Smt.N .Reddy Prasanna

1 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:SMT.N.REDDY PRASANNA

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

(FAC) PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 11 th DAY OF MARCH, 2025.

C.C.No.2107/2020

Between: Addepalli Srinivas, S/o.Venkata Ratnam, A/39 years, Business, R/o.D.No.17-8-7/1, Seethampeta, Rajamahendravaram.

….. Complainant

And

Mir Anwar Ali Khan, S/o. Idris Ali Khan, A/54 years, Business, R/o.D.No.74-3-8/1, Flat No.D3, Srinivas Enclave, Prakash Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

…… Accused

This calendar case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 03.03.2025 in the presence of Sri. M.V.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri S.M.Mohiddin, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The complainant filed complaint against the accused for the offence under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

2. The case of the complainant in precise is as follows:

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- (Rupees Five

Lakhs Ninety thousand only) from the complainant on 27.02.2020 for the purpose of family expenses and business development as a hand loan and accused agreeing to repay the same with interest at rate of

Rs.1.50ps per month per hundred within four months. The transaction took place at the complainants residence. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant on 05.07.2020, the accused approached the complainant at his residence and agreed to pay the principal amount through a cheque and issued a cheque bearing no.317330, dt.06.07.2020 for an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- drawn on 2 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

State Bank of India, Main Road Branch, Fruit Market,

Rajamahendravaram to the complainant towards part payment of the aforesaid debt. The accused made belief to the complainant that he has sufficient funds in his account and on presentation of the said cheque it will be honored. Believing words and representations of accused, the complainant presented the cheque bearing no.317330, dt.06.07.2020

before his bank and inturn the bank send the cheque to the accused for

collection. The accused bankers returned the said cheque by a memo dt.07.07.2020 for the reason of FUNDS INSUFFICIENT to complainant’s bankers. Then, the complainant got registered a legal notice on 18.07.2020 demanded the accused to pay the cheque amount of

Rs.9,50,000/- within 15 days of receipt of notice and the same was received by the accused and send reply to the notice with false and untenable averments and allegations. Therefore, the accused will be prosecuted in the court of law for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Sec.420 of IPC and the complainant waited for the statutory period of 15 days time from the legal notice dt.18.07.2020 and as there was no other alternative the complainant approached this court. The cheque issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of the legally enforceable debt is unpaid.

Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment U/s.138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881.

3. The above complaint was taken cognizance by the Court for the Offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

4. Copies of documents are furnished to the accused U/s 207

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5. The accused was examined u/Sec.251 of Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973. The substance of accusation for the offence u/Sec.138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is explained in Telugu. For which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for the trial.

6. During the course of trial, the complainant examined PW1.

Also examined PW2 and PW3 and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. The 3 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 he denied the complainant side evidence and reported defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8.POINT:

Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant has proved his case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

9.The complainant’s specific case is that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety thousand only) from the complainant on 27.02.2020 as a hand loan. But the accused did not repay the amounts. Subsequently, after repeated request made by the complainant and accused had issued a cheque bearing no.317330, dt.06.07.2020 for an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- drawn on

State Bank of India, Main Road Branch, Fruit Market,

Rajamahendravaram to the complainant towards part payment of the aforesaid debt. The complainant presented the cheque bearing no.317330 for collection before his bank i.e. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank

Limited, Rajamahendravaram branch. But the said cheque was returned with an endorsement that “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” under Ex.P2 Return

Memo dt.07.07.2020. Therefore, on 18-07-2020, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused, informing him about the dishonor of the cheque issued by him and requested to make the payment amount covered thereby. The accused gave reply notice with a false allegations.

The accused did not make payments within stipulated period i.e., 15 days from the date of receiving legal notice. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

10.To attract the offence u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act, 1881, the following conditions shall be satisfied.

1. Accused had issued a cheque to the complainant to discharge any debt or other liability.

4 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

2. The cheque issued by the accused bounced due to insufficiency of fund or because it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid.

3. Such cheque was presented within a period of three months from the date of its issue (From the date on which it was drawn) or within the period of its validity.

4. The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information relating to bouncing of the cheque.

5. The drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice; and

6. A complaint in writing is made by the payee or the holder in due course within one month of the date on which period of 15 days, as provided in clause (c) of Section 138 expires.

11. In order to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, the complainant has to establish the above said ingredients. Now it has to be seen that the complainant has placed sufficient material to prove his case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

12.The learned counsel for the complainant filed written arguments and submitted that the complainant lend an amount of

Rs.5,90,000/- to the accused as hand loan and inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant, the accsused issued Ex.P1 cheque and it was returned with an endorsement “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. The complainant issued legal notice and the accused received the same but he did not repay the due amounts.

13.Further to support the complainants case, he relied upon a decision between Rangappa VS. Srimohan, May, 2020 it was held that, the accused had admitted the signatures on the impugned cheque was indeed his own. Once this fact has been acknowledged, Sec.138 of Act 5 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

mandates a presumption that the cheque pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability.

14.Further, it is submitted that the complainant proved all the ingredients to attract the offence u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act, 1881. Hence prays the court to convict the accused.

15.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments and submitted that to attract the offence u/Sec.138 of Act, 1881, the complainant has to prove the legally enforceable debt and liability between the complainant and the accused and the accused had issued a cheque with regard to the legal enforceable debt and also the complainant’s financial capacity.

16.Further, it is submitted that the complainant is white ration card holder and it indicates that he belongs to Below Poverty Line category. Further, he failed to produce Income Tax Returns or financial records which reflects the known transaction. It cast serious doubt on the complainant’s financial capacity. To support the case of the accused, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon the decision between Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa [(2019) 5 SCC 418], where the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, if the financial capacity of the

complainant is in doubt, the accused can rebut the presumption under

Section 139 of N.I.Act.

17. Also in John K.Abraham Vs. Simon C.Abraham [(2014) 2

SCC 236], where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that failure to produce independent documentary evidence to prove a loan weakens the case of the complainant.

18.Further, it is submitted that PW.1 stated that PW.2 was present when the cheque was issued, but PW.2 denied witnessing the issuance of the cheque. PW.3 initially claimed that the cheque was issued at the complainant’s residence but later changed his statement, stating it was issued at the accused’s shop. To support the accused case, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon the decision between K.Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surendran [(2008) 1 SCC 258], where the 6 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

Supreme Court ruled that material contradictions in witness testimonies weaken the prosecution’s case and create a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.

19.Also, relied upon a decision, between M.S. Narayan Menon

VS. State of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 39], where the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that it if the accused can prove a probable defense, the burden shifts back to the complainant to establish the existence of legally enforceable debt. The accused herein successfully rebut the presumption u/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, prays the court to acquit the accused.

20.To prove the complainant’s case, he examined as PW1. PW1 reiterated the averments of complaint in his chief examination. Even in the cross examination, he clearly deposed that at the request of the accused he lend an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- to the accused as a hand loan. The complainant also examined two third parties as PW.2 and

PW.3. PW2 and PW.3 also supported the complainants case and deposed that through PW.1 they came to know that he lend a hand loan of

Rs.5,90,000/- to the accused and subsequently, the accused issued cheque to discharge hand loan amount. However, the cheque was dishonored. Further, to prove the complainants case, he produced Ex’s

P1 to P7.

21.The accused herein took serious objection regarding financial capacity of the complainant. The accused specific case is that the complainant is a white ration card holder and he has no capacity to lend such huge amount to him. On the other hand, the complainants case is that in the month of December, 2019 he sold away his property to third parties and out of the sale consideration amount, he lend debt amount to the accused.

22.Further, to prove the complainant’s case he produced Ex.P5 certified copy of registered sale deed, dt.07.12.2019, Ex.P6 Online copy of registration certificate issued in the name of Hema Sundar Vasavi

Addepalli and Ex.P7 statement of account of the complainant from 7 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

10.08.2019 to 09.08.2020. From recitals of Ex.P5 Sale Deed, it clearly shows that the complainant sold his property and received sale consideration of Rs.47,17,232/-. From the contents of Ex.P7 statement, it clearly shows that at the time of sale transaction, an amount of Rs.43,17,000/- deposited in the complainant’s account.

Further, it clearly shows that on 25.02.2020 and 27.02.2020 the complainant withdrawn amounts of Rs.2,90,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively from his account. From the recitals of Ex.P5 Sale Deed and contents of Ex.P7 Bank Account Statement it clearly shows that on the date of lending debt amounts to the accused, amounts were available to the complainant. Further, the complainant also proved his financial capacity to lend debt amount. Therefore, the objection raised by the accused regarding financial capacity of the complainant is not maintainable.

23.Further the accused took another objection regarding legally enforceable debt and liability. In the present case, DW.1 in his cross examination clearly admitted that Ex.P1 cheque belongs to his account and the signature on Ex.P1 cheque belonged to him. From the cross examination of DW.1, it clearly shows that the accused himself admitted his signature on Ex.P1 cheque. Under these circumstances, the court shall draw a presumption u/Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 that the accused issued a cheque inorder to discharge a legally enforceable debt or liability.

24. Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 provides presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque. As per the section 139 of the Act, 1881 it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of the Act for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability. At this juncture it is relevant to refer the following decisions:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case Reported in 2001 (2) ALD (Crl) 234 (SC) held that “as per the Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It shall be presumed, unless contrary is proved that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability, and also held that Burden lies on the accused to prove that there is no subsisting 8 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

liability. But the proof must be sufficient enough to rebut the presumption and mere explanation is not sufficient.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in a case Greaves Limited,

Hyderabad Vs. Leo Electronics Organization, Hyderabad, and

others, in report 2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 977 (AP) that the “No doubt, it is a fact that in criminal law it is for the complainant or the prosecution to establish the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by preponderance of probabilities. The said general rule of criminal law has no application for cases falling under Section 138 of the Act, in view of the statutory safeguard provided for under

Section 139 of the Act. Section 139 of the Act deals with presumption in favour of the holder. It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of the Act for the discharged, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability. In the light of the said statutory safeguard provided for under Section 139 of the Act, it is not correct to say that it is for the complainant to prove that the said cheque have been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt. In fact, on the very same aspect the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly laid down the law saying that the presumption provided for under Section 139 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption and the general rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution has no application to the cases falling under

Section 138 of the Act.”

In T.Vasantha Kumar VS. Vijaya Kumari, (2015) 8 SCC 378 where it was held that, in the present case since the cheque as well as the signature has been accepted by the accused, the presumption u/Sec.139 would operate. Thus, the burden was on the accused to disprove the cheque or existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability.

25.The presumption provided under section 139 of the Act, 1881, is a rebuttable presumption and the accused has to rebut the presumption by adducing evidence. The burden shifts on the accused to rebut the statutory presumption provided under Section 139 of the Act, 1881. In the present case, the accused case is that he has been running a shop under the name and style of Sri Jagatguru Home needs at 9 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

Rajamahendravaram. The complainant worked in his shop for six months, the complainant left his shop in the month of February, 2020 due to disputes. He kept some signed blank cheques in his shop for business purpose. At the time when the complainant left his shop, he taken away one blank cheque from his shop. By taking advantage of the same, the complainant filed a false case against him.

26.The burden heavily lies on the accused to prove that the complainant worked in his shop and he took away his cheques from the shop. However, the accused did not adduce any evidence to prove his case. There is no evidence placed by the accused to prove that the complainant worked in his shop. Further, the accused in his cross examination, he clearly admitted that he cannot file any register before this court to prove that the complainant worked in his shop for six months and he paid wages to the complainant. From admission of the accused, it clearly shows that the accused himself admitted that there is no documentary proof regarding the complainant’s employment in his shop. The accused herein failed to prove that the complainant worked in his shop.

27.The accused also admitted in his cross examination that he cannot say number of cheques which he signed for business purpose.

The accused himself admitted that he cannot say actual number of blank cheques which were signed and kept in his shop. From the admission of the accused, it creates a doubt regarding number of blank cheques which were kept at his shop.

28.Further DW.1 in his cross examination, he deposed that he filed a police report against the complainant in the month of February, 2020. However, there is no scrap of paper filed by the accused to prove that he has taken a criminal action against the complainant.

29.Further, DW.1 in his cross examination, he deposed that he did not file any suit or issue legal notice to the complainant with a view to receive blank cheque from him. From the cross examination of DW.1, it clearly shows that the accused himself admitted that he did not take a civil action against the complainant. In the present case, the accused 10 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

even did not issue legal notice to the complainant and demanded him to return the blank cheque to him. The conduct of the accused is quite unnatural and creates doubt regarding the accused case. The accused herein failed to prove his case that the complainant committed theft of his cheque and fabricated the same and filed the present false case against him. The accused herein also failed to rebut the presumption provided u/Sec.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Further, the accused also failed to prove that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability in the present case. On the other hand, from the consisting evidence of PW’s 1 to 3 and From Ex’s P1 to P7, it clearly established that the accused herein issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant inorder to discharge a legally enforceable debt.

30.Further, Sec.146 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 provides that bank slips are primafacie evidence of certain facts. As per

Sec.146 of Act, the Court shall presume the fact of dishonor of cheque on production of bank slips or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that cheque has been dishonored, unless and until such fact is disproved. In spite of several demands made by the complainant, the accused herein issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant and on due presentation, it was returned under Ex.P2 Cheque returned memo. From

Ex.P2 return memo, it clearly shows that the cheque was returned due to funds insufficient. Further from Ex.P1, it clearly shows that the bank authorities after due enquiry and also by identifying the signature of the accused, they returned the cheque. From Ex.P1 cheque, it clearly established that the accused issued a cheque in favor of the complainant with regard to the due amounts. While, the accused has not placed sufficient material to disprove the presumption provided under section 146 of the Act.

31.From the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P7, it clearly establishes that, the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque to the complainant, that it was presented in a bank that on due presentation, it was dishonored and that as enshrined in the provision, requisite notice was served to the accused and that in spite of service of notice, the accused did not comply with the notice by making payment or fulfilling 11 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

obligation with the prescribed period i.e., 15 days from the date of receipt of notice.

32.In the light of above discussion, this court holds that, the complainant proved the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

33.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Accordingly he is convicted u/Sec..255 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 for the said offence.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11 th day of March, 2025.

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

(FAC)PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Before awarding sentence, the accused is questioned with regard

to the quantum of sentence that can be imposed against him for offence u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The accused stated that,he has wife and he is the only person to look after her wife.

The facts and circumstances of the case, it shows that, it is not fit case to invoke provisions of Prohibition of Offenders Act. Considering the mitigating circumstances which were stated by the accused and in order to meets the ends of justice, the accused is convicted for the offence u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Further, the accused is here by directed to pay cheque amount of Rs.5,90,000/- (Five Lakh ninety Thousand rupees only) to the complainant towards compensation U/s.357 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 within 90 days from the date of this order. In default of payment of compensation of 12 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

Rs.5,90,000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The remand period if any shall be set off u/Sec.428 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. No property order is passed as no property was seized.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this Court, corrected and pronounced by her in open Court on this the 11 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

(FAC) PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

COMPLAINANT:

PW1: 24.06.2022: A.Devi Srinivas PW2: 03.11.2023: T.Srinivas PW3: 30.09.2024: M.S.Jayaraju

DEFENCE:

DW.1: 26.12.2024: M.Anwar Ali Khan

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1: Original Cheque bearing no.317330, dt.06.07.2020 for Rs.5,90,000/0 drawn on State Bank of India, Rajahmundry Branch.

Ex.P2:Cheque Return memo dt.07.07.2020 with an endorsement funds insufficient issued by Tamilnadu, Mercantile Bank limited, Rajahmundry.

Ex.P3: Office copy of registered Legal Notice dt.18.07.2020.

Ex.P4: Reply Notice, dt.29.07.2020.

Ex.P5: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.07.12.2019 executed by Addepalli Devi Srinivas in favour of 1.Ravi Naga Devi, 2.Puli Bhaskara Rao, 3.Puli Chaya Devi.

Ex.P6: Online copy of registration certificate issued in the name of Hema Sundar Vasavi Addepalli.

13 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

Ex.P7: Statement of account of complainant relating to bank A/c.no.120100050304020 for the period from 10.08.2019 to 09.08.2020 issued by Tamilnadu, Mercantile Bank limited, Rajahmundry.

DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

NIL NIL

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

(FAC) PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

/ / True copy//

FAC PJCJ/RJY 14 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.2107/2020

01. Date of Offence: 27.02.2020

02. Date of Complaint : 05.10.2020

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: -------------

04. Release on bail: -------------

05. Commencement of trial: 24.06.2022

06. Closure of trial: 26.12.2024

07. Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025

08. Name of the complainant:

Addepalli Srinivas, S/o.Venkata Ratnam, A/39 years, Business, R/o.D.No.17-8-7/1, Seethampeta, Rajamahendravaram.

09. Name of the accused : Mir Anwar Ali Khan, S/o. Idris Ali Khan, A/54 years, Business, R/o.D.No.74-3-8/1, Flat No.D3, Srinivas Enclave, Prakash Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

10. Offence : U/secs.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Guilty

13. Sentence : In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Accordingly he is convicted U/s.255 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Further, the accused is here by directed to pay cheque amount of Rs.5,90,000/- (Five Lakh Ninety Thousand rupees only) to the complainant towards compensation u/Sec.357 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 within 90 days from the date of this order. In default of payment of compensation of Rs.5,90,000/-, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The remand period if any shall be set off U/s.428 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. No property order is passed as no property was seized.

14. Reasons for delay : Due to non production of witnesses

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

(FAC) PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

//True copy// 15 CC.No.2107/2020

VI AJFCM

(FAC) PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM/RJVM.

FAC PJCJ/RJY

1 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:SMT.N.REDDY PRASANNA

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 20 th DAY OF MARCH, 2025.

C.C.No.1671/2024

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station.

….. Complainant

And

Kondeti Sai, S/o Rambabu, Age /25 yrs, Caste / Gowda, D. No .9-380/2, Masque Street, R/o G-1, Kubera Apartment, Near : ZP. High School Road, Kothamuru Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, E.G. District. …… Accused

This calendar case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 17.12.2024 in the presence of Sri.O.Mahalakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.N.William Carey Assistant LADC for accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Bommuru PS filed charge sheet against accused in crime No.311/2023 for the offence punishable U/Sec.454, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The case of the prosecution as follows:

On 22.09.2023 at 5.00 PM, the complainant along with his wife went to Siddaradha Hospital, Devichowk, Rajamahendravaram for medical checkup of his children. On the same day, at about 8.30 PM, they returned back to home and noticed that main door locks were broke open and some unknown offenders committed theft of 1) Gold black beads chain-1, 2) Gold chain-1, 3) Gold bangles-2, 4) Small Gold bangles-4, 5)Gold rings-2, 6) Gold rings small-2, 7) Gold ear studs-2 pairs, 8) Gold Anjaneya Swamy Billa – 1, 9) Silver plate-1, 10) silver chembu-1, 11) Small Sai baba & lakshmi Devi statues -2, 12) Silver kumkuma Barini-1, 13) Panchapatra & spoon-1, 14) Deeparadhana

Kundhus-2, 15) Kundhus and plates small-2, 16) Turmeric and Kunkuma 2 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. patra-1. All the gold ornaments are weighing about fifteen sovereign. All silver items are weighing about 2 kgs and all worth of about

Rs.3,30,000/-. Later, the complainant searched for missing items and gave a report on 25-09-2023 at 8-00 PM for taking necessary action.

2a.Basing on the written report of PW1, on 25.09.2023 at 8.00

PM, PW6 registered as a case in Cr. No. 311/2023 U/Sec. 454, 380 IPC of

Bommuru PS and investigation into.

2b.During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of scene observation mediators and drafted scene observation report. Also drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence and secured prosecution witnesses and examined them and recorded their detailed 161(3) Cr.P.C statements in his part-II CD.

2c.During the course of investigation, on 08-07-2024, the

Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS received a credible information about the probable offender in this case and then secured mediators and rushed to opposite to G.P.R. Lay-out, Bommuru Village,

Rajamahendravram Rural Mandal, at about 11-00 AM and caught hold the accused person i.e., Kondeti sai and interrogated him in the presence of mediators and recorded his confessional statements.

2d.On interrogating about stolen items, then he confessed that he kept the same under a roof at his house. On such, they all proceeded to the accused house at Konthamuru village and seized 1) Gold black beads garland-1, weight-15.840 grams, 2) Gold chain-1, weight-15.00 grams, 3) Gold ear studs -2 Pairs (Plain Diddhs, Stone Diddhs), Weight- 5.500 Grams, 4) Gold Rings -3 (Ganapati, Lord Venkateswara Swamy,

Lakshmi Devi Ammavaru), Weight-14.300 Grams Items and 1) Silver

Plate -1, Weight-59.00 Grams, 2) Silver Bowl-1, Weight-137.00 Grams, 3)

Silver Saibaba Doll-1, Weight-24.00 Grams 4) Silver Lakshmi Devi Doll-1, 3 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. Weight-15.00 Grams, 5) Silver Peacock Saffron Barina-1, Weight-87.00

Grams, 6) Silver Small Panchapatra-1, weight-24.00 gms, 7) silver lampshades-2, weight-41.00 gms, 8) silver four-bowl bunch of turmeric, saffron and axintala-1, weight-46.00 gms under cover of mediator reports.

2e.Considering the motorcycle bearing AP 31 DU 0134 as the crime vehicle used by the criminal to commit crimes in this case, the inspector allowed the seizure of the criminal at the time of arrest and asked their staff to take it along with them to recover the property.

2f.In pursuance of confession made by the accused, the

Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS weighed the stolen gold and silver items with the assistance of Gold Appraiser by name Kola Vijaya

Bhaskar.

2g.As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused is responsible for the offences U/S. 454, 380 or 411 IPC and he may be dealt with according to law. Hence, the Charge sheet.

3.The case was taken cognizance against accused for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. After the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to accused u/s. 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5. The accused was examined U/S. 239 Criminal Procedure

Code 1973. The charge for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 or 411 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860, were read over and explained in Telugu to accused.

For which he denied and pleaded not guilty. Hence the charge

U/Sec.454, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is framed against accused. The case is posted for trial.

6.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW7 and Exs.P1 to P6 and MO1 to MO13 were got marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW2 Chinnapuvvula Sudha 4 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. Madhavi, LW3 Yandamuri Ravi Teja, LW4 Narukula Eswari, LW5 Gorrela

Premalatha, LW6 Rajulapudi Adinarayana, LW9 Dodda Madhubabu, LW10

Gunapatii Murali Krishna and LW11 Kunjam Srinivasa Rao Dora.

7.After the closer of the Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence of evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec.454,

380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 or not”?

10. P O I N T:

To prove the prosecution's case, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW7 and Exs.P1 to P6 and MO1 to MO13 were marked. PW1 is the complainant. PW2 is the mediator who present at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of case properties under cover of mediator reports.

PW3 is the Gold Appraiser. PW4 is the mediator who present at the time of scene observation report. PW5 is the Investigation officer who arrested and seized case properties under cover of mediator reports.

PW6 and PW7 are Investigation Officers.

11.To prove the offence u/Sec.380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein taken away gold and silver articles from the house of the complainant without his consent.

12.To prove the offence U/Sec.454 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein criminally trespassed into the complainant’s house and committed theft of gold and silver articles.

13.In order to prove the offence U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code, 5 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. the prosecution has to establish that accused have dishonestly received or retained the stolen properties, having reason to believe the same to be the stolen properties.

14.As per the contents of Ex.P1 report, on 22.09.2023, during evening hours, the complainant along with his wife and daughter went to Sidhartha Children Hospital near Devichowk by locking his house. At about 7.30 PM, they return back and noticed the main doors were open and gold and silver articles were committed theft. Therefore he gave

Ex.P1 report.

15.PW1 who is the complainant has deposed that, on 22.09.2023 during evening hours, he along with his wife and his daughter went to Siddhardha Children Hospital, Near Devichowk by locking their house. At about 7.30 PM, they returned back and noticed their doors were broke open and some unknown offenders committed theft of silver Kumkuma Bharani, Ashtalakshmi Chembu, silver Bowl,

Harathi Plate, two pairs of Silver Kundulu along with Plates, Theertham

Glass and Spoon, two silver Plates, Silver Saibaba, Sri Krishna and

Lakshmi devi idols. He also noticed gold black bead chain, four rings, two pairs of bangles of his wife, two pairs of bangles of his daughter, his daughter’s chain and locket, four pairs of gold ear rings of his wife and his wife’s bracelet were committed theft. Therefore, he gave Ex.P1 report.

16.PW6 who is the Investigation Officer also deposed that, on 25.09.2023 he received a written report from PW1. Based on the report, he registered the same as in Cr.No.311/2023 U/s 454 & 380 of IPC and issued Ex.P6 FIR. Later PW7 took up investigation. During the course of the investigation, he examined PW1 and recorded his statements. Later, he proceeded to the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared

Ex.P7 rough sketch. At the scene of offence, he examined PW1, LW2 6 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. C.Sudha Madhavi, LW3 Y.Ravi Teja, LW4 N.Eswari, LW5 G.Prema Latha and LW6 R.Adinarayana and recorded their statements.

17.The prosecution’s specific case is that the accused herein committed theft of gold and silver articles from the possession of PW1 without his consent. The learned APP contended that all the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution’s case and their evidence corroborate each other. The prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the alleged offences. Hence, prays the court to convict the accused.

18.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments and submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the ownership of case properties. The mediators are stock mediators.

The investigation officer did not secure local witnesses and he did not issue any notice to the neighbors at Kubera Apartments and he did not prepare a separate list of seized properties. Further the investigation officer did not obtain the signatures of mediators in form-60 which is necessary under Order 444 of A.P.Manual

19. In the present case, the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. No direct witnesses witnessed the alleged theft of gold and silver articles. Further, from the contents of Ex.P1 report, it clearly shows that PW1 gave complaint with an allegation that some unknown offenders committed theft of gold and silver articles. The evidence of PW6 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish that accused here in criminally trespassed into the complainant’s house and committed theft of gold and silver articles from his house.

20.Further, the prosecution’s case is that on 08.07.2024 the

Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station got credible information and 7 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

21.PW2 has deposed that on 07.07.2024, at about 10.00 AM, at the request of Bommuru Police, he and another VRO acted as mediators and they proceeded towards GPR layout Bommuru and noticed a person with Passion motorcycle. By observing them he tried to escape from the place. On interrogating he revealed his identity as his name is Kondeti

Sai and confessed that he committed theft of gold and silver ornaments.

On such confession, they proceeded towards the accused house at

Konthamuru village and police seized gold, silver and cash under cover of mediator reports.

22.PW5 has deposed that during the course of investigation, on 08.07.2024, at about 10.30 AM, he got credible information and he secured mediators and proceeded towards GPR layout and found a person under a suspicion circumstances. Then he caught hold that person and interrogated. On interrogating he revealed his name as

Kondeti Sai and confessed the alleged offence. On such confession he arrested accused under the cover of mediator report dt. 08.08.2024 at about 11.00 AM.

23.Further, based on the confession of accused, they again all proceeded towards the accused house at Konthamuru village and seized

MO1 Gold black beads garland-1, weight 15.840 grams. MO2 Gold chain- 1, weight 15.00 grams, MO3 Gold ear studs -2 pairs (Plain Diddhs, Stone

Diddhs), weight 5.500 grams, MO4 Gold rings – 3 (Ganapathi, Lord

Venkateswara Swamy, LakshmiDevi Ammavaru), weight -14.300 grams,

MO5 Silver plate-1, weight 59.00 grams, MO6 Silver bowl-1, weight 137.00 grams, MO7 Silver Saibaba doll-1, weight 24.00 grams, MO8

Silver Lakshmi Devi doll-1, weight 15.00 grams, MO9 Silver peacock saffron barina-1, weight 87.00. MO10 Silver small panchapatra-1, weight 24.00 grams, MO11 Silver lampshades-2, weight 41.00 grams, MO12

Silver four-bowl bunch of turmeric, saffron and axintala-1, weight 46.00 8 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. grams and MO13 – Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle bearing No AP 31

DU 0314 under the cover of mediator report dt. 08.08.2024 at about 3.00 PM.

24.The evidence of the mediator is corroborated with evidence of Inspector of Police. From the consisting evidence of the mediator and the Inspector of Police it clearly established that the Inspector of Police,

Bommuru Police station seized M.O.1 to M.O.13 from possession of accused under the cover of mediator reports.

25.Further,the learned counsel for the accused took objection regarding the date mentioned on the mediator report drafted at 11.00 am. During the cross examination, the Inspector of Police, Bommuru P.S categorically deposed that by mistakenly the date of mediator report was mentioned as 07.07.2024 instead of 08.07.2024. It is a purely typographical mistake. Further, mere not obtaining the signatures of mediators on form-60 is also not sufficient to disprove the entire prosecution’s case. Therefore, objections raised by the accused counsel are not maintainable.

26.In the light of above discussion this court holds that the prosecution established the guilt against accused for the offence

U/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence u/sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

27.In the result, accused found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the said offence. Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.454 9 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. and 380 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is acquitted

U/s.248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2025.

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Before awarding sentence, accused are questioned with regard to

the quantum of sentence that can be imposed against them for offence

U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accused stated that he has been in

Jail for eight months and prays the court to set off the remand period.

He has widow mother and he has to look after her.

In the present case, accused retained the stolen valuable properties i.e., Gold, Silver and cash. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to invoke benevolent provision provided under Prohibition of Offender

Act,1958. On considering the facts and circumstance of the case and also considering the mitigating circumstances put forth by accused, to meets ends of justice the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence U/s.411 of Indian

Penal Code 1860.

The remand period of the accused i.e., from 23.07.2024 to till date, shall be set off U/s.428 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The case properties i.e., MO1 Gold black beads garland-1, weight 15.840 grams.

MO2 Gold chain-1, weight 15.00 grams, MO3 Gold ear studs -2 pairs (Plain Diddhs, Stone Diddhs), weight 5.500 grams, MO4 Gold rings – 3 (Ganapathi, Lord Venkateswara Swamy, LakshmiDevi Ammavaru), weight -14.300 grams, MO5 Silver plate-1, weight 59.00 grams, MO6

Silver bowl-1, weight 137.00 grams, MO7 Silver Saibaba doll-1, weight 24.00 grams, MO8 Silver Lakshmi Devi doll-1, weight 15.00 grams, MO9 10 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. Silver peacock saffron barina-1, weight 87.00. MO10 Silver small panchapatra-1, weight 24.00 grams, MO11 Silver lampshades-2, weight 41.00 grams, MO12 Silver four-bowl bunch of turmeric, saffron and axintala-1, weight 46.00 grams which were already given to the complainant shall holds good after the expiry of the appeal time.

The case property i.e., MO13 – Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle bearing No AP 31 DU 0314 shall be sold in public auction and remit the sale consideration to the state after the expiry of the appeal time. The punishment in the present case and in other cases i.e., CC. No.

1670/2024, CC.No. 1672/2024, CC.No. 2538/2024 and CC.No.2595/2024 shall run concurrently.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2025.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.04.09.2024: Cinapuvvula Sri Phani Krishna-NONE- PW2Dt.11.09.2024: Gonapati Murali Krishna PW3Dt.18.10.2024:Kola Vijaya Bhaskar

PW4Dt.25.10.2024:RayuduAmmaji,GMSK, Bommuru PW5Dt.28.10.2024:Mohammad Umar, Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS PW6Dt.29.10.2024:MohammadZubair,Sub- Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report Ex.P2:mediators report Ex.P3:mediators report Ex.P4:Scene observation report Ex.P5:Photos and CD Ex.P6:FIR 11 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO1 - Gold black beads garland-1 weight 15.840 grams.

MO2 - gold chain-1 weight 15.00 grams.

MO3 - gold ear studs -2 pairs (Plain Diddhs, Stone Diddhs) weight 5.500 grams.

MO4 - gold rings - 3 (Ganapathi, Lord Venkateswara Swamy,

LakshmiDevi Ammavaru) weight - 14.300 grams.

MO5 - silver plate-1, weight 59.00 grams.

MO6 - silver bowl-1, weight 137.00 grams.

MO7 - silver Saibaba doll-1, weight 24.00 grams.

MO8 - silver Lakshmi Devi doll-1, weight 15.00 grams.

MO9 - silver peacock saffron barina-1, weight 87.00 grams.

MO10 - silver small panchapatra-1, weight 24.00 grams.

MO11 - silver lampshades-2, weight 41.00 grams.

MO12 - silver four-bowl bunch of turmeric, saffron and axintala-1, weight 46.00 grams.

MO13 – Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle bearing No AP 31 DU 0314.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

12 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.1671/2024

01. Date of offence: 22.09.2023

02. Date of Complaint : 25.09.2023

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 08.07.2024

04. Release on bail: -------------

05. Commencement of trial: 04.09.2024

06. Closure of trial: 29.10.2024

07. Date of Judgment : 20.03.2025

08. Name of the complainant:

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station. 09.Name of the accused : Kondeti Sai, S/o Rambabu, Age /25 yrs, Caste / Gowda, D. No .9-380/2, Masque Street, R/o G-1, Kubera Apartment, Near : ZP. High School Road, Kothamuru Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, E.G. District.

10. Offence : U/Sec 454, 380 or 411 of IPC

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : guilty

13. Sentence : In the result, accused found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the said offence. Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860.

The remand period of the accused i.e., from 23.07.2024 to till date, shall be set off U/s.428 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The case properties i.e.,

MO1 Gold black beads garland-1, weight 15.840 grams. MO2 Gold chain-1, weight 15.00 grams, MO3 Gold ear studs -2 pairs (Plain Diddhs, Stone

Diddhs), weight 5.500 grams, MO4 Gold rings – 3 (Ganapathi, Lord

Venkateswara Swamy, LakshmiDevi Ammavaru), weight -14.300 grams,

MO5 Silver plate-1, weight 59.00 grams, MO6 Silver bowl-1, weight 137.00 grams, MO7 Silver Saibaba doll-1, weight 24.00 grams, MO8 Silver Lakshmi

Devi doll-1, weight 15.00 grams, MO9 Silver peacock saffron barina-1, weight 87.00. MO10 Silver small panchapatra-1, weight 24.00 grams, MO11

Silver lampshades-2, weight 41.00 grams, MO12 Silver four-bowl bunch of turmeric, saffron and axintala-1, weight 46.00 grams which were already given to the complainant shall holds good after the expiry of the appeal time. The case property i.e., MO13 – Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle 13 CC.No.1671/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. bearing No AP 31 DU 0314 shall be sold in public auction and remit the sale consideration to the state after the expiry of the appeal time. The punishment in the present case and in other cases i.e., CC. No. 1670/2024,

CC.No. 1672/2024, CC.No. 2538/2024 and CC.No.2595/2024 shall run

concurrently.

14. Reasons for delay :NIL

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

1 CC.No.1672/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:SMT.N.REDDY PRASANNA

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 20 th DAY OF MARCH, 2025.

C.C.No.1672/2024

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station.

….. Complainant

And

Kondeti Sai, S/o Rambabu, Age /25 yrs, Caste / Gowda, D. No .9-380/2, Masque Street, R/o G-1, Kubera Apartment, Near : ZP. High School Road, Kothamuru Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, E.G. District. …… Accused

This calendar case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 17.12.2024 in the presence of Sri.O.Mahalakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.N.William Carey Assistant LADC for accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Bommuru PS filed charge sheet against accused in crime No.231/2024 for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The case of the prosecution as follows:

On 17.06.2024 at 2.30 PM, the complainant went to Thadithota to his mother’s house by locking the doors. On the same day, at about 9.00 PM, he returned back to home and noticed that main door locks were broke open and some unknown offenders committed theft of 1)

Gold Haram-1, 2) Gold Thread-1, 3) Gold Necklace-1, 4) Gold Chain-1, 5)

Gold car rings-3 pairs. 6) Gold matees-1 pair, 7) Gold hair coin-1, 8) Gold roops 4 gold items, 9) silver chembu-1, 10) Silver kundhu-2, 11) Silver ancklets-1 pair, 12) silver chain-1 and some cash and all worth about

Rs.2,35,000/-. Later, the complainant searched for missing items and gave a report on 18-06-2024 at 2-00 PM for taking necessary action.

2a.Basing on the written report of PW1, on 25.09.2023 at 8.00

PM, PW5 registered as a case in Cr. No. 231/2024 U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC of 2 CC.No.1672/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. Bommuru PS and investigation into.

2b.During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of

Police visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of scene observation mediators and drafted scene observation report.

Also drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence and secured prosecution witnesses and examined them and recorded their detailed 161(3) Cr.P.C statements in his part-II CD.

2c.During the course of investigation, on 08-07-2024, the

Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS received a credible information about the probable offender in this case and then secured mediators and rushed to opposite to G.P.R. Lay-out, Bommuru Village,

Rajamahendravram Rural Mandal, at about 11-00 AM and caught hold the accused person i.e., Kondeti sai and interrogated him in the presence of mediators and recorded his confessional statements.

2d.On interrogating about stolen items, then he confessed that he kept the same under a roof at his house. On such, they all proceeded to the accused house at Konthamuru village and seized MO1 Gold necklace-1, weight 31.400 grams, MO2 Gold nanuthadu-1, weight 16.600 grams, MO3 Gold with three stones ear studs, Matis -1 pair, weight 5.500 grams, MO4 Gold white stone ear studs, Matis-1 pair, weight 8.200 grams, MO5 Sai Baba ring in gold-1, weight 2.00 grams,

MO6 Silver Asthalakshmi Chembu Large-1 weight 173.00 grams, MO7

Silver lampshades – one pair weight 63.00 grams, MO8 Silver straps new-1 pair, weight 76.00 grams, MO9 Silver chain-1 weight 12.00 grams

MO10 Cash of Rs. 60,000/- under cover of mediator reports.

2e.In pursuance of confession made by the accused, the

Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS weighed the stolen gold and silver items with the assistance of Gold Appraiser by name Kola Vijaya

Bhaskar.

3 CC.No.1672/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. 2f.As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused is responsible for the offences U/S. 457, 380 or 411 IPC and he may be dealt with according to law. Hence, the Charge sheet.

3.The case was taken cognizance against accused for the offences U/Sec.457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. After the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to accused u/s. 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5. The accused was examined U/S. 239 Criminal Procedure

Code 1973. The charge for the offences U/Sec.457, 380 or 411 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860, were read over and explained in Telugu to accused.

For which he denied and pleaded not guilty. Hence the charge

U/Sec.457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is framed against accused. The case is posted for trial.

6.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW5 and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 to MO10 were got marked. The evidence of LW2 Killadi Lakshmi, LW3 yerrampalli Ramadevi, LW4

Yerrampalli Subrahmanyam, LW5 Mattaparthi Lakshmi and LW7 Kunjam

Srinivasa Rao Dora were closed by this court.

7.After the closer of the Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence of evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec.457,

380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 or not”?

10. P O I N T:

To prove the prosecution's case, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW5 and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 to MO10 were marked. PW1 is the complainant. PW2 is the mediator who present at the time of arrest of 4 CC.No.1672/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. the accused and seizure of case properties under cover of mediator reports. PW3 is the Gold Appraiser. PW4 is the Investigation officer who arrested accused and seized case properties under cover of mediator reports. PW5 is the Investigation Officer.

11.To prove the offence u/Sec.380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein taken away gold and silver articles from the house of the complainant without his consent.

12.To prove the offence u/Sec.457 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein criminally trespassed into the complainant’s house and committed theft of gold and silver articles.

13.In order to prove the offence U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that accused have dishonestly received or retained the stolen properties, having reason to believe the same to be the stolen properties.

14.As per the contents of Ex.P1 report, on 17.06.2024, at about 2.30 PM, the complainant went to his mother’s house in the same area by locking his house. At about 9.00 PM, he return back and noticed the main doors were open and gold and silver articles were committed theft.

Therefore he gave Ex.P1 report.

15.PW1 who is the complainant has deposed that, on 17.06.2024 at about 2.30 PM, he attend his work and his wife and his children went to the parents house of his wife. Around 9.30 PM, his wife and children return back to the house and his elder son made a phone call to him and informed that there was a theft committed at their house. Immediately, he rushed to his house and noticed cash of Rs.

5,20,000/-, Gold Necklace, Haram, Nanthadu, Chain, three pairs of Ear hangings, Papidibilla and Maatilu, silver Chembu, Kundulu, one pair of silver Anklets, two Chains and one Cup were committed theft. Therefore, 5 CC.No.1672/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. he gave Ex.P1 report.

16.PW5 who is the Investigation Officer also deposed that, on 17.06.2024 he received a written report from PW1. Based on the report, he registered the same as in Cr.No.231/2024 and issued Ex.P4 FIR. He took up investigation. During the course of the investigation, he examined PW1 and LW2 Kiladi Lakshmi and recorded their statements.

Later, he proceeded to the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch. At the scene of offence, he examined LW3

Yerrampalli Rama Devi and LW4 Yerrampalli Subrahmanyam and recorded their statements.

17.The prosecution’s specific case is that the accused herein committed theft of gold and silver articles from the possession of PW1 without his consent. The learned APP contended that all the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution’s case and their evidence corroborate each other. The prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the alleged offences. Hence, prays the court to convict the accused.

18.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments and submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the ownership of case properties. The mediators are stock mediators.

The investigation officer did not secure local witnesses and he did not issue any notice to the neighbors at Kubera Apartments and he did not prepare a separate list of seized properties. Further the investigation officer did not obtain the signatures of mediators in form-60 which is necessary under Order 444 of A.P.Manual

19. In the present case, the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. No direct witnesses witnessed the alleged theft of gold and silver articles. Further, from the contents of Ex.P1 report, it clearly shows that PW1 gave complaint with an allegation that some unknown offenders committed theft of gold and 6 CC.No.1672/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. silver articles. The evidence of PW5 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish that accused here in criminally trespassed into the complainant’s house and committed theft of cash, gold and silver articles.

20.Further, the prosecution’s case is that on 08.07.2024 the

Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station got credible information and secured mediators and they proceeded towards GPR Layout and arrested accused and seized MO1 Gold necklace-1, weight 31.400 grams, MO2 Gold nanuthadu-1, weight 16.600 grams, MO3 Three stones

Gold ear studs, Matis-1 pair, weight 5.500 grams, MO4 Gold white stone ear studs, Matis-1 pair, weight 8.200 grams, MO5 Sai Baba ring in gold- 1, weight 2.00 grams, MO6 Silver Asthalakshmi Chembu Large-1 weight 173.00 grams, MO7 Silver lampshades – one pair weight 63.00 grams,

MO8 Silver straps new-1 pair, weight 76.00 grams, MO9 Silver chain-1, weight 12.00 grams and MO10 Cash of Rs. 60,000/- under the cover of mediator report. To prove the alleged seizure of MO1 to MO10, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW2 and PW4.

21.PW2 has deposed that on 07.07.2024, at about 10.00 AM, at the request of Bommuru Police, he and another VRO acted as mediators and they proceeded towards GPR layout Bommuru and noticed a person with Passion motorcycle. By observing them he tried to escape from the place. On interrogating he revealed his identity as his name is Kondeti

Sai and confessed that he committed theft of gold and silver ornaments.

On such confession, they proceeded towards the accused house at

Konthamuru village and police seized gold, silver and cash under cover of mediator reports.

22.PW4 has deposed that during the course of investigation, on 08.07.2024, at about 10.30 AM, he got credible information and he secured mediators and proceeded towards GPR layout and found a 7 CC.No.1672/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. person under a suspicion circumstances. Then he caught hold that person and interrogated. On interrogating he revealed his name as

Kondeti Sai and confessed the alleged offence. On such confession he arrested accused under the cover of mediator report dt. 08.08.2024 at about 11.00 AM.

23.Further, based on the confession of accused, they again all proceeded towards the accused house at Konthamuru village and seized

MO1 Gold necklace-1, weight 31.400 grams, MO2 Gold nanuthadu-1, weight 16.600 grams, MO3 Gold with three stones ear studs, Matis-1 pair, weight 5.500 grams, MO4 Gold white stone ear sutds, Matis-1 pair, weight 8.200 grams, MO5 Gold Sai Baba ring -1, weight 2.00 grams,

MO6 Silver Asthalakshmi Chembu Large-1, weight 173.00 grams, MO7

Silver lampshades – one pair weight 63.00 grams, MO8 Silver straps new-1 pair, weight 76.00 grams, MO9 Silver chain-1, weight 12.00 grams and MO10 Cash of Rs. 60,000/- under the cover of mediator report dt. 08.08.2024 at about 3.00 PM.

24.The evidence of mediator is corroborated with evidence of

Inspector of Police. From the consisting evidence of the mediator and the Inspector of Police it clearly established that the Inspector of Police,

Bormmur Police station seized M.O.1 to M.O.10 from possession of accused under the cover of mediator reports.

25.Further,the learned counsel for the accused took objection regarding the date mentioned on the mediator report drafted at 11.00 am. During the cross examination, the Inspector of Police, Bommur P.S categorically deposed that by mistakenly the date of mediator report was mentioned as 07.07.2024 instead of 08.07.2024. It is a purely typographical mistake. Further, mere not obtaining the signatures of mediators on form-60 is also not sufficient to disprove the entire prosecutions case. Therefore, objections raised by the accused counsel are not maintainable.

8 CC.No.1672/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

26.In the light of above discussion this court holds that the prosecution established the guilt against accused for the offence U/Sec.

411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt against accused for the offence U/Sec. 457 and 380 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubts.

27.In the result, accused found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the said offence. Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is acquitted

U/s.248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2025.

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Before awarding sentence, accused are questioned with regard to

the quantum of sentence that can be imposed against them for offence

U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accused stated that he has been in

Jail for eight months, prays the court to set off the remand period. He has widow mother and he has to look after her.

In the present case, accused retained the stolen valuable properties i.e., Gold, Silver and cash. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to invoke benevolent provision provided under Prohibition of Offender

Act,1958. On considering the facts and circumstance of the case and also considering the mitigating circumstances put forth by accused, to meets ends of justice the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence U/s.411 of Indian

Penal Code 1860. The remand period of the accused i.e., from 23.07.2024 to till date, shall be set off U/s.428 of Criminal Procedure 9 CC.No.1672/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. Code 1973. The case properties i.e., MO1 Gold necklace-1, weight 31.400 grams, MO2 Gold nanuthadu-1, weight 16.600 grams, MO3 Gold with three stones ear studs, Matis-1 pair, weight 5.500 grams, MO4

Gold white stone ear sutds, Matis-1 pair, weight 8.200 grams, MO5 Gold

Sai Baba ring -1, weight 2.00 grams, MO6 Silver Asthalakshmi Chembu

Large-1, weight 173.00 grams, MO7 Silver lampshades – one pair weight 63.00 grams, MO8 Silver straps new-1 pair, weight 76.00 grams, MO9

Silver chain-1, weight 12.00 grams and MO10 Cash of Rs. 60,000/- which were already given to the complainant shall holds good after the expiry of the appeal time. The punishment in the present case and in other cases i.e., CC.No. 1670/2024, CC. No. 1671/2024, CC.No. 2538/2024 and

CC.No.2595/2024 shall run concurrently.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2025.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.06.09.2024:Killadi Sanyasi Naidu-NONE- PW2Dt.11.09.2024:Gonapati Murali Krishna PW3Dt.18.10.2024:Kola Vijaya Bhaskar

PW4Dt.28.10.2024:Mohammad Umar, Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS PW5Dt.12.11.2024:B.Srinu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report Ex.P2:Attested copy of mediators report Ex.P3:Attested copy of mediators report Ex.P4Dt.18.06.2024:FIR 10 CC.No.1672/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY. Ex.P5 : Rough sketch

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO1 – Gold necklace-1, weight 31.400 grams.

M.O.2 - Gold nanuthadu-1, weight 16.600 grams.

M.O.3 - Gold with three stones ear studs, Matis-1 pair, weight 5.500 grams.

M.O.4 - Gold white stone ear sutds, Matis-1 pair, weight 8.200 grams.

M.O.5 - Sai Baba ring in gold-1, weight 2.00 grams.

M.O.6 - Silver Asthalakshmi Chembu Large-1 weight 173.00 grams.

M.O.7 - Silver lampshades - one pair weight 63.00 grams.

M.O.8 - Silver straps new-1 pair, weight 76.00 grams.

M.O.9 - Silver chain-1 weight 12.00 grams

M.O.10 - cash of Rs. 60,000/-

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

11 CC.No.1672/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.1672/2024

01. Date of offence: 17.06.2024

02. Date of Complaint : 18.06.2024

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 09.07.2024

04. Release on bail: -------------

05. Commencement of trial: 06.09.2024

06. Closure of trial: 12.11.2024

07. Date of Judgment : 20.03.2025

08. Name of the complainant:

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station. 09.Name of the accused : Kondeti Sai, S/o Rambabu, Age /25 yrs, Caste / Gowda, D. No .9-380/2, Masque Street, R/o G-1, Kubera Apartment, Near : ZP. High School Road, Kothamuru Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, E.G. District.

10. Offence : U/Sec 457, 380 or 411 of IPC

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Guilty

13. Sentence : In the result, accused found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the said offence. Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. The remand period of the accused i.e., from 23.07.2024 to till date, shall be set off U/s.428 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The case properties i.e., MO1 Gold necklace-1, weight 31.400 grams, MO2 Gold nanuthadu-1, weight 16.600 grams, MO3 Gold with three stones ear studs, Matis-1 pair, weight 5.500 grams, MO4 Gold white stone ear sutds, Matis-1 pair, weight 8.200 grams, MO5 Gold Sai Baba ring -1, weight 2.00 grams, MO6 Silver Asthalakshmi Chembu Large-1, weight 173.00 grams, MO7 Silver lampshades – one pair weight 63.00 grams, MO8 Silver straps new-1 pair, weight 76.00 grams, MO9 Silver chain-1, weight 12.00 grams and MO10 Cash of Rs. 60,000/- which were already given to the complainant shall holds good after the expiry of the appeal time. The punishment in the present case and in other cases i.e., CC.No. 1670/2024, CC. No. 1671/2024,

CC.No. 2538/2024 and CC.No.2595/2024 shall run concurrently.

12 CC.No.1672/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

14. Reasons for delay :NIL

Sd/- N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

1 CC.No.1670/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:SMT.N.REDDY PRASANNA

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 20 th DAY OF MARCH, 2025.

C.C.No.1670/2024

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station.

….. Complainant

And

Kondeti Sai, S/o Rambabu, Age /25 yrs, Caste / Gowda, D. No .9-380/2, Masque Street, R/o G-1, Kubera Apartment, Near : ZP. High School Road, Kothamuru Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, E.G. District. …… Accused

This calendar case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 17.12.2024 in the presence of Sri.O.Mahalakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.N.William Carey Assistant L.A.D.Cfor accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Bommuru PS filed charge sheet against accused in crime No.310/2023 for the offence punishable U/Sec.454, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The case of the prosecution as follows:

On 24.09.2023 at 4.30 PM, the complainant went to his uncle’s house in the same area. On the same day, at about 8.15 PM, he returned back to home and noticed that main door locks were broke open and some unknown offenders committed theft of 1) Gold black

Beeds chain 2 layered-1, 2) Gold Chandraharam 3 layered-1, 3) Gold chain-1, 4) Gold Ring with navaratnas-1, 5) Ring with stone-1, 6) Gold plain ring-1, 7) Big gold Govindrajulu ring-1, 8) Small gold Govindrajulu ring-1, 9) Gold maroon coloured beads chain with Lakshmi roops-1, 10)

Gold black beads chain with sutras-1 and 11) cash of Rs.95000/- and all worth Rs.3,95,000/-. Later, the complainant searched for missing items and gave a report on 25-09-2023 at 5-00 PM for taking necessary action.

2a.Basing on the written report of PW1, on 25.09.2023 at 5.00

PM, PW3 registered as a case in Cr. No. 310/2023 U/Sec. 454, 380 IPC of 2 CC.No.1670/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

Bommuru PS and investigation into.

2b.During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of scene observation mediators and drafted scene observation report. Also drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence and secured prosecution witnesses and examined them and recorded their detailed 161(3) Cr.P.C statements in his part-II CD.

2c.During the course of investigation, on 08-07-2024, the

Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS received a credible information about the probable offender in this case and then secured mediators and rushed to opposite to G.P.R. Lay-out, Bommuru Village,

Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, at about 11-00 AM and caught hold the accused person i.e., Kondeti Sai and interrogated him in the presence of mediators and recorded his confessional statements.

2d.On interrogating about stolen items, then he confessed that he kept the same under a roof at his house. On such, they all proceeded to the accused house at Konthamuru village and seized 1) Gold Black

Beads Garland-1, Weight-24.00 Grams, 2) Gold Chain-1, Weight-16 .190

Grams, 3) Gold Govindaraju Swamy Ring Small-1, Weight-4,00 Grams, 4)

Gold small Ring with Saibaba Idol -1, Weight-4,500 Grams, 5) Gold

Venkateswara Swami Large Ring-1, Weight-7.900 Grams, 6) Gold

Govindaraja Swamy Big Ring-1, Weight- 7.930 grams under cover of mediator reports.

2e.In pursuance of confession made by the accused, the

Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS weighed the stolen gold and silver items with assistance of Gold Appraiser by name Kola Vijaya Bhaskar.

2f.As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused is responsible for the offences U/S. 454, 380 or 411 IPC and he may be dealt with according to law. Hence, the Charge sheet.

3.The case was taken cognizance against accused for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3 CC.No.1670/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

4. After the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to accused u/s. 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5. The accused was examined U/S. 239 Criminal Procedure

Code 1973. The charge for the offences U/Sec.454, 380 or 411 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860, were read over and explained in Telugu to accused.

For which he denied and pleaded not guilty. Hence the charge

U/Sec.454, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is framed against accused. The case is posted for trial.

6.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW6 and Exs.P1 to P6 and MO1 to MO6 were got marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW2 Turaga SeshmaRaja Hamsa,

LW3 Turga Jithendra Atchyutha Bhargav, LW4 Valluri Bhagya Lakshmi and LW5 Palika Mangadevi. The evidence of LW8 Dodda Madhubabu and

LW10 Kunjam Srinivasa Rao Dora were closed by this court.

7.After the closer of the Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence of evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused 454,

380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 or not”?

10. P O I N T:

To prove the prosecution's case, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW6 and Exs.P1 to P6 and MO1 to MO6 were marked. PW1 is the complainant. PW2 is the mediator who present at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of case properties under cover of mediator reports.

PW3 is the investigation officer. PW4 is the Gold Appraiser. PW5 is the mediator who present at the time of scene observation report. PW6 is the Investigation officer who arrested and seized case properties under cover of mediator reports.

4 CC.No.1670/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

11.To prove the offence u/Sec.380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein taken away gold and silver articles from the house of the complainant without his consent.

12.To prove the offence u/Sec.454 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein criminally trespassed into the complainant’s house and committed theft of gold and silver articles.

13.In order to prove the offence U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that accused have dishonestly received or retained the stolen properties, having reason to believe the same to be the stolen properties.

14.As per the contents of Ex.P1 report, on 25.09.2023, at about 4.30 PM, the complainant went to his uncle’s house in the same area by locking his house. At about 8.00 PM, he return back and noticed the main doors were open and gold articles and cash of Rs.95,000/- were committed theft. Therefore he gave Ex.P1 report.

15.PW1 who is the complainant has deposed that, on 25.09.2023 at about 4.30 PM, he along with his wife and his children went to his maternal uncle’s house situated infront of their street. On the same day at about 8.00 PM, they return back to the house and noticed the doors were broke open and he noticed one gold Govindaraju ring, one stone ring, one blackbead chain, one plain chain, one navaratna ring, chandraharam, one gram Lakshmidevi rupu, small

Saraswathidevi ring, Saibaba ring, Venkateswaraswamy ring and

Govindaraju small ring and cash of Rs. 95,000/- were committed theft.

Therefore, he gave Ex.P1 report.

16.PW3 who is the Investigation Officer also deposed that, on 25.09.2023 he received a written report from PW1. Based on the report, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.310/2022 U/s 454 and 380 of

IPC and issued Ex.P4 FIR. He took up investigation. During the course of 5 CC.No.1670/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

the investigation, he proceeded to the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch. At the scene of offence, he examined PW1, LW2 Turaga Seshma Raja Hams, LW3 Turaga Jitendra

Atchyuthat Bhargav, LW4 Valluri Bhagya Lakshmi and LW5 Paika

Mangadevi and recorded their statements.

17.The prosecution’s specific case is that the accused herein committed theft of gold articles from the possession of PW1 without his consent. The learned APP contended that all the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution’s case and their evidence corroborate each other. The prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the alleged offences. Hence, prays the court to convict the accused.

18.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments and submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the ownership of case properties. The mediators are stock mediators.

The investigation officer did not secure local witnesses and he did not issue any notice to the neighbors at Kubera Apartments and he did not prepare a separate list of seized properties. Further the investigation officer did not obtain the signatures of mediators in form-60 which is necessary under Order 444 of A.P.Manual.

19.In the present case, the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. No direct witnesses witnessed the alleged theft of gold and silver articles. Further, from the contents of

Ex.P1 report, it clearly shows that PW1 gave complaint with an allegation that some unknown offenders committed theft of gold and silver articles. The evidence of PW3 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish that accused here in criminally trespassed into the complainant’s house and committed theft of gold and cash in his house.

20.Further, the prosecution’s case is that on 08.07.2024 the

Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station got credible information and 6 CC.No.1670/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

secured mediators and they proceeded towards GPR Layout and arrested accused and seized MO1 Gold black beads garland 1, wg.24.00 gms, MO2 Gold chian-1, wg 16.190 gms, MO3 Gold Govindaraju swamy small ring-1, wg.4.00 gms, MO4 Small gold ring with Saibaba Idol-1, wg.4.500 gms, MO5 Venkateswaraswamy gold large ring-1, wg.7.900 gms and MO6 Gold Govindaraju swamy Big gold ring-1, wg.7.930 gms under the cover of mediator report. To prove the alleged seizure of MO1 to MO6, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW2 and PW6.

21.PW2 has deposed that on 07.07.2024, at about 10.00 AM, at the request of Bommuru Police, he and another VRO acted as mediators and they proceeded towards GPR layout Bommuru and noticed a person with Passion motorcycle. By observing them he tried to escape from the place. On interrogating he revealed his identity as his name is Kondeti

Sai and confessed that he committed theft of gold and silver ornaments.

On such confession, they proceeded towards the accused house at

Konthamuru village and police seized gold, silver and cash under cover of mediator reports.

22.PW6 has deposed that during the course of investigation, on 08.07.2024, at about 10.30 AM, he got credible information and he secured mediators and proceeded towards GPR layout and found a person under a suspicion circumstances. Then he caught hold that person and interrogated. On interrogating he revealed his name as

Kondeti Sai and confessed the alleged offence. On such confession he arrested accused under the cover of mediator report dt. 08.08.2024 at about 11.00 AM.

23.Further, based on the confession of accused, they again all proceeded towards the accused house at Konthamuru village and seized

MO1 Gold black beads garland 1, wg.24.00 gms, MO2 Gold chian-1, wg 16.190 gms, MO3 Gold Govindaraju swamy small ring-1, wg.4.00 gms,

MO4 Small gold ring with Saibaba Idol-1, wg.4.500 gms, MO5

Venkateswaraswamy gold large ring-1, wg.7.900 gms and MO6 Gold 7 CC.No.1670/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

Govindaraju swamy Big gold ring-1, wg.7.930 gms under the cover of mediator report dt. 08.08.2024 at about 3.00 PM.

24.The evidence of the mediator is corroborated with the evidence of Inspector of Police. From the consisting evidence of mediator and the Inspector of Police it clearly established that the

Inspector of Police, Bormmuru Police station seized M.O.1 to M.O.6 from possession of accused under the cover of mediator reports.

25.Further,the learned counsel for the accused took objection regarding the date mentioned on the mediator report drafted at 11.00 am. During the cross examination, the Inspector of Police, Bommuru P.S categorically deposed that by mistakenly the date of mediator report was mentioned as 07.07.2024 instead of 08.07.2024. It is a purely typographical mistake. Further, mere not obtaining the signatures of mediators on form-60 is also not sufficient to disprove the entire prosecutions case. Therefore, objections raised by the accused counsel are not maintainable.

26.In the light of above discussion this court holds that the prosecution established the guilt against accused for the offence U/Sec.

411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt against accused for the offence U/Sec. 454 and 380 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubts.

27.In the result, accused found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the said offence. Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is acquitted

U/s.248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2025.

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

8 CC.No.1670/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

Before awarding sentence, accused are questioned with regard to

the quantum of sentence that can be imposed against them for offence

U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accused stated that he has been in

Jail for eight months, prays the court to set off the remand period. I have widow mother and I have to look after her.

In the present case, accused retained the stolen valuable properties i.e., Gold, Silver and cash. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to invoke benevolent provision provided under Prohibition of Offender

Act,1958. On considering the facts and circumstance of the case and also considering the mitigating circumstances put forth by accused, to meets ends of justice the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence U/s.411 of Indian

Penal Code 1860. The remand period of the accused i.e., from 23.07.2024 to till date, shall be set off U/s.428 of Criminal Procedure

Code 1973. The case properties i.e., MO1 Gold black beads garland 1, wg.24.00 gms, MO2 Gold chian-1, wg 16.190 gms, MO3 Gold

Govindaraju swamy small ring-1, wg.4.00 gms, MO4 Small gold ring with

Saibaba Idol-1, wg.4.500 gms, MO5 Venkateswaraswamy gold large ring- 1, wg.7.900 gms and MO6 Gold Govindaraju swamy Big gold ring-1, wg.7.930 gms which were already given to the complainant shall holds good after the expiry of the appeal time. The punishment in the present case and in other cases i.e., CC. No. 1671/2024, CC.No. 1672/2024,

CC.No. 2538/2024 and CC.No.2595/2024 shall run concurrently.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.12.08.2024:Vaddadi Srinivas Ramachandra-NONE- Ananda Prakash 9 CC.No.1670/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

PW2Dt.11.09.2024:Gonapati Murali Krishna PW3Dt.26.09.2024:R.Vijay Kumar, Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS PW4Dt.18.10.2024:Kola Vijaya Bhaskar

PW5Dt.25.10.2024:RayuduAmmaji,GMSK, Bommuru PW6Dt.25.10.2024:Mohammad Umar, Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS B.Srinu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report Ex.P2:Attested copy of mediators report Ex.P3:Attested copy of mediators report Ex.P4Dt.25.09.2023:FIR Ex.P5:Rough sketch Ex.P6:Scene observation report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO1 - Gold black beads garland 1 wg.24.00 gms.

MO2 - gold chian-1 wg 16.190 gms.

MO3 - Gold Govindaraju swamy small ring-1 wg.4.00 gms.

MO4 - Small gold ring with Salbaba Idol-1 wg.4.500 gms.

MO5 - Venkateswaraswamy gold large ring-1 wg.7.900 gms.

MO6 - gold Govindaraju swamy Big gold ring-1 wg. 7.930 gms.

Sd/- N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

10 CC.No.1670/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.1670/2024

01. Date of offence: 24.09.2023

02. Date of Complaint : 25.09.2023

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 12.07.2024

04. Release on bail: -------------

05. Commencement of trial: 12.08.2024

06. Closure of trial: 28.10.2024

07. Date of Judgment : 20.03.2025

08. Name of the complainant:

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station. 09.Name of the accused : Kondeti Sai, S/o Rambabu, Age /25 yrs, Caste / Gowda, D. No .9-380/2, Masque Street, R/o G-1, Kubera Apartment, Near : ZP. High School Road, Kothamuru Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, E.G. District.

10. Offence : U/Sec 454, 380 or 411 of IPC

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Guilty

13. Sentence : In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the said offence. Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.454 and 380 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. The remand period of the accused i.e., from 23.07.2024 to till date, shall be set off U/s.428 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The case properties i.e., MO1 Gold black beads garland 1, wg.24.00 gms, MO2 Gold chian-1, wg 16.190 gms, MO3 Gold Govindaraju swamy small ring-1, wg.4.00 gms, MO4 Small gold ring with Saibaba Idol-1, wg.4.500 gms, MO5 Venkateswaraswamy gold large ring-1, wg.7.900 gms and MO6 Gold Govindaraju swamy Big gold ring- 1, wg.7.930 gms which were already given to the complainant shall holds good after the expiry of the appeal time. The punishment in the present case and in other cases i.e., CC. No. 1671/2024, CC.No. 1672/2024, CC.No. 2538/2024 and CC.No.2595/2024 shall run concurrently.

14. Reasons for delay :NIL

Sd/- N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

1 CC.No.2538/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:SMT.N.REDDY PRASANNA

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 20 th DAY OF MARCH, 2025.

C.C.No.2538/2024

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station.

….. Complainant

And

Kondeti Sai, S/o Rambabu, Age /25 yrs, Caste / Gowda, D. No .9-380/2, Masque Street, R/o G-1, Kubera Apartment, Near : ZP. High School Road, Kothamuru Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, E.G. District. …… Accused

This calendar case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 17.12.2024 in the presence of Sri.O.Mahalakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.N.William Carey, Assistant L.A.D.C for accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Bommuru PS filed charge sheet against accused in crime No.115/2024 for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The case of the prosecution as follows:

On 14-03-2024 on temporary absence of the complainant’s brother in-law Chokkapu Satya Narayana, some unknown offenders had entered into his house by breaking the rear doors and broke the iron safe and committed theft of 1) four silver plates, 2) four Silver glasses,

3) Four Small Deepam kundhulu, 4) Two Agarbathi Stands, 5) Two Silver bells and cash of Rs.53000/-. They searched the missed items, but thy did not find them. Therefore, thy filed Eex.P1 report.

2a.Basing on the written report of PW1, on 16.03.2024 at 6.00

PM, PW5 registered as a case in Cr. No. 115/2024 U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC of

Bommuru PS and investigation into.

2 CC.No.2538/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

2b.During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of scene observation mediators and drafted scene observation report. Also drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence and secured prosecution witnesses and examined them and recorded their detailed 161(3) Cr.P.C statements in his part-II CD.

2c.During the course of investigation, on 08-07-2024, the

Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS received a credible information about the probable offender in this case and then secured mediators and rushed to opposite to G.P.R. Lay-out, Bommuru Village,

Rajamahendravram Rural Mandal, at about 11-00 AM and caught hold the accused person i.e., Kondeti sai and interrogated him in the presence of mediators and recorded his confessional statements.

2d.On interrogating about stolen items, then he confessed that he kept the same under a roof at his house. On such, they all proceeded to the accused house at Konthamuru village and seized M.O.1 silver plate - 1, weight 307 grams, M.O.2 silver plate -1, weight 103 grams,

M.O.3 silver glasses -4, weight 117.50 grams, M.O.4 silver Deepa Kundus - one pair small weight 57 grams, M.O.5 silver Deepa Kundus - one pair large weight 36 grams, M.O.6 stand of silver agaravats large - 1, weight 35 grams, M.O.7 small stand of silver agaravats - 1, weight 12 grams and M.O.8 small silver bell -1, weight 62.50 grams under cover of mediator reports.

2e.In pursuance of confession made by the accused, the

Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS weighed the stolen gold and silver items with the assistance of Gold Appraiser by name Kola Vijaya

Bhaskar.

2f.As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused is responsible for the offences U/S. 457, 380 or 411 IPC and he may be 3 CC.No.2538/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

dealt with according to law. Hence, the Charge sheet.

3.The case was taken cognizance against accused for the offences U/Sec.457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. After the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to accused u/s. 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5. The accused was examined U/S. 239 Criminal Procedure

Code 1973. The charge for the offences U/Sec.457, 380 or 411 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860, were read over and explained in Telugu to accused.

For which he denied and pleaded not guilty. Hence the charge

U/Sec.457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is framed against accused. The case is posted for trial.

6.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW5 and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 to MO8 were got marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW3 Sirapu Murali Krishna Reddy and LW5 Kunjam Srinivasa Rao Dora.

7.After the closer of the Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence of evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec.457,

380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 or not”?

10. P O I N T:

To prove the prosecution's case, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW5 and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 to MO8 were marked. PW1 is the complainant. PW2 is the brother in law of PW1. PW3 is the mediator who present at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of case properties under cover of mediator reports. PW4 is the Investigation 4 CC.No.2538/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

officer who arrested and seized case properties under cover of mediator reports. PW5 is the Investigation Officer.

11.To prove the offence u/Sec.380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein taken away silver articles from the house of PW2 without his consent.

12.To prove the offence u/Sec.457 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein criminally trespassed into PW2’s house and committed theft of gold and silver articles.

13.In order to prove the offence U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that accused have dishonestly received or retained the stolen properties, having reason to believe the same to be the stolen properties.

14.As per the contents of Ex.P1 report, on 16.03.2024, the complainant received phone call and rushed to PW2’s house and noticed the back doors were opened and also noticed silver items were committed theft. Therefore, he gave Ex.P1 report.

15.PW1 who is the complainant has deposed that, on 14.03.2024, PW2 along with his sister went to Bombay. On 16.03.2024,

LW3 Sirapu Murali Krishna Reddy asked him to rush his house. On such he rushed PW2’s house and noticed the back doors were opened and also noticed silver items were committed theft. Therefore, he gave report.

16.PW2 who is the brother-in-law of PW1 has deposed that on 16.03.2024, he made a phone call to PW1 and asked him to go near his house. On such, PW1 rushed to his house and noticed the back doors were opened and also noticed silver items are committed theft.

17.PW5 who is the Investigation Officer also deposed that, on 16.03.2024 he received a written report from PW1. Based on the report, 5 CC.No.2538/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

he registered the same as in Cr.No.115/2024 U/s 457, 380 of IPC and issued Ex.P4 FIR. He took up investigation. During the course of the investigation, he examined PW1 and recorded his statements. Later, he proceeded to the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared

Ex.P5 rough sketch. At the scene of offence, he examined PW2, PW3 and

LW3 S.Murali krishnareddy and recorded their statements.

18.The prosecution’s specific case is that the accused herein committed theft of gold and silver articles from the possession of PW1 without his consent. The learned APP contended that all the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution’s case and their evidence corroborate each other. The prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the alleged offences. Hence, prays the court to convict the accused.

19.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments and submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the ownership of case properties. The mediators are stock mediators.

The investigation officer did not secure local witnesses and he did not issue any notice to the neighbors at Kubera Apartments and he did not prepare a separate list of seized properties. Further the investigation officer did not obtain the signatures of mediators in form-60 which is necessary under Order 444 of A.P.Manual

20.In the present case, the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. No direct witnesses witnessed the alleged theft of gold and silver articles. Further, from the contents of

Ex.P1 report, it clearly shows that PW1 gave complaint with an allegation that some unknown offenders committed theft of gold and silver articles. The evidence of PW5 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish that accused herein committed theft of silver 6 CC.No.2538/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

items from PW2’s house.

21.Further, the prosecution’s case is that on 08.07.2024 the

Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station got credible information and secured mediators and they proceeded towards GPR Layout and arrested accused and seized M.O.1 silver plate - 1, weight 307 grams,

M.O.2 silver plate -1, weight 103 grams, M.O.3 silver glasses -4, weight 117.50 grams, M.O.4 silver Deepa Kundus - one pair small weight 57 grams, M.O.5 silver Deepa Kundus - one pair large weight 36 grams,

M.O.6 stand of silver agaravats large - 1, weight 35 grams, M.O.7 stand of silver agaravats small - 1, weight 12 grams and M.O.8 silver bell small -1, weight 62.50 grams under the cover of mediator report. To prove the alleged seizure of M.O.1 to MO8, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW3 and PW4.

22.PW3 has deposed that on 07.07.2024, at about 10.00 AM, at the request of Bommuru Police, he and another VRO acted as mediators and they proceeded towards GPR layout Bommuru. Noticed a person with Passion motorcycle. By observing them he tried to escape from the place. On interrogating he revealed his identity as his name is Kondeti

Sai and confessed that he committed theft of gold and silver ornaments.

On such confession, they proceeded towards accused house at

Konthamuru village and police seized gold, silver and cash under cover of mediator reports.

23.PW4 has deposed that during the course of investigation, on 08.07.2024, at about 10.30 AM, he got credible information and he secured mediators and proceeded towards GPR layout and found a person under a suspicion circumstances. Then he caught hold that person and interrogated. On interrogating he revealed his name as

Kondeti Sai and confessed the alleged offence. On such confession he arrested accused under the cover of mediator report dt. 08.08.2024 at 7 CC.No.2538/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

about 11.00 AM.

24.Further, based on the confession of accused, they again all proceeded towards the accused house at Konthamuru village and seized

M.O.1 silver plate - 1, weight 307 grams, M.O.2 silver plate -1, weight 103 grams, M.O.3 silver glasses -4, weight 117.50 grams, M.O.4 silver

Deepa Kundus - one pair small weight 57 grams, M.O.5 silver Deepa

Kundus - one pair large weight 36 grams, M.O.6 stand of silver agaravats large - 1, weight 35 grams, M.O.7 stand of silver agaravats small - 1, weight 12 grams and M.O.8 silver bell small -1, weight 62.50 grams under the cover of mediator report dt. 08.08.2024 at about 3.00

PM.

25.The evidence of mediator is corroborated with evidence of the Inspector of Police. From the consisting evidence of mediator and the Inspector of Police it clearly established that the Inspector of Police,

Bormmuru Police station seized M.O.1 to M.O.8 from possession of accused under the cover of mediator reports.

26.Further,the learned counsel for the accused took objection regarding the date mentioned on the mediator report drafted at 11.00 am. During the cross examination, the Inspector of Police, Bommur P.S categorically deposed that by mistakenly the date of mediator report was mentioned as 07.07.2024 instead of 08.07.2024. It is a purely typographical mistake. Further, mere not obtaining the signatures of mediators on form-60 is also not sufficient to disprove the entire prosecutions case. Therefore, objections raised by the accused counsel are not maintainable.

27.In the light of above discussion this court holds that the prosecution established the guilt against accused for the offence U/Sec.

411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt against accused for the offence U/Sec. 457 and 380 of Indian Penal 8 CC.No.2538/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubts.

28.In the result, accused found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the said offence. Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is acquitted

U/s.248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2025.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Before awarding sentence, accused are questioned with regard to

the quantum of sentence that can be imposed against them for offence

U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accused stated that he has been in

Jail for eight months, prays the court to set off the remand period. He has widow mother and he has to look after her.

In the present case, accused retained the stolen valuable properties i.e., Gold, Silver and cash. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to invoke benevolent provision provided under Prohibition of Offender

Act,1958. On considering the facts and circumstance of the case and also considering the mitigating circumstances put forth by accused, to meets ends of justice the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence U/s.411 of Indian

Penal Code 1860. The remand period of the accused i.e., from 23.07.2024 to till date, shall be set off U/s.428 of Criminal Procedure

Code 1973. The case properties i.e., M.O.1 silver plate - 1, weight 307 grams, M.O.2 silver plate -1, weight 103 grams, M.O.3 silver glasses -4, weight 117.50 grams, M.O.4 silver Deepa Kundus - one pair small weight 57 grams, M.O.5 silver Deepa Kundus - one pair large weight 36 grams, 9 CC.No.2538/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

M.O.6 stand of silver agaravats large - 1, weight 35 grams, M.O.7 stand of silver agaravats small - 1, weight 12 grams and M.O.8 silver bell small -1, weight 62.50 grams which were already given to the complainant shall holds good after the expiry of the appeal time. The punishment in the present case and in other cases i.e., CC.No. 1670/2024, CC. No.

1671/2024, CC.No. 1672/2024 and CC.No.2595/2024 shall run concurrently.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2025.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.05.12.2024:Pyla Sanyasirao-NONE- PW2Dt.05.12.2024:Chokkapu Satyanarayana PW3Dt.10.12.2024:Bonapati Murali Krishna

PW4Dt.19.12.2024:Mohammad Umar, Inspector of Police, Bommuru PS

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report Ex.P2:Mediator Report Ex.P3:Mediator report Ex.P4Dt.16.03.2024:FIR

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO1 – silver plate

MO2 – silver plate small

MO3 – silver glasses – 4

MO4 – Silver Deepa Kundus one pair 10 CC.No.2538/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

MO5 – Silver Deepa Kundus-One pair

MO6 – Stand of silver agarbathis

MO7 – Stand of silver agarbathis

MO8 – Silver bell small.

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

11 CC.No.2538/2024 VI AJFCM/RJY.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.2538/2024

01. Date of offence: 14.03.2024

02. Date of Complaint : 16.03.2024

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 09.07.2024

04. Release on bail: ---------------

05. Commencement of trial: 05.12.2024

06. Closure of trial: 19.12.2024

07. Date of Judgment : 20.03.2025

08. Name of the complainant:

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station. 09.Name of the accused : Kondeti Sai, S/o Rambabu, Age /25 yrs, Caste / Gowda, D. No .9-380/2, Masque Street, R/o G-1, Kubera Apartment, Near : ZP. High School Road, Kothamuru Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, E.G. District.

10. Offence : U/Sec 457, 380 or 411 of IPC

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Guilty

13. Sentence : In the result, accused found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the said offence. Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence U/s.411 of Indian Penal Code 1860. The remand period of the accused i.e., from 23.07.2024 to till date, shall be set off U/s.428 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The case properties i.e., M.O.1 silver plate - 1, weight 307 grams, M.O.2 silver plate -1, weight 103 grams, M.O.3 silver glasses -4, weight 117.50 grams, M.O.4 silver Deepa Kundus - one pair small weight 57 grams, M.O.5 silver Deepa Kundus - one pair large weight 36 grams, M.O.6 stand of silver agaravats large - 1, weight 35 grams, M.O.7 stand of silver agaravats small - 1, weight 12 grams and M.O.8 silver bell small -1, weight 62.50 grams which were already given to the complainant shall holds good after the expiry of the appeal time. The punishment in the present case and in other cases i.e., CC.No. 1670/2024,

CC. No. 1671/2024, CC.No. 1672/2024 and CC.No.2595/2024 shall run

concurrently.

14. Reasons for delay :NIL

Sd/-N.Reddy Prasanna

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.