant

And

A1: P. Rajesh, S/o. late Durga Charan, age: 43 years, occ: Poojari, r/o. H. No. 8-4-369/390, Banjara Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad.

A2: Y. Kashim Peera, S/o. Vannur, age: 23 years, occ: Salesman in role gold shop, r/o. Pathergatti, Hyderabad, n/o. H. No. 1-71, Komatiguntla, Chinthapudi, Prakasam District, A.P.

A3: Venkat Shiva Reddy, S/o. Venkatappa Reddy, age: 30 years, occ: Event Management, r/o. SRT 1093, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, n/o. Arandalpet, Guntur District, Cell No. 9160258807.

A4: G. Naveen, S/o. G. Manikyam, age: 32 years, occ: Milk Powder supply, r/o. Plot No.30, Allwyn colony, Second Phase, Kukatpally, Cell no. 9133336736 (associate of P. Rajesh).

A5: P. Susheel, S/o. P. Devaraj, age: 24 years, occ: Car driver, r/o. H. No. 8-2-773, Regimental Bazar, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

A6: Akula Uday, S/o. Satyanarayana, age: 34 years, occ: Pvt. Employee, r/o. 13-9-1-2/21, Sri Ganesh Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad.

A7: K. Hemambaradhara Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, age: 55 years, occ: Business, r/o 18/1/305, 1st floor, near Mahankali Mandir, Uppuguda, Hyderabad.

....Accused No.1 to 7

This case is coming before me on 22-06-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M. Shekara Chary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Syed Sabdar Hussain, the learned counsel for the accused no.1 to 7 and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E NT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopalapuram P.S., Secunderabad has filed charge 2 of 10

Dated: 30-06-2023

CC. No. 732/2017

Cr. No. 153/2017 sheet against the above named accused persons in Cr. No. 153/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 420 and 511 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.On 20-05-2017 at about 22:00 hours LW1/P. Chandra Shekar Reddy, lodged a report as follows: That he received credible information that the accused no.1 to 7 were planned to earn huge money easily by selling the banned foreign turkey currency notes with an intention to cheat interested people in Hyderabad by saying that the Turkey currency as genuine for a good price and share profits and as per their plan on 20-05-2017 the accused persons reached near Basera garden, S.D. Road, Secunderabad along with 200 notes of out dated currency and were discussing about how to cheat innocent people by luring them with

Turkey currency to gain money illegally from the innocent people and on believing the said information, he along with his staff and mediators proceeded to the spot and apprehended the accused persons and took them into custody. Later he recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused persons and seized MO1 to MO4 from the accused persons. Therefore, he requested to take necessary action in this regard.

2(ii)Basing on the above report given by LW1/P. Chandra Shekar Reddy, a case was registeredin Cr. No. 153/2017 for the offence punishable U/s. 420 and 511 r/w 34 of

IPC. During the course of investigation the accused persons were apprehended by police and on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.

opining that the accused persons have committed the offences punishable U/s 420 and 511 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.After taking cognizance for the offences punishable U/s 420 and 511 r/w 34 of

IPC against the accused persons, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused no.1 to 7 and charges for the offences punishable U/s 420 and 511 r/w 34 of IPC are framed against them, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO1 to MO4. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 to 7 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in prosecution evidence for which they denied and further, the 3 of 10

Dated: 30-06-2023

CC. No. 732/2017

Cr. No. 153/2017 accused no.1 to 7 reported no evidence in their support. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

4.Now the point for determination is Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused no.1 to 7 for the offences punishable U/s 420 and 511 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

5.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and

MO1 to MO4 in support of their evidence.

6.The defacto complainant is examined as PW1 and during his chief examination he deposed that on 20-05-2017 while he along with LW2 to LW5 are on patrolling duty in the meantime he received a credible information that some persons are in illegal possession of outdated turkey currency and trying to cheat the innocent people by exchanging into

Indian currency and cause financial loss to innocent public and believing the information is to be true he obtained the oral permission from his superior officials and he along with LW2 to LW5 and along with informant and proceeded to scene i.e., Hotel Basera S.D. Road,

Secunderabad and found five persons are moving suspiciously along with foreign currency.

PW1 further deposed his informant has identified them and he along with his staff apprehended this five suspected persons at 19:20 hours on 20-05-2017 and the accused about to confess their guilt he secured the presence of LW6-P. Nageshwar Rao and LW7-Umesh and in their presence he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 and from his possession he seized 70 turkey banned notes and also seized 70 turkey banned notes from A2 and seized 60 turkey banned notes from A3 and also seized five mobile phones from the possession of A1 to A5 i.e., one mobile from each of them and they admitted their guilt in selling the notes to the innocent persons. PW1 further deposed that he seized the above case property under the cover of panchanama as in Ex.P1 and MO1 is the five cell phones and

MO2 is the 70 Banned Turkey notes seized from the possession of A1 and MO3 is the 70

Banned Turkey notes seized from the possession of A2 and MO4 is the 60 Banned Turkey notes seized from the possession of A3 and that on completion of panchanama he along with 4 of 10

Dated: 30-06-2023

CC. No. 732/2017

Cr. No. 153/2017 seized property and the accused persons went to the Gopalapuram Police Station and lodged complaint under Ex.P2 and later he was examined by the police and his statement was recorded.

7.During his cross-examination PW1 admitted that he has not mentioned the exact place where he has done patrolling in his complaint and his statement and he has not filed the written permission obtained from his higher authorities in the court and he has not filed the GD entry in the court that he has been in duty on the date of incident. PW1 furtehr admitted that due to typographical mistake it was mentioned that A3 joined one Umesh is mentioned in the complaint and his statement and also charge sheet and he cannot say exactly how many persons were present at the scene of offence when he reached there. PW1 further admitted that he has not mentioned the total value of the seized Turkey banned notes in the panchanama. PW1 denied the suggestions that only to show that task force is working false complaint has been registered against the accused persons and also denied that no panchanama has been conducted by him in the presence of panchas and no banned notes have been seized from the possession of the accused persons and also denied that only to get way Umesh who is the real offender in this case a false complaint has been registered against these accused persons.

8.The Police Constable who assisted the defacto complainant I.e, PW1 is examined as PW2 and during his chief examination he deposed that on 20-05-2017 while he along with PW1 and LW2 and LW4 and LW5 were on patrolling duty in the meantime PW1 received a credible information that some persons are in illegal possession of outdated turkey currency and trying to cheat the innocent people by exchanging into Indian currency and cause into financial loss to innocent public and believing the information is to be true

PW1 obtained the oral permission from his superior officials and he along with PW1, LW2,

LW4 and LW5 and along with informant and proceeded to scene i.e., Hotel Basera, S.D.

Road, Secunderabad and found five persons are moving suspiciously along with foreign currency and later his informant has identified accused persons and PW1 along with them apprehended these accused persons and when the accused persons were about to confess 5 of 10

Dated: 30-06-2023

CC. No. 732/2017

Cr. No. 153/2017 their guilt PW1 secured the presence of panchas i.e., LW6-P. Nageshwar Rao and LW7-

Umesh and in their presence he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 and from his possession PW1 seized 70 turkey banned notes and PW1 seized 70 turkey banned notes from A2 and also seized 60 turkey banned notes from A3 and also seized five mobile phones from the possession of A1 to A5 i.e., one mobile from each of them and they admitted their guilt as to selling the notes to the innocent persons. PW2 further deposed that

PW1 have seized the above case property under the cover of panchanama and seized five cell phones and 70 Banned Turkey notes seized from the possession of A1 and 70 Banned

Turkey notes seized from the possession of A2 and 60 Banned Turkey notes seized from the possession of A3 and on completion of panchanama lodged the report against the accused by

PW1 and later PW2 was examined by the police and his statement was recorded.

9.During his cross-examination PW2 admitted that he do not know which day of the week was it and on 20-05-2017 and himself and PW1 were doing patrolling at

Secunderabad Railway Station and their task force office is at distance of one kilometer from

Railway station and including him there were five members in their team and there were nearly 15 to 20 persons at the scene of offence and the person by name Umesh was not present at the scene of offence. PW2 denied the suggestion that he has mentioned in his 161 statement that one Umesh was present at the scene of offence. PW2 admitted that he has mentioned in his statement that PW1 has seized 70 Turkey notes. PW2 denied the suggestion that on 20-05-2017 none of them were on duty and they did not conduct any raid and they did not seize any notes and no property was produced before the court and further denied that he do not know anything about the case and he is deposing false at the instance of higher officials. PW2 further stated that the value of one turkey note is Rs.5 lakhs.

10.The confession panch is examined as PW3 and during his chief examination he deposed that he knows another confession panch i.e., LW7-Umesh and on 20-05-2017 at 1930 hours when he went to Police Gopalapuram on his personal work there the concerned police obtained his signatures on some blank papers and he has not enquired with the accused at any point of time and nothing was admitted by the accused persons in front of 6 of 10

Dated: 30-06-2023

CC. No. 732/2017

Cr. No. 153/2017 him no case property seized from the possession of the accused and Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 are the portion of signature on confession cum seizure panchanama of accused no.1 to 5.

11.The Investigating Officer in this case is examined as PW4 and during his chief examination he stated that he knows LW8-A. Shankar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Gopalapuram and on 20-05-2017 at 2200 hours LW8 received a report from PW1 and basing on it LW8 registered a case in Crime No.153 of 2017 U/sec. 420, 511 r/w 34 of IPC and issued Ex.P6 FIR and handed over the CD file to him along with confession cum seizure panchanama seized property along with the accused and during the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 and LW2-Amar Kishore and

LW4-V. Srinivas and LW5-MD. Mazaruddin and after following the due procedure he issued section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

12.During his cross-examination PW4 admitted that the name of one Umesh is mentioned in the complaint and also admitted that they have not shown the said Umesh as accused in the charge sheet and further admitted that he has not conducted any enquiry as to the whereabouts of the said Umesh and no summons were sent to him. PW4 also admitted that PW1 has conducted the confession cum seizure panchanama and also lodged the complaint and PW1 has handed over the seized property in a sealed cover to him along with the apprehended the accused persons and according to his knowledge the sealed cover consists of 200 Turkey outdated currency notes and he has sent the said Turkey currency notes to the consulate General Republic of Turkey, Jubili Hills, Hyderabad. PW4 further stated that he has sent the said currency notes in the sealed cover to the said consulate and he received the said currency notes from the Turkey consulate in the sealed cover only. PW4 admitted that he has not received any specific opinion from the consulate regarding the

Turkey notes in this case. PW4 denied the suggestion that he did not conduct proper investigation in this case and filed false charge sheet against the accused persons and implicated them in this case and he has not received any complaints against the accused persons for cheating.

7 of 10

Dated: 30-06-2023

CC. No. 732/2017

Cr. No. 153/2017

13.In the present case the evidence of LW2, LW4, LW5 and that of LW8 were given up by the APP as the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case and the evidence of LW7 has been closed on the report filed by the police that his whereabouts are not known.

14.The prosecution case in brief is that on 20-05-2017 the accused persons have attempted to cheat the public in general by circulating the expired Turkey currency notes near Secunderabad and they were found in possession of these 200 Turkey currency notes

Rs.5,00,000/- and hence, they were charged for the offences under section 420 and 511 r/w 34 of IPC. In order to prove that the accused persons have committed these alleged offences the prosecution could examine PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO1 to MO4.

15.In the present case the complainant is Task Force S.I. of Police who has received credible information from his informant that some persons are in illegal possession of this expired or outdated Turkey currency notes and they are trying to cheat the innocent people by exchanging them for Indian currency at Secunderabad and on receiving such credible information he has got the oral permission and accordingly he proceeded there and when the informant identified these persons who were moving suspiciously there at the scene he apprehended them with the help of his staff and in the presence of the panchas he has conducted the confession cum seizure panchanama and seized these expired Turkey currency notes under the cover of panchanama and also seized some cell phones from these accused persons. But in the cross-examination he made several admissions as to not mentioning the exact place where he was doing patrolling duty i.e., when he received the credible information and he has also not filed the written permission obtained from his higher authorities in the court and PW1 has not even filed the GD entry in the court that he has been on duty on the date of the incident and he even admitted that due to typographical mistake it was mentioned that this A3 joined one Umesh which was mentioned in the complaint and his statement and also charge sheet. But PW1 could not even tell how many persons were present at the scene of offence when he reached there and he did not even mention the total value of the seized Turkey currency i.e., the banned notes in the 8 of 10

Dated: 30-06-2023

CC. No. 732/2017

Cr. No. 153/2017 panchanama. So this shows that the panchanama that was being conducted i.e., confession cum seizure panchanama ie., being conducted by PW1 was not done as per the procedure because it has got some discrepancies and some mistakes in it and the same has been admitted by PW1 and PW2 is the Police Constable who accompanied in the alleged raid when these accused persons were caught while they were making an attempt to exchange the banned Turkey currency notes with Indian currency with the innocent public. But he also stated on the same lines as that of PW1 regarding the entire incident and how the raid took place. But in his cross-examination he also made certain admissions about not knowing which day of the week it was on it was the said incident took place and he stated that they were doing patrolling at Secunderabad Railway station and that their Task Force office is at the distance of 1 kilometer from the Railway station and that there five members in the team including him and that there were nearly 15 to 20 persons at the scene of offence. But the one person by name Umesh was not present at the scene of offence and according to PW2 the value of the one turkey note is Rs.5,00,000/-. But what is the value of the entire notes that have been seized is nowhere mentioned in the panchanama or in the charge sheet that has been filed by the Investigating Officer also in this case.

16.The confession panch who is the independent witness in this case in whose presence the accused persons are said to have confessed the guilt and in whose presence the banned Turkey notes and the phones were seized from the possession of the accused persons is examined as PW3. But he turned hostile and stated that no panchanama was conducted and no seizure was made and nothing was seized in his presence from the possession of the accused persons and nobody admitted their guilt. So with the evidence of PW3 the prosecution could not prove the alleged recovery and confession.

17.The Investigating Officer though explained as to the investigation conducted by him in his chief examination and in his cross-examination he admitted about that the name of one Umesh is mentioned in the complaint. But the said Umesh is not shown as the accused in the charge sheet and why he has not been shown as accused and why no enquiry has not been conducted about the whereabouts and why no summons were not sent is not 9 of 10

Dated: 30-06-2023

CC. No. 732/2017

Cr. No. 153/2017 being explained in the charge sheet and the same was admitted by the Investigating Officer himself i.e., PW4 in his cross-examination and PW4 admitted that the seized property is handed over to him in a sealed cover and according to his knowledge it consists of 200

Turkey outdated currency notes and he has sent them to the General Republic of Turkey,

Consulate Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad in a sealed cover and it came to him in a sealed cover.

But he did not receive any kind of specific opinion from the consulate regarding those

Turkey notes i.e., whether there are banned notes or expired notes and no kind of opinion being received by this Investigating Officer and he also admitted about not receiving any complaints against the accused persons for cheating. So the admissions of the Investigating

Officer also show that there is faulty investigation and also show that there is no specific opinion given by the Turkey consulate as to the validity of those notes whether they are expired or in existence i.e., valid because the main allegation against the accused persons is that they made an attempt to sell these banned notes to the innocent public and tried to cheat.

But that main allegation could not be proved by the prosecution through cogent and reliable evidence because there is no evidence on record to show that these notes are banned notes and even the total value of seized Turkey banned notes is also not mentioned in the panchanama which is also shows the lack of procedure i.e., being followed in conducting the panchanama and also in doing the seizure of the said notes and on the other hand the sole independent witness whose shown as the witness for the recovery and confession also turned hostile and stated against the prosecution version regarding the confession and recovery and with the testimony of the police officials who are the interested witnesses in this case because the Task Force S.I. of Police is the complainant and the police constable who assisted him is the another witness and other than them there are no other independent witnesses and they are no complaints against the accused persons for this alleged commission of cheating and making an attempt to sell these banned notes to the innocent public and so with these discrepancies in the prosecution evidence it cannot be said that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, a benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons and they are entitled for acquittal.

10 of 10 Dated: 30-06-2023

CC. No. 732/2017

Cr. No. 153/2017

18.In the result, the accused no.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.420 and 511 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 7 shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The case properties i.e., MO1 i.e., five mobile phones shall be given to its original owners and MO2 i.e., 70 banned turkey notes, MO3 i.e., 70 banned turkey notes, MO4 60 banned turkey notes shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 30th day of June, 2023.

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW1: Sri P. Chandrashekar Reddy: Complainant. -Nil- PW2: Sri K. Shekar: Police Constable. PW3: Sri P. Nageshwar Rao: Panch witness. PW4: Sri K. Ramakrishna: the then S.I. of Police/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Confession cum seizure panchanama.-Nil- Ex.P2: Complaint. Ex.P3: Portion of signature of PW3 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A5. Ex.P4: Portion of signature of PW3 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A5. Ex.P5: Portion of signature of PW3 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A5. Ex.P6: First Information Report.

M.Os MARKED

MO1: Five cell phones. MO2: 70 banned Turkey currency notes seized from the possession of A1. MO3: 70 banned Turkey currency notes seized from the possession of A2. MO4: 60 banned Turkey currency notes seized from the possession of A3.

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

CC/659/2022 Convicted

State Government of telangana of P.S.Gopalapuram vs Ashok Seetharam Balal

13 Oct 2022

1 of 10 Dated: 12-10-2022

CC. No. 659/2022

Cr. No. 118/2022

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Present : SMT. N. PRASANTHI

X ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this, the 13th Day of October, 2022

C.C. No. 659 of 2022

Between:- The State, represented by the Addl-Inspector of Police, Gopalapuram Police Station, Secunderabad.…Complainant

And

Ashok Seetharam Balal @ Patil, S/o. Seetharam Balal, age: 45 years, occ: Labour, c/o. Footpath, near Secunderabad Railway Station,

n/o. Mudhgal (V), Perbani (D), Maharashtra State. ....Accused

This case is coming before me on 10-10-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Shekara Chary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt. Annapurna, learned legal aid counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E NT

The Addl-Inspector of Police, Gopalapuram P.S., Secunderabad has filed charge sheet against the above named accused person in Cr. No.118/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC.

2.On 07-04-2022 at about 02:30 PM LW1/Smt. Seepa Shobha lodged a report as follows: That on 07-04-2022 at about 10:00 hours at Aruva basthi Kaman, St. Marry’s road,

Secunderabad when she was goint to St. Ann’s High School to pick up her daughter and when she reached the above said place by walk, in the meantime the accused came to her in opposite direction and tried to pull her gold chain weighing about 40 grams by scratching her below neck and chest, thereby she received scratches injury on her neck and the accused was fled away from the spot. Hence, she requested to take necessary action in this regard.

2(ii)Basing on the above report given by LW1/Smt. Seepa Shobha, a case was registeredin Cr. No. 118/2022 for the offence punishable U/s. 394 of IPC. During the course of investigation the accused person was apprehended by police and on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. opining that the accused person has committed the offence punishable U/s 394 of IPC.

2 of 10 Dated: 12-10-2022

CC. No. 659/2022

Cr. No. 118/2022

3.After taking cognizance for the offence punishable U/s 394 of IPC against the accused person, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused and a charge for the offence punishable U/s 394 of IPC is framed against him, read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in prosecution evidence for which he denied and further, the accused reported no evidence in his support. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

4.Now the point for determination is Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 394 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

5.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 in support of their evidence.

6.The defacto complainant is examined as PW1 and during her chief examination she stated that on 07-04-2022 at 09:55 AM she started from her residence to bring her child from school at St. Ann’s High School, Secunderabad and when she was on the way when she reached to Secunderabad D-Mart, in the meanwhile one person came from her opposite direction and tried to snatch her Gold chain on her neck and immediately she pushed him aside and escaped from the spot due to which she received scratches injuries on her neck and after committing this the accused fled away from the spot and the accused is the same person who is standing in the Court hall and in that regard she went to the Police

Station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint and later she was examined by the police and her statement was recorded.

7.During her cross-examination PW1 admitted that she do not have prior acquaintance with the accused and that she did not mention the descriptive particulars of the accused in her complaint and that she did not mention the clothes worn by the accused and other particulars in the complaint. PW1 denied the suggestion that the accused is not the 3 of 10 Dated: 12-10-2022

CC. No. 659/2022

Cr. No. 118/2022 person who attempted to snatch the gold chain from her neck and that she lodged a false complaint and that she is deposing false.

8.The scene panch is examined as PW2 and during his chief examination he stated that he knows LW3-Konda Ramu and in April 2022 around 04:30 PM the concerned police conducted scene observation panchanama and drawn rough sketch in his presence and

LW3 near D-Mart, Secunderabad with regard to robbery case and after completion of the panchanama police obtained their signatures on the panchanama i.e., Ex.P2 is the panchanama along with rough sketch.

9.PW2 during his cross-examination stated that PW1 is his friend and he admitted that he went to the Police Station at the request of family of PW1 and that he has not received any written summons from police to act as panch. PW2 denied the suggestion that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and that he is deposing false as PW1 is his relative.

10.The Doctor who treated PW1 is examined as PW3 and during his chief examination he staed that he received a requisition from P.S. Gopalapuram to treat one patient Shobha and accordingly he examined her and treated her and that the nature of injuries are simple in nature and the injuries are nails scratch marks on the chest and Ex.P3 is the Medical Certificate of PW1.

11.During his cross-examination PW3 deposed that the above injuries can be self inflicted also.

12.The confession panch is examined as PW4 and during his chief examination he stated that he knows another panch LW4-Sasikanth and that he can identify the accused who is standing in the Court hall and that in the month of April 2022 police Gopalapuram called him and LW4 and requested them to act as mediators and accordingly they acted as mediators and the accused on their enquiry confessed that he has attempted to snatch a gold chain at Gurudwara lane and accordingly the police have recorded his confession and their 4 of 10 Dated: 12-10-2022

CC. No. 659/2022

Cr. No. 118/2022 signatures were obtained and Ex.P4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama.

13.During his cross-examination PW4 stated that PW1 and PW2 reside in their basthi only. PW4 denied the suggestion that he acted as panch at the request of PW1 and

PW2. PW4 further stated that he has Kirana business and that he was not issued any written summons to act as panch and that the accused has confessed on the enquiry of the police and that he do not know the mother tongue of the accused. PW4 denied the suggestions that he goes to Police Station frequently and that he has given evidence earlier also at the request of the police and that the accused did not confess his guilt in his presence and that he is deposing false.

14.The Investigating Officer in this case is examined as PW5 and during his chief examination he stated that he can identify the signature of LW9-B. Saeshwar Goud,

Inspector of Police of P.S. Gopalapuram and on 07-04-2022 at 02:30 PM LW9 received a complaint from PW1 and basing on the contents of complaint LW9 registered a case in

Crime No. 118/2022 u/sec. 394 of IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P5 and later he received the

CD file from LW9 and he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at Police Station and thereafter he sent PW1 to Gandhi Hospital for treatment and later on the same day he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of the panchas PW2 and LW3-Ramu and conducted scene observation panchanama and drawn rough sketch in their presence and that on 08-04-2022 he received a credible information about the accused person and he deputed the PCs LW7-Ravi Kumar and LW8-Ismail and apprehended the accused and brought him to the Police Station. PW5 further stated that on thorough interrogation the accused confessed his guilt in this case and he conducted the confession panchanama of the accused in the presence of PW4 and LW4 and after completion of the confession statement on the same day he issued arrest memo and sent the accused to judicial remand. PW5 further stated that on 21-04-2022 he has received the MC of PW1 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet U/sec. 394 of IPC and due to oversight he did not mention section 511 of IPC.

15.During his cross-examination PW5 admitted that there is frequent patrolling at 5 of 10 Dated: 12-10-2022

CC. No. 659/2022

Cr. No. 118/2022 St. Marry’s School road and he has not received any complaint from the mobile patrolling van and it is true that PW1 did not mention the descriptive particulars of the offender in her complaint. PW5 denied the suggestion that due to prior acquaintance with the complainant he has registered a false complaint against the accused. PW5 further admitted that he did not issue written summons to PW2 and LW3 and he added that he secured their presence on the spot as panchas. PW5 further admitted that he has not issued written summons to LW4 and

PW4 and that no property was recovered. PW5 further admitted that he has not secured any independent witnesses from D-Mart. PW5 denied the suggestion that PW2 and LW3 are the interested witnesses of PW1 and that the accused did not confess his guilt in the presence of panchas and no panchanama was conducted and he further denied the suggestion that no alleged incident took place and no injury was sustained by PW1 and that without investigating the case properly he filed a false charge sheet and that the accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence.

16.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW3 and

LW4 and the evidence of LW7 to LW9 has been closed as PW5 deposed on their behalf.

17.The prosecution story is that as per the complaint the alleged attempt to commit robbery occurred on 07-04-2022 at 10:00 hours while the accused tried to rob LW1’s gold chain on neck by scratching her below her neck and chest and accordingly he is charged to have committed an offence under section 394 of IPC.

18.In order to prove that the accused has committed the alleged offence under section 394 of IPC the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

19.In the present case the prosecution has examined five witnesses and marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The defacto complainant who was examined as PW1 has identified the accused in the Court and stated that he was the person who tried to snatch the gold chain from her neck and in the process he has caused this scratch injury to her and in her cross- examination she also admitted that she does not have prior acquaintance with the accused and that she did not mention the descriptive particulars of the accused in her complaint and 6 of 10 Dated: 12-10-2022

CC. No. 659/2022

Cr. No. 118/2022 also not mentioned the clothes worn by the accused and other particulars in the complaint and another witness is the scene panch i.e., PW2 who also stated about the scene panchanama being conducted and rough sketch drawn at the scene i.e., the D-Mart,

Secunderabad with regard to a robbery case in his presence and in the presence of another panch i.e., LW3-K. Ram and in his cross-examination though he stated that PW1 is his friend and that he went to the Police Station at the request of family of PW1 that does not affect the evidentiary value of PW2 because the evidence of PW2 only establishes as to the conducting of the scene of offence panchanama and the rough sketch being drawn at the scene. Another witness examined by the prosecution is a Doctor i.e., PW3 who stated about examining PW1 who has received the injury i.e., nail scratch marks on her chest and he stated that the said injury was simple in nature and he has issued Ex.P3 MC of PW1 and he opined that those injuries can be self inflicted also.

20.PW4 is the confession panch who stated that the accused has confessed about his attempt to snatch the gold chain at Gurudwara lane in his presence and in the presence of another panch i.e., LW4-Sasikanth. Though PW4 stated that the accused has confessed on the enquiry of the police that does not effect evidentiary value of PW4 because the accused has admitted his guilt in the presence of PW4 and in the presence of another panch and his evidence can be considered as to the confession of the accused regarding commission of the alleged offence. The another witness examined by the prosecution is the Investigating

Officer in this case who explained in detailed as to the investigation conducted by him in this case in his chief examination and there were certain admissions in his cross-examination about not receiving any complaint from the mobile patrolling van and PW1 not giving the descriptive particulars of the offender in her complaint and he not issuing the written summons to the scene panchas but later he stated he secured their presence on the spot and hence written summons are not required to be issued to the panchas who are secured on the spot and though these written summons were not issued to PW4 and LW4 i.e. only a technicality and that does not affect the panchanama conducted by PW5 and another admission of PW5 that no property was recovered is also does not affect the prosecution 7 of 10 Dated: 12-10-2022

CC. No. 659/2022

Cr. No. 118/2022 case because the case of the prosecution is only the attempt made by the accused to commit robbery. So the accused has admitted before PW4 and LW4 i.e., confession panchas that he has made an attempt to snatch a gold chain at the scene of offence. So the admissions of

PW5 does not affect the prosecution case.

21.The counsel for the accused while submitting his arguments has raised a point that the complainant has not given the descriptive particulars of the accused in her complaint and that she identified the accused for the first time in the Court and in order to support his argument he has relied on certain decisions. On such decision is Mohanlal Gangaram

Gehani vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1982 839 in which it was observed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India that “when the appellant was not known to the witness before the incident and was identified for the first time in the Court in the absence of Test Identification

Parade the evidence of PW3 was valueless and could not be relied upon.” It was also further observed in the said decision by quoting the decision in V.C. Shukla vs. State (Delhi

Administration) where it was held that “Moreover, the identification of Tripathi by the witness for the first time in the Court without being tested by a prior test identification parade was valueless”. Another decision relied upon by the accused counsel is Mohd.

Abdul Hafeez vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1983 SC 367 in which the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India has also discussed as to the identification of the accused for the first time in the Court and it was opined that the test identification parade should have been held and no such identification parade was held and the victim came to give evidence in the Court and it was recorded after lapse of more than four months during which period it is not possible to believe that the victim had no occasion to see the accused. Such identification in the circumstances of the case would hardly furnish evidence against the present appellant.

The accused counsel has also relied on another decision Kedar Singh and Ors. vs. State of

Bihar 1999 Cri LJ 601. But in the said decision no opinion was held by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in favour of the accused counsel regarding the identification parade or identification of the accused for the first time in the Court and it is not relevant to the point raised by the accused counsel. Hence, the accused counsel has relied on these decisions 8 of 10 Dated: 12-10-2022

CC. No. 659/2022

Cr. No. 118/2022 in support of the case. On the other hand the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has also filed certain decisions and argued that the failure to hold Test Identification Parade is also not fatal to the prosecution case. The decisions relied upon by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor are Malkan Singh and Ors. vs. State of M.P. AIR 2003 SC 2669 in which it was observed that the mere failure to hold test identification parade would not vitiate the evidence of identification in the Court. Another decision is Harpal Singh @ Chhota vs.

State of Punjab 2016 SC 915 crimes in which it was observed that minor inconsistencies in evidence cannot render prosecution case untrustworthy and discardable. Omission to hold the test identification parade is not fatal. Another decision is Ravi Kapur vs. State of

Rajasthan 2012(3) SCC 1107 in which it was observed that identification in Court is a good identification in the eye of law and need not always be presided by the test identification parade. Hence, there are two sets of decisions delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India where it was observed that test identification parade has to be conducted and on the other hand it was also stated that non-holding of test identification parade is not mandatory and by not holding the test identification parade the evidence of the complainant or the witness cannot be thrown aside because he or she identified the accused for the first time in the Court. Hence, in the light of the above decisions submitted by the Assistant Public

Prosecutor this Court is of the opinion that the identification of PW1 of the accused can be considered and she has identified the accused in the Court to be the person who has attempted to snatch her gold chain and failed in the said attempt. Hence, that point has been proved by the prosecution.

22.Another point raised by the accused counsel is that PW2 is an interested witness because he stated that PW1 is his friend and at the request of the family of PW1 he came to the scene. But the evidence of PW2 who is a scene panch only establishes the fact that offence has been committed and other than that it does not establish any other fact that whether an offence has been committed or not. So that does not affect the prosecution case.

One more point is that the accused counsel stated that the admission of the Doctor that the scratch injuries which were caused to PW1 can be self inflicted also. But that is only a 9 of 10 Dated: 12-10-2022

CC. No. 659/2022

Cr. No. 118/2022 possibility which was stated by the Doctor. But that does not prove that these injuries are self inflicted by PW1. Because in the process of the accused attempting to snatch the gold chain from PW1 the said injuries were caused. So even that point raised by the accused counsel is also answered. Hence, in the present case the prosecution with the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and with the documents produced i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 has proved that the accused has attempted to commit robbery and in the process of attempting to commit robbery he has caused the hurt and the hurt which was caused voluntarily and hence, he is liable to be punished for the said offence.

23.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 394 of

IPC and accordingly he is convicted U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C. There is no case property deposited in this case.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 13th day of October, 2022.

X ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

24.I have heard the accused on quantum of sentence and he pleaded mercy and that he is having two small children and his family depending upon him and also he will take take care of his old aged mother. The prosecution did not produce any evidence with regard to any previous involvement of the accused person in any other offences of similar nature. I have considered the family position of the accused.

25.Accordingly, the accused is convicted and sentenced the accused to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 01 YEAR for the offence u/sec.394 of IPC. The remand period of 06 MONTHS and 09 Days i.e., from 08-04-2022 to till date i.e., 13-10-2022 (total 189 days) undergone by the accused shall be given set off U/sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

10 of 10 Dated: 12-10-2022

CC. No. 659/2022

Cr. No. 118/2022

26.The accused is informed that he has got right to prefer an appeal and free copy of Judgment is furnished to him. He has stated that he has no means to engage an Advocate to prefer appeal.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 13th day of October, 2022.

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW1: Smt. S. Shobha: Complainant/victim. -Nil- PW2: Sri Sampath: Panch witness. PW3: Sri Dr. P. Kiran Kumar: Doctor. PW4: Sri P. Santosh Kumar: Panch witness. PW5: Sri B. Kotaiah: Addl-Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Complaint.-Nil- Ex.P2: Panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P3: Medical Certificate of PW1. Ex.P4: Confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P5: First Information Report .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

M.Os MARKED

-Nil-

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

Order Record 629 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/2625/2024	PS.Domalguda vs Dasari shyam narsing Dasari	21 Apr 2025	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/100376/2016	P.S.Gopalpuram vs Vssyed azeemuddin	21 Apr 2025	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/2632/2024	State Government of telangana vs Srinivas K.	17 Apr 2025	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/2868/2024	Chilkalguda vs A1 K. Srinivas	17 Apr 2025	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/2869/2024	Chilkalguda vs A1 K. Srinivas	17 Apr 2025	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/2914/2024	Chilkalguda vs A-1 K. Srinivas	17 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/100485/2018	P.S Gandhinagar vs B.Abhilash	17 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/344/2023	PS.Chilkalguda vs Avula Uday Prakash Rao	16 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/2266/2024	P.S.Marredpally vs Sohail Khan @ Saif Khan .	16 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/100717/2016	P.S Chilkalguda vs Sharoof khan	16 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/101029/2015	PS. Marredpally vs A-1 G.Mohan Alias Anurag Kumar	16 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/100909/2017	Chilkalguda vs Srinivas Mudragadda	11 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/100961/2017	Gopalpuram PS vs Mariya Bambina	11 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/1540/2023	PS.Marredpally vs Sri. Suresh Naveen	09 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/101218/2016	P.S. Marredpally vs Pujari Durga prasad @ Durgi	09 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
PRC/7/2025	Marredpally PS vs Budidha China Chennaiah or Budidha Chinna Yadav	09 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/101214/2015	P.S.Gopalpuram vs K.Madhu	08 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
PRC/8/2025	Chilkalguda vs Keshava Raju Kambalapalli	08 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/2012/2022	State Government of telangana of P.S.Chilkalguda vs Vedati Ramakrishna	03 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/2702/2021	State Government of telangana Gandhinagar vs Harishwar reddy	02 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/101063/2017	P.S Marredpally vs M.R Anthony Joseph @ Anthony @Jijju	01 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
PRC/27/2025	P.S Marredpally vs M.Shivaji	01 Apr 2025	Order	—
PRC/25/2025	Gandhinagar vs A-1 Murrey Srinivas S/o. Late Kamaraju	28 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/100983/2016	P.S.Marredpally vs D. Sai Venkat RAmana	27 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/341/2022	State Government of telangana of P.S.Gandhinagar vs Hemanth Kumar	26 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/100405/2017	Gandhinagar vs A-1 Shaik Jaffar	26 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
PRC/15/2025	State Government of telangana of P.S.Domalguda vs Nethula Suresh	26 Mar 2025	Order	—
PRC/24/2025	Gandhinagar vs Challa Nithin S/o. Ch.Niranjan	26 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/100425/2016	PS. Marredpally vs Ashritha Marata	24 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/100711/2016	P.S Chilkalguda vs A1. Mohd Younus and others	20 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/251/2022	State Government of telangana of P.S.Gandhinagar vs VadakattuRaghavender	18 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/100551/2017	Gandhinagar vs A-1 Smt. G. Yellamma	13 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
PRC/16/2025	State Government of telangana of P.S.Domalguda vs Mohammed Faheemuddin Alias faheem S/o. Late Mohd Ziauddin	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
PRC/17/2025	Chilkalguda vs A-1 Pakala Lokesh	11 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/100638/2016	P.s Gandhinagar vs B. Shankar Rao	07 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
PRC/112/2024	P.S.Gopalapuram vs Mohd Riyaz	05 Mar 2025	Order	—
PRC/1/2025	Chilkalguda vs A-1 Syed Akram	04 Mar 2025	Order	—
PRC/14/2025	State Government of telangana of P.S.warasiguda vs Arra Balram	03 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/100507/2018	P.S Gandhinagar vs M.Naveen	25 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
CC/100567/2016	P.S Gopalpuram vs Y.Shankar Rao and 14 others	21 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
CC/3345/2021	State Government of telangana Gandhinagar vs Smt Bitla Renuka	17 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
CC/2144/2021	State Government of telangana Gandhinagar vs Kandula Charles	03 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
PRC/122/2024	Chilkalguda vs Nikhil Francis	03 Feb 2025	Order	—
CC/2167/2021	State Government of telangana P.S Gopalapuram vs K R Vinod babu	31 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
CC/100130/2018	Gandhinagar vs A-1 Syed Abdul Haji Azeem Mehdi @ Zingada	30 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
CC/100545/2017	Marredpally PS vs A-1 Deeka Sai Kumar @ Methar Sai	28 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
PRC/133/2024	Chilkalguda vs A-1 Kandukuri Jeevan Kumar	27 Jan 2025	Order	—
PRC/134/2024	Chilkalguda vs Rudra Sai Prasad alias Sai	27 Jan 2025	Order	—
CC/100006/2018	Gopalpuram PS vs A-4 N.T. Devi Kumar@ Chitti	23 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
CC/1334/2024	P.S.Marredpally vs Bidhur Mahato	22 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
CC/1340/2024	P.S.Marredpally vs Bidhur Mahato	22 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
CC/2215/2023	PS.Warasiguda vs Srinivas Bumpalli	20 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
CC/719/2019	P.s.Gandhinagar vs A1). K.Lakshmi Pathi	10 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
PRC/130/2024	Gopalpuram PS vs Methku Raghuveer	10 Jan 2025	Order	—
PRC/137/2024	Gandhinagar vs A-1 Mohammed Yaqoob Ali	10 Jan 2025	Order	—
PRC/142/2024	Chilkalguda vs A1 K. Naveen Kumar	10 Jan 2025	Order	—
PRC/147/2024	Gopalpuram PS vs A-1 Bigilolu Hazira Begum	10 Jan 2025	Order	—
PRC/148/2024	Gandhinagar vs Kodali Bharath	10 Jan 2025	Order	—
PRC/27/2024	PS.Marredpally vs Sandeep Bahadur	08 Jan 2025	Order	—
PRC/47/2024	PS.Marredpally vs Sandeep Bahadur .	08 Jan 2025	Order	—
PRC/132/2024	State Government of telangana of Warasiguda vs Mende Ramesh	03 Jan 2025	Order	—
PRC/56/2024	PS.Gopalapuram vs Jhonson @ Kongti Johnson Kante	02 Jan 2025	Order	—
PRC/128/2024	Gopalpuram PS vs Ganesh Rajesh	02 Jan 2025	Order	—
PRC/141/2024	Chilkalguda vs A. Venkatesh	02 Jan 2025	Order	—
CC/100489/2018	P.S Chilakalguda vs Gajjala Prabhakar	31 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
PRC/127/2024	Chilkalguda vs A Ram Vikas Panchadi	30 Dec 2024	Order	—
PRC/118/2024	Chilkalguda vs Karunaker Dandempally	27 Dec 2024	Order	—
PRC/119/2024	Gandhinagar vs Arrolu Raj Gopal	27 Dec 2024	Order	—
PRC/136/2024	State Government of telangana of Warasiguda vs Beerakutlu alias Berukuti Balakrishna	27 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/100629/2017	Gandhinagar vs N. Babu Rao	26 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
CC/100891/2017	Gopalpuram PS vs A-1 Sanik Sai Kumar	26 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
CC/100605/2017	Marredpally PS vs A-1 A. Shanker	23 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
PRC/123/2024	Chilkalguda vs Tirupathi Jillela	23 Dec 2024	Order	—
PRC/38/2023	PS.Gandhinagar vs Masud Khan	13 Dec 2024	Order	—
PRC/97/2024	PS.Domalguda vs Venkatesh Mudiraj Pedathala	13 Dec 2024	Order	—
PRC/117/2024	Gopalpuram PS vs Chandra shekar Singidi	13 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/100040/2017	P.S, Marredpally vs Jetty Uma Maheshwar Rao	12 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
CC/100344/2015	P.S. Chilkalguda vs Mohd Saleem	11 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
CC/2731/2019	State Government of telangana P.S Chilkalguda vs Pagolu Solomon	09 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
PRC/113/2024	PS.Chilkalguda vs Rahul Sanku	09 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/100481/2016	PS. Marredpally vs K. Srikanth	06 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
PRC/131/2024	State Government of telangana vs Nunemunthala Sanjay Goud	06 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/100276/2016	P.S Marredpally vs S.Jangaiah	05 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
CC/1049/2024	PS.Gopalapuram vs Maheswari Jyothi Kumari M	03 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
CC/901/2024	PS.Marredpally vs Sadula. Rajashekar .	02 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
PRC/114/2024	PS.Chilkalguda vs Sagar Vanga	02 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/533/2020	State Government of telangana P.S Chilkalguda vs A.Rakesh Kumar	26 Nov 2024	Judgment	—
PRC/88/2024	PS.Marredpally vs Alluri Dileep Raj @ Fanta .	19 Nov 2024	Order	—
PRC/58/2024	PS.Chilkalguda vs Teenmar Mallana	18 Nov 2024	Order	—
PRC/110/2024	PS.Chilkalguda vs Thirupathi Jillela	18 Nov 2024	Order	—
PRC/85/2024	PS.Chilkalguda vs Faizan Mohammed	14 Nov 2024	Order	—
CC/832/2024	PS.Gandhinagar vs Titus Paul	11 Nov 2024	Judgment	—
CC/1582/2024	P.S.Warasiguda vs Jamma Mahesh	08 Nov 2024	Judgment	—
CC/2226/2023	PS.Chilkalguda vs Majeed khan @ Babar Abdul	08 Nov 2024	Judgment	—
PRC/72/2024	P.S.Gopalapuram vs Santosh Kumar Salike	05 Nov 2024	Order	—
PRC/80/2024	PS.Gopalapuram vs Shyamsun Mamidi	04 Nov 2024	Order	—
PRC/106/2024	PS.Warasiguda vs Sai Kumar Edla	04 Nov 2024	Order	—
CC/100272/2018	Gandhinagar vs Mariel Gabriel	29 Oct 2024	Judgment	—
CC/100470/2018	P.S Gopalapuram vs Orsu Narasimha	28 Oct 2024	Judgment	—
CC/1587/2024	PS.Gandhinagar vs Neha Sethia	23 Oct 2024	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 629 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2025		22
Mar 2025		16
Feb 2025		5
Jan 2025		21
Dec 2024		22
Nov 2024		13
Oct 2024		17
Sep 2024		17
Aug 2024		19
Jul 2024		36
Jun 2024		42
May 2024		14

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt N Prasanthi handled?

Smt N Prasanthi has handled 634 court orders since 2022 at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 17 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt N Prasanthi hear?

Based on available records, Smt N Prasanthi primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt N Prasanthi currently posted?

Smt N Prasanthi is posted as X Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt N Prasanthi available online?

Yes. 21 judgments by Smt N Prasanthi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt N Prasanthi dispose cases?

Smt N Prasanthi disposes approximately 17 cases per month, based on 634 orders handled over their tenure at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt N Prasanthi serving?

Smt N Prasanthi has been serving at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex since 2022.

Case Types

CC 74%

PRC 26%

Posting History

Sep 2024 — Apr 2025

X Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate · 124 orders
Jul 2023 — Sep 2024

X Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate · 273 orders
Oct 2022 — Jul 2023

X Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate · 149 orders
Jun 2022 — Aug 2022

XI Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate · 1 orders
Mar 2022 — Oct 2022

X Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate · 87 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 19

Convicted 2

Other Judges at this Court

Sri Ch.Chandra Kishore

I Addl Chief Judge

0 orders

Sri. K.suri Krishna

XXVII Addl Chief Judge Court Secunderabad

130 orders

Smt. Shoukath Jahan Siddique

XII Addl. Chief Judge

1,330 orders

MS.N.Saswatha

Prl. Rent Controller

34 orders

Sri. R. Rajkumar

III Senior Civil Judge

136 orders

SMT. DR.M.Shyam Sree

PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT

0 orders

Smt.T.Madhavi

X Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

1 orders

Smt. P. Padmavathi

XI Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

173 orders

Smt. P. Shirisha

XIV Additional Judge cum XVIII Addl Chief Metropo...

377 orders

Smt. M. Aruna

XV Additional Judge cum XIX Addl Chief Metropolita...

275 orders

Sri. J. Upender Rao

XVI Additional Judge cum XX Addl Chief Metropolita...

197 orders

Sri.v.sanketh Mithra

XXII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

361 orders

Sri G Venu

VI Addl Metropolitan Session Judge

145 orders

Smt. B Priyanka

I Junior Civil Judge

407 orders

Ms. Shirisha Katkojwala

XI Junior Civil Judge

0 orders

← View all judges at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex