N. Santhosh Kumar

1 C.C. No.694 of 2016

gooIN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – XIV

ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR

PRESENT: Sri N.Santhosh Kumar,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Friday, this the 20 th day of March, 2020

C.C.No. 694 of 2016

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS RGI Airport, (Crime No.78/2012) …Complainant

And

A1:Afzal Ahmed, S/o. Iqbal Ahmed, Age: 36 Years, Occ: Tailor, R/o. H.No.14-584, Nai Basti, Murad Ali Lane, Hussaigunj, Lucknow, UP State.

A2:Babu, Age about 45 Years, Agent

A3:Mohammed Arif, S/o. Gulam Waris R/o. Bariyarpur PS & Tehsil Ram Nagar, Barabanki Dist., UP.

(The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are absconding) …Accused

This case coming on today before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri P.Raju Babu, Advocate for A1 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station RGI Airport has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 in Crime No.78/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and

Section 12(1)(a)(b)(d) of Indian Passport Act, 1967.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.02.2012 at 21.00 hours, received a complaint from the complainant/LW1/Sri A.Anand, AFRRO, “C” Batch, Immigration, RGI Airport, Shamshabad, in which he stated that on 20.02.2012 at 0910 hours one male passenger arrived from Riyadh by flight 2 C.C. No.694 of 2016

No.SV754 and approached Immigration counter for arrival clearance. The accused presented an Emergency Certificate No.X 284099 issued on 03.09.2011 at Jeddah valid till 02.03.2012 in the name of Afzal Ahmed, during the primary check by the wing in charge Sri MP Singh it was found that the boarding pass he was carrying was in the name of Mohammed Arif. On that a suspicion was raised and the details were checked in the flight manifest and found that there was no passenger in the name as mentioned in the EC viz.,

Afzal Ahmed.

On thorough profiling and questioning the passenger revealed that he had got cleared at Riyadh Immigration on the passport No.F 9394346 issued on 30.11.2006 at Lucknow and valid till 29.11.2016 in the name of Mohammed

Arif. He also produced this passport which he had hidden in his baggage.

Investigation of this passport revealed it to be a photo substituted passport and further checking it was found that the photo in the passport is not matching with the original photo found in passport seva project.

The passenger further revealed that his real name was Afzal Ahmed, age 36 years, and he had visited Jeddah on 03.06.2006 on Omra Visa No.

2321003240 with an Indian PP No. F 2045159. On reaching Jeddah he spent 10 days at Mecca and Medina for pilgrimage and afterward stayed with his cousin brother Aqueel Ahmed @ Nizam who is a tailor at Shahifa, Jeddah since last 15 years. He then started working as tailor and was earning around

Rs.10,000/- per month. After two years, two Sudanese reportedly robbed his passport. As he was staying illegally there he did not approach the police. He decided to come back to India and approached the Indian Embassy, Jeddah and was issued an EC No. X 284099 dated 03.09.2011. Further he had plans of returning back to Jeddah for work and did not want to be blacklisted in

Saudi Arabia for his illegal stay. Hence he approached one agent namely Babu 3 C.C. No.694 of 2016 mobile No. 0593457071 and gave him the EC, two passport sixe photos and 2500 Riyals. On 19.02.2012 agent Babu handed over a passport in the name of Mohammed Arif and also the EC with an exit stamp of Riyadh. The agent arranged the boarding pass and told him to approach Immigration in Riyadh and produce the photo substituted passport. He was cleared through Riyadh

Immigration with any problems. After boarding the flight SV 754, he hide the photo substituted passport and produced the EC at Hyderabad Immigration, however he was apprehended by the Immigration. Therefore, the passenger

Afzal Ahmed was being handed over for taking necessary legal action.

3.As per the contents of above complaint, LW5/Sri R.Sanjay Kumar,

Inspector of Police, has registered a case in crime No. 78/2012 under Section 420, 419, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12(1)(a)(b)(d)(e) of Passport Act, 1967 and entrusted the investigation to LW6/Sri M.Kashi Vishwanath, Sub-Inspector of

Police, PS RGI Airport. During the course of investigation, LW6 examined and recorded the statements of LW1/Sri A.Anand and LW2/Sri M.P.Singh in Police

Station. Later he visited the scene of offence situated at Arrival Section, RGI

Airport, Shamshabad and caused enquiry, further verified the passport and other departure documents of accused. Taken the A1 into custody and on interrogation he confessed to have committed this offence. When the A1 is in consent to confess the offence as such he secured the mediators i.e. LW3/Sri

Pathi Narsingh Rao and LW4/Sri Dhanavath Chandu Lal Naik, in their presence, he conducted confessional cum seizure panchanama of accused in detail and seized the documents. As such informed the grounds of his arrest under the provisions of Sec.50 Cr.P.C. and produced before the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12(1)(a)(b)(d) of Indian Passport Act, 1967.

4 C.C. No.694 of 2016

4.The case was taken on file under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12(1)(a)(b)(d) of Indian Passport Act, 1967 against the accused No.1. On appearance of the accused No.1, copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused No.1 was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12(1)(a)(b)(d)(e) of Passport Act, 1967 are framed, the contents of charges are read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trail, prosecution has examined PWs’1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. Police failed to produce LW5, inspite of granting sufficient time. Hence, the evidence of LW5 closed. Prosecution side evidence closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found against him in the prosecution witnesses to which he denied the same and reported no further defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence closed.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

9. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the A1 for the offences under Section 420, 468,

471 IPC and Section 12(1)(a)(b)(d)(e) of Indian

Passport Act, 1967, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. Point:-

The prosecution to prove its case should prove that, the accused No.1 committed offence with active connivance of A2 and A3 by cheating the 5 C.C. No.694 of 2016 immigration officials at RGI Airport by violating the provisions of Indian

Passport Act, 1967. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused Nos.2 and 3 were absconding in the present case.

Prosecution to prove its case has examined PWs’ 1 to 6 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6. PW1 is the immigration official who apprehended the accused,

PW2 is the complainant, PWs’ 3 and 4 are the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama of A1, PW5 is the first investigating officer and PW6 is the second investigating officer, who filed charge sheet in the present case.

PW1, who apprehended the accused, deposed that on 20.02.2012 passenger by name Mohd.Afzal approached to Immigration with an Emergency

Certificate, which was issued by Indian Jeddha of Saudi Arabia. When the accused produced his boarding pass, the same was not matching with

Emergency Certificate. When PW1 questioned him about the miss-match, he could not answer properly. Upon that they checked it with Airlines Manifesto.

In the said manifesto there was no name as Afzal Ahmed is mentioned. Then checked the same under PSB and it was not matching with the Emergency

Certificate. Thereafter the accused as shown the passport which was not in his name and it was in the name of Mohd.Arif and the accused reported to them that he used passport of Mohd.Arif and travelled by fixing his photograph i.e.

Afzal Ahmed photograph on the passport of Mohd.Arif. Further the accused stated that the said passport was got prepared through an agent from Kerala having an office at Saudi. Thus, PW1 handed over the accused along with travel documents to RGIA Police Station.

PW2, who is the complainant, deposed that on 20.02.2012 at around 09.30 hours one passenger/accused by name Afzal Ahmed approached

Immigration counters for immigration clearance. Since he was holding a 6 C.C. No.694 of 2016

Emergency Certificate, he was directed to wing incharge of C Batch. His name was written in Emergency Certificate whereas the name in boarding pass shown as Arif Mohammed. Then they suspected him and questioned him.

They checked his passport under UV Light and found breaking of security features. Then they checked in Passport Seva Project in which they found a different photograph of passport holder. Basing on the same they gave report to police. PW1 confronted with the documents verified by him at Immigration counter and he identified the same. MO1 is Emergency Certificate of Afzal

Ahmed. MO2 is Passport of Mohammed Arif. MO3 is boarding pass of

Mohammed Arif. MO4 is ticket of Afzal.

PW3, who is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama, deposed that he does not know anything about the present case.

Approximately two years back on one day he went to police station RGI Airport.

There, the police informed him that they caught hold a person having fake passport and obtained his signature on some written papers. PW4, who is another panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama, deposed in similar lines to that of PW3. PWs’ 3 and 4 denied in their cross-examination that the police conducted confession panchanama of A1 in their presence on 21.02.2012. PWs’ 3 and 4 turned hostile and did not support to the case of the prosecution. Hence, their evidence is not useful to the case of the prosecution.

PW5, who is the first investigating officer, deposed that on 20.02.2012,

LW5/Sri P.Sanjay Kumar received complaint from PW2. Basing on the complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.78/2012 and issued FIR under Ex.P4.

LW5/Sri P.Sanjay Kumar entrusted the investigation to PW5. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs’1 and

2. On 21.02.2012 he affected the arrest of accused and produced before the court. After affecting the arrest of accused, he recorded the confession 7 C.C. No.694 of 2016 statement of the accused and seized the property/Ex.P5 in the presence of

PWs’ 3 and 4. He addressed a letter to the Home Department for verifying the genuineness of passport. On his transfer he handed over the CD file to

LW7/Sri L.Ramesh.

PW6, who filed charge sheet, deposed that on the transfer of PW5, he took the CD file for further investigation. During the course of investigation, he collected the report/Ex.P6 from Regional Passport Office (RPO), Secunderabad.

He obtained sanction from the government for prosecuting the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in the present case.

On careful perusal of entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, it reveals that as per the evidence of PWs’ 1 and 2 the accused No.1 travelled from Saudhi Arabia to Indian on fake passport by impersonating the photograph of A1 on the passport of A3, which was provided by A2. In this case, A2 and A3 are still absconding. It is further version of the prosecution that the accused No.1 confessed that he has committed this offence. But, the panch witnesses of confession cum seizure panchanama i.e.

PWs’ 3 and 4 did not support to the version of the prosecution and turned hostile. Hence, the confession cum seizure panchanama was not proved by the prosecution. As per Ex.P1/report, the accused No.1 was apprehended by PWs’ 1 and 2 at 09.10 hours, whereas the complaint was lodged at 21.00 hours.

There is nearly 12.00 hours delay in lodging the report before the police. PW2 did not mention the reason for delay in lodging the compliant. PW2 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not collect the MOs’1 to 4 from the accused under the cover of panchanama. PWs’ 1 and 2 are the official witnesses who probably support the police officials. PW5 deposed about receiving complaint from PW2, registration of case, issuance of FIR/Ex.P4 and entrusting the case to PW5 by LW5/Sri P.Sanjay Kumar. PW5 further deposed 8 C.C. No.694 of 2016 about recording statements of witnesses, affected the arrest of accused, conducting confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 and seizing the property/Ex.P5 in the presence of PWs’ 3 and 4. Mere arrest of accused will not prove the entire case of the prosecution. PW5 admitted in his cross- examination that he did not collect any record to show that PWs’1 and 2 were on duty on 20.02.2012. He further admitted that it is not mentioned in the compliant and 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWS’ 1 and 2 that in which counter the accused was checked and he did not examine any counter officials at

Immigration. On the transfer of PW5, PW6 took the CD file for further investigation. PW6 stated that he collected the report/Ex.P6 from Regional

Passport Office (RPO), Secunderabad. PW6 further stated that he obtained sanction from the government for prosecuting the accused. PW6 admitted in his cross-examination that in Ex.P6 it is not mentioned that the passport is a fake passport or photo substituted passport. In this case, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

The counsel for accused No.1 looses the opportunity to elicit the facts with regard to preparing of fake passport and affixing the photograph of A1 on the passport of A3. Admitted A2 and A3 were not arrested by the police to prosecute and still they are absconding.

Ex.P6/report reveals that the Passport Office, Lucknow provides the details of Passport No.F9394346 is belongs to Mohammed Arif, who is cited as

A3 in this case. But he is not arrested till now. Even Ex.P6 did not reveal that the said passport was fake or photo substituted passport. No documentary evidence is adduced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused that he cheated the Immigration officials. Moreover, no independent and corroborating evidence of PWs’1 and 2 is placed before the court to convict the accused No.1. In the absence of such material evidence, this court is not ready to believe the version of prosecution.

9 C.C. No.694 of 2016

Considering the evidence of PWs’1, 2, 5 and 6, this court is of the considered view that, it is not safe to convict the accused only basing on the uncorroborated oral evidence of the PWs’1, 2, 5 and 6. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

11. R E S U L T:In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12(1)(a)

(b)(d)(e) of Indian Passport Act, 1967 and accordingly he is acquitted under

Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation and corrected, pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of March, 2020).

-Sd/XXXXXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: Witnesses Examined

For the Prosecution: -For the Defence:-

PW1/LW2/Sri M.P.Singh- Nil – PW2/LW1/Sri K.Anand PW3/LW3/Sri Narsing Rao PW4/LW4/Sri B.Chandulal Naik PW5/LW6/Sri M.Kashi Vishwanath PW6/LW7/Sri L.Ramesh Naik

Exhibits Marked For the Prosecution: -For the Defence:- - Nil – Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the signature of PW3 on confession panchanama of A1. Ex.P3 is the signature of PW4 on confession panchanama of A1. Ex.P4 is the FIR. Ex.P5 is the property seized from the possession of A1. Ex.P6 is the report from Regional Passport Office regarding genuineness of passport bearing No.F9394346.

10 C.C. No.694 of 2016

M.O.s Marked

MO1 is the Emergency Certificate of Afzal Ahmed. MO2 is the passport of Mohammed Arif. MO3 is the boarding pass of Mohammed Arif. MO4 is the ticket of Afzal.

-Sd/XXXXXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

1 C.C. No.2479 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – XIV ADDL.

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR

PRESENT: Sri N.Santhosh Kumar,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Friday, this the 06 th day of March, 2020

C.C.No. 2479 of 2019

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Mailardevpally, (Crime No.210/2019) …Complainant

And

Shaik Asif, S/o. Shaim Rawoof, Age: 49 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.NO.4-25-56/2/1, (13-1-13/2/30), Amar Nagar Colony, Mangal Hat, Hyderabad. Ph. 7097612501.

…Accused

This case coming on today before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S.Venkat Reddy, Advocate for accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Mailardevpally has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.210/2019 for the offences punishable under Section 420 Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 26.03.2019 at 12.30 hours, received a confession cum seizure panchanama through State Police

LW7/Sri Mohd. Nadeem Hussain, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mailardevpally,

Cyberabad, wherein he has stated that on 26.03.2019 at 10.00 hours the

LW7/Sri Mohd. Nadeem Hussain received credible information that one person stored Public Distribution System Rice at Shastripuram, on that said LW7/Sri

Mohd. Nadeem Hussain secured the presence of two panchas along with police personnel rushed to the godown at Shastripuram, where found one Shaik Asif 2 C.C. No.2479 of 2019 (accused), on enquiry he confessed that earlier he worked as a driver but his earnings were not sufficient to meet his family needs, then the accused decided to earn money in easy way and in order to execute his plan, the accused purchased PDS rice from Public for Kg Rs.11 at Bandlaguda and surrounding area and selling it to needy people for Kg Rs.15 at Gurumitkal area. On 26.03.2019 at 10.00 hours, while the accused opened the godown to transport the PDS rice, meantime the police personnel caught him, further the LW7/Sri

Mohd. Nadeem Hussain seized 10 tons of PDS Rice under the cover of panchanama and affixed panch chits on the above said property. The accused has brought to PS along with seized rice for taking necessary action. Thus the accused has violated the E.C. Act and also misappropriated. Hence, the complainant requested to take legal action against the accused.

3.Basing on the strength of confession cum seizure panchanama, the

LW6/Sri G.Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mailardevpally has registered a case in crime No.210/2019 under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of Essential

Commodities Act, 1995 and entrusted the investigation to LW7/Sri Mohd.

Nadeem Hussain. During the course of investigation, LW7 examined and recorded the statements of LW1/Sri Shaik Raheel and LW2/Sri Mohd. Akram at police station. Later, visited the scene of offence situated at godown bearing

No.8-15-13/3, Shastripuram, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, where caused discreet enquiry about the incident. Then, the LW7/Sri Mohd.

Nadeem Hussain served a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused followed by the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. That on requisition of LW7/Sri Mohd. Nadeem Hussain, the LW5/Sri K.Raju, UDCI,

Saroor nagar, Circle-III, Ranga Reddy District, has taken over the seized property (10 tons of rice) for safe custody. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under

Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3 C.C. No.2479 of 2019

4.The case was taken on file under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Code of

Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’).

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges under

Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are framed, the contents of charges are read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trail, prosecution has examined PWs’ 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW4.

Police failed to produce LWs’ 5 and 6, inspite of granting sufficient time. Hence their evidence closed. Prosecution side evidence closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found against him in the prosecution witnesses to which he denied the same and reported no further defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence closed.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

9. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the offences under Section 420 IPC

and Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955,

beyond reasonable doubt?

10. Point:-

The prosecution to prove its case should prove that the accused purchased PDS Rice from public at lower cost and selling the same to needy people for higher cost at Gurumitkal area.

Prosecution to prove its case has examined PWs’1 to 4 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P8. PW1 is the police official, who assisted to Investigating Officer, 4 C.C. No.2479 of 2019

PWs’ 2 and 3 are the panch witnesses for scene, confession cum seizure panchanama and PW4 is the investigating officer in the present case.

Before going into merits of the case, it is pertaining to mention here that,

PWs’ 2 and 3 who are the panch witnesses for scene, confession cum seizure panchanama, turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The learned APP with the permission of this court has cross-examined the above witnesses, during cross-examination nothing of substance was elicited against the accused. The evidence of PWs’ 2 and 3 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

PW1, who is the police official, deposed that on 26.03.2019, while he along with LW4/Krishna were on patrol mobile duty in Shastripuram area at about 11.00 A.M., they received phone call from LW7/Sri Md.Nadeem and stated that he received information about some rice and asked them to come to a godown at Shastripuram. Accordingly, they went to said godown. On searching the godown, they found rice bags in the said godown.

LW7/Md.Nadeem secured two panch witnesses. They shifted the rice in a vehicle to police station.

PW4, who is the investigating officer, deposed before the court that on 26.03.2019, he received information about the illegal storing of Public

Distribution Rice at Shastripuram. Accordingly, he secured the presence of

PWs’ 2 and 3 and went to the godown at Shastripuram. On searching the godown, he found 10 quintals of rice. On that, he seized the rice and conducted scene, confession cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P7. he brought the seized rice along with the accused to police station. Basing on the panchanama, LW6/Sri G.Rajesh registered a case in Crime No.210/2019.

Accordingly, issued FIR under Ex.P8. LW6/Sri G.Rajesh entrusted the investigation to him. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs. LW4/Krishna, LW5/Raju. He handed over the rice for safe custody to LW5/Sri Raju. He issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the 5 C.C. No.2479 of 2019 accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused in the present case.

On careful perusal of entire evidence, PW1 deposed that while they were on patrol mobile duty in Shastripuram, they received phone call from LW7/Sri

Md.Nadeem Hussain and stated that he received information about some rice and asked them to come to a godown at Shastripuram and they went to said godown. On searching they found rice bags and LW7/Sri Nadeem Hussan secured two panch witnesses and shifted the rice in a vehicle to police station.

No where in his evidence he stated about the accused and conducting of panchanama in the presence of mediators. So, the evidence of PW1 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. PW4, investigating officer, deposed about receiving information about illegal storing of PDS Rice, conducting scene, confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of PWs’ 2 and 3. Though PW4 conducted scene, confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of PWs’ 2 and 3, but the evidence of PW4 with regard to conducting of scene, confession cum seizure panchanama is not corroborated by the evidence of PWs’ 2 and 3, who are the panch witnesses, since PWs’ 2 and 3 turned hostile to the case. PW4 further deposed that he recorded the statements of PW1, LW4/Krishna and LW5/Raju, but failed to examine the said two witnesses i.e. LW4/Krishna and LW5/Raju, who taken over the seized property i.e. PDS Rice for safe custody. PW4 admitted in his cross-examination that he has not examined the person from whom the accused purchased the rice and even he has not received any complaint from general public. PW4 also admitted that he has not collected any document pertaining to the ownership of the godown. Without filing any document, it is not proper to come to a conclusion that the accused is the owner of the said godown, where he stored the PDS Rice illegally and selling the same to needy people for gaining more benefits. In the absence of cogent and convincing 6 C.C. No.2479 of 2019 evidence before the court, it is not safe to come to a conclusion that the accused is the person who committed this offence with which he was charged.

Considering the evidence of PWs’ 1 and 4, this court is of the considered view is that, it is not safe to convict the accused only basing on the uncorroborated oral evidence of PWs’ 1 and 4. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

11. R E S U L T:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation and corrected, pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 06th day of March, 2020). -Sd/XXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar. :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: Witnesses Examined

For the Prosecution: -For the Defence:- PW1/Sri R.Srinivas Reddy - Nil – PW2/Sri Shaik Raheel PW3/Sri Mohd. Akram PW4/Sri Md.Nadeem Hussain Exhibits Marked For the Prosecution: -For the Defence:- - Nil – Exs.P1 to P3 are the signatures of PW2 on scene, confession cum seizure panchanama. Exs.P4 to P6 are the signatures of PW3 on scene, confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P7 is the scene, confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P8 is the FIR. M.O.s Marked - Nil - -Sd/XXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

1 C.C. No.797 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – XIV ADDL.

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR

PRESENT: N.Santhosh Kumar, Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum – XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Monday, this the 16 th day of March, 2020

C.C.No. 797 of 2016

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. R.G.I Air Port, (Crime No.202/2016) …Complainant

And

A1. Mohd Siddiqi, S/o. Md.Yousuf, Age: 33 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.14-11/1q, Kourampet, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District.

A2. Khasim Qureshi, S/o. Afzal, Age: 21 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.14-15, near Amba Bhavani Temple, Kourampet, Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar District. …Accused Nos. 1 and 2

This case coming on today before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Vara Prasad, Advocate for accused Nos. 1 and 2 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S RGI Airport has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.202/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 5, 6, 10 R/w 11 of A.P Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Prevention Act, 1977.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.05.2016 at 10.00 hours received a complaint from LW1/Sri Arjun Singh, in which he stated that on 14.05.2016 at 06.15 hours, while the complainant was coming from

Shadnagar, found Mahindra Vehicle bearing No. TS06UA/3912 loaded with 10

Cows (Gomatha) being transported for slaughtering at Bahudurpura and the 2 C.C. No.797 of 2016 driver of the said vehicle (A1) also informed the same. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action against the accused for subjecting the cows transported for their slaughtering.

3 .Basing on the contents of above complaint, the LW4/Sri L.Ramesh Naik,

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. RGI Airport, has registered a case in Crime

No.202/2016, under Section 5, 6, 10 r/w 11 of A.P. Prohibition of Cow

Slaughter and Animal Prevention Act, 1977 and took up the investigation. In due course of investigation, LW4 examined and recorded the statement of

LW1/Sri Arjun Singh, rushed to the scene of offence and secured the presence of two mediators in whose presence seized the (06) Cows (04) Calves which are being transported in the TS 06 UA 3912 for slaughtering at Bahadurpura and also seized the said vehicle under cover of panchanama and sent them to the

Sri Samartha Kamadhenu Goshala at MCH Colony, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad for safe custody through the Hon’ble Court. Thereafter served notice under

Section 41-A Cr.P.C. with a request to come up with their defense for the alleged offence within (03) days. The A1 and A2 voluntarily surrendered before the LW4 and admitted their guilt. As such released the accused as per the orders of Apex Court as contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, Sub-Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 5, 6, 10 r/w 11 of A.P Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977.

4.The case was taken on file under Section 5, 6, 10 r/w 11 of A.P

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

3 C.C. No.797 of 2016

5.The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 5, 6, 10 r/w 11 of A.P Prohibition of Cow

Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977, the substance of accusation is read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

6.During the course of trail, prosecution has examined PWs’ 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Police failed to produce LWs’ 1 and 3, inspite of granting sufficient time. Hence the evidence of LWs’ 1 and 3 closed.

Prosecution side evidence closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found against them in the prosecution witnesses to which they denied the same and reported no further defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence closed.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

9. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences 5, 6, 10

r/w 11 of A.P Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and

Animal Prevention Act, 1977 beyond reasonable

doubt?

10. Point:-

The prosecution to prove its case should prove that on 14.05.2016 the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the persons, who transporting the cows for the purpose of slaughtering.

4 C.C. No.797 of 2016

Prosecution to prove its case has examined PWs’1 and 2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3. PW1 is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama and PW2 is the investigating officer in the present case.

PW1, who is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama, deposed that he does not know anything about the present case.

Approximately 4 years back on one day he went to police station RGI Airport.

There police obtained his signature on some written papers. The learned APP with the permission of this court declared the PW1 as hostile. The learned APP with the permission of this court has cross-examined the above witness, during cross-examination nothing of substance was elicited against the accused.

PW2, who is the investigating officer, deposed that on 14.05.2016 at 10.00 hours received complaint from LW1/Sri Arjun Singh. Basing on the complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.202/2016 and issued FIR under

Ex.P2. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1/Arjun Singh. Immediately he rushed to the scene of offence.

In the presence of PW1 and LW3/Sri Subba Rao recorded the confession of the accused and seized 6 cows and 4 calves and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P3. He sent the said Cows and Calves to “SRI

SAMARTHA KAMA DENA GOSHALA” for safe custody. He issued 41(A) Cr.P.C.

notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused in the present case.

As seen from the evidence of PW2, he stated about receiving complaint from LW1/Arjun Singh, registration of case, issuance of FIR and recording the statement of witnesses. PW2 further deposed that he recorded confession statement of accused in the presence of PW1 and LW3/Sri Subba Rao and seized (06) Cows and (04) Calves and conducted confession cum seizure 5 C.C. No.797 of 2016 panchanama. Though PW2 stated that he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of accused in the presence of mediators, but the evidence of PW2 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW1, who is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama, since he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW2 admitted in his cross-examination that he has not filed the acknowledgment given by “SRI SAMARTHA KAMA DENA GOSHALA”. He also admitted that he has not examined the owner of the cattle and he has not collected any bills in the present case. Even the prosecution failed to examine the other panch witness i.e. LW3/Sri Phalkamshetti Subba Rao, inspite of granting several adjournments. In the present case, the prosecution utterly failed to examine the complainant, which is fatal to the case to prove the guilt of the accused. The evidence of PW2 and the investigation done by him is not sufficient to prove the fact that the A1 and A2 were transporting the cows for slaughtering purpose.

After going through the evidence on record, it becomes clear that the evidence adduced by prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

11. R E S U L T:In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 5, 6, 10 r/w 11 of A.P

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

6 C.C. No.797 of 2016

The unmarked case property i.e. Mahindra vehicle bearing No.

TS06UA3912 (Model CRDI 3200), deposited vide CPR No.274/2016, which was already given for interim custody to its owner, shall stands good after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation and corrected, pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16 th day of March, 2020).

-Sd/XXXXXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: Witnesses Examined

For the Prosecution: -For the Defence:-

PW1/Sri Yadaiah - Nil – PW2/Sri L.Ramesh Naik

Exhibits Marked For the Prosecution: -For the Defence:- - Nil – Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P2 is the FIR. Ex.P3 is the confession cum seizure panchanama.

M.O.s Marked - Nil - -Sd/XXXXXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

1 C.C. No.165 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – XIV ADDL.

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD AT RAJENDRANAGAR

PRESENT: Sri N.Santhosh Kumar,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Monday, this the 16 th day of March, 2020

C.C.No. 165 of 2016

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Rajendranagar, (Crime No.558/2013) …Complainant

And

Gandham Sai Kumar @ Kiran, S/o. Late G.Narender, Age: 20 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.4-6-115, Rambagh, Attapur, Rajendranagar, R.R. District. ……Accused

This case coming on today before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B.N.Chary, Advocate for accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Rajendranagar has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.558/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.07.2013 at 12.15 hours, received a complaint from the complainant/LW1/Sri Panduranga Raju,

S/o. P.N.Raju, Occ: Senior Assistant in SRO Office, in which he stated that

Mr.S.Laxman, SI of Police, Rajendranagar came to his office and submitted the copy of document No.5201/1999 with a request to verify the above document in Sub-Registrar Office records regarding any survey number in Sub-Register officer records the house number only mentioned by the Mr.G.Sai Kumar, S/o.

Late G.Nagender and Smt. Uma were submitted by forgery document in the 2 C.C. No.165 of 2016 court vide Writ Petition NO.12882/2011. Further, he requested to take necessary action in this regard.

3.Basing on the above complaint, the LW4/Sri S.Jayara, Inspector of

Police, PS Rajendranagar has registered a case in Crime No.558/2013 under

Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW5/Sri

S.Laxman, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Rajendranagar. During the course of investigation, LW5 examined and recorded the statement of LW1/Sri

Panduranga Raju. While investigation was in progress, on 03.05.2014 the accused was arrested and sent to judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused under section 420, 468, 471 IPC.

4.The case was taken on file under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges under

Section 420, 468, 471 IPC, are framed, the contents of charges are read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trail, the prosecution has examined PWs’ 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Police failed to produce LWs’ 2 to 4, inspite of granting sufficient time. Hence, their evidence closed. Prosecution side evidence closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appearing in the 3 C.C. No.165 of 2016 evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused, for which he denied and stated no defense evidence on his behalf. Hence, defense evidence closed.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

9. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the charged offences under Section

420, 468, 471 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. Point:-

The prosecution to prove its case should prove that, the accused is the person who cheated by submitting the forgery document in Writ Petition

No.12882/2011 as a genuine document.

Prosecution to prove its case has examined PWs’ 1 and 2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P7. PW1 is the complainant and PW2 is the investigating officer in the present case. The police failed to produce LWs’ 2 to 4, inspite of granting sufficient time. Hence, their evidence closed.

PW1 who is the complainant deposed before the court that in the month of July 2013 on one day SI and CI of Police Rajendranagar came to their office and showed him one document bearing No.5201/1999. Police requested him to verify whether there is any survey number in the said document. He verified their revenue record and informed police that there is no survey number in the said document. The said document is registered on house number. At the request of the police, he lodged a report to the police under Ex.P1.

4 C.C. No.165 of 2016

PW2 who is the investigating officer deposed that on 09.07.2013,

LW4/Sri Jairam received complaint from PW1. Basing on the compliant, he registered a case in Cr.No.558/2013 and issued FIR under Ex.P2. He entrusted the investigation to him. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1. On 03.05.2014, he affected the arrest of accused. After affecting the arrest of accused, he recorded the confession of accused in the presence of LW2/Sri Srinivas and LW3/Krishan

Murthy. He collected true copies of the documents from SRO, Rajendranagar and got marked as Exs.P2 to P7. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused in the present case.

On careful perusal of entire evidence, PW1 stated before the court that the SI and CI of Police Rajendranagar came to their office and requested to verify document bearing No.5201/1999 whether there is any survey number in the said document. On the verification of revenue records by the PW1, it came to know that there is no survey in the said document and the said document is registered on house number. PW1 further stated that at the request of police, he lodged report to the police, whereas coming to the cross-examination he admitted that as per his complaint only, the SI of Police came to their office. In view of the material contradictions in the evidence of chief and cross examination of PW1, much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of PW1.

Moreover, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW1 from any independent witnesses. Now coming to the evidence of PW2, he deposed before the court about receiving complaint from PW1 and issuance of Ex.P2 by

LW4/Sri S.Jairam. PW2 further stated before the court about recording the statements of witnesses, arrest of accused, conducting confession panchanama of accused in the presence of LW2/Sri Srinivas and LW3/Sri Krishan Murthy.

But, the prosecution failed to examine the panch witness for confession, inspite of granting several adjournments. Even though the accused was arrested, 5 C.C. No.165 of 2016 mere arrest of accused will not prove the entire case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the prosecution nor the investigating officer has not taken any steps to get marked the order copy of Writ Petition

No.12882/2011 by the Hon’ble High Court, which is the basis for the complaint. In the present case the prosecution has filed no document to support their version.

On considering the evidence of PWs’ 1 and 2, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused with which he was charged. Hence, I hold that the accused is entitled for acquittal by extending benefit of doubt in his favour.

The point is answered accordingly.

11. R E S U L T:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 420, 468, 471 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation and corrected, pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16 th day of March, 2020).

-Sd/XXXXXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: Witnesses Examined For the Prosecution: -For the Defence:- PW1/Sri P.Pandu Ranga Raju – Nil – PW2/Sri S.Laxman

Exhibits Marked For the Prosecution: -For the Defence:- –Nil – Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the FIR.

6 C.C. No.165 of 2016

Ex.P3 is the confession panchanama. Ex.P4 is the True copy of gift deed bearing No.5201/1999, dated 27.12.1999. Ex.P5 is the True copy of gift settlement deed bearing No.568/2001, dated 30.01.2001. Ex.P6 is the True copy of sale deed bearing No.1343/2008. Ex.P7 is the True copy of agreement cum sale GPA dated 16.04.2010.

M.O.s Marked - Nil - -Sd/XXXXXXXX Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum- XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Page 1 of 6 OS No.278/2018 I AJCJ-cum-XV AMM

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CUM- XV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

Present: Smt. G. Kavitha I Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum- XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

Friday, the 11 thday of December, 2020.

O.S. No. 278 of 2018

Between:

1. Smt. Sure Kumari W/o. Late Sure Veera Bharani Kirshna Murthy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife,

2. Srithija Veera Sure D/o. Late Sure Veera Bharani Krishna Murthy, Aged about 13 years, Occ: Student,

3. Smaran Veera Sure S/o. Late Sure Veera Bhrani Krishna Murthy, Aged about 9 years, Occ: Student

Sl. No.2 and 3 Represented by their mother by name Smt. Sure Kumari being natural Guardian who is the Plaintiff No.1 herein.

All R/o. Plot No.148, FCI Colony, Phase-2, Chintalkunta Check Post, LB Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 074.

Temporarily R/o. Apt # 147, Meadow Brook Road, Edison, New Jersey – 08837, U.S.A.

......Plaintiffs.

AND

1. All concerned

2. The Tahasildar, Narsingi Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. .....Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. T. Srinivasa Reddy, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants are set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

Page 2 of 6 OS No.278/2018 I AJCJ-cum-XV AMM

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

The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs, praying the Court to declare them as legal heirs of Late Sure Veera

Bharani Krishna Murthy.

2. The case of the Plaintiffs as per the plaint averments is that the Plaintiff No.1 is the wife,Plaintiff No.2 is the daughter and

Plaintiff No.3 is the son of Late Sure Veera Bharani Krishna

Murthy, who died intestate on 18.10.2015 at New Jersey, U.S.A.

and he has left behind the Plaintiffs, who are his surviving legal heirs for the movable and immovable properties left over by him.

3. It is further submitted that during the lifetime of

Late Sure Veera Bharani Krishna Murthy, he had an immovable property (suit schedule of property) i.e. the undivided share of land admeasuring 36.30 Sq. Yards equivalent to 30.34 Sq. Meters (Out of Ac.7.20 Gts.), in Survey No.118, 119 & 168 situated at

Narsingi Village and Gram Panchayath, Narsingi Mandal (Formally comes under Rajendranagar Mandal), Ranga Reddy

District and boundaries of an extent of Ac.07-20 Gts. as North:

Road to Neighbor Hood, South: 100 and 60 wide Road, West:

Neighbour’s land and East: Neighbour’s Land, having purchased the same through Registered Sale Deed bearing Document

No.6943 of 2010, dated 31.07.2010 from his vendors by name

M/s. Power Welfare Society, represented by its Executive

Committee Member Sri. T. Venkateswara Rao.

Page 3 of 6 OS No.278/2018 I AJCJ-cum-XV AMM

4. It is further submitted that, except the Plaintiffs there are no other legal heirs to said Late Sure Veera Bharani Krishna

Murthy. The Plaintiffs approached the Defendant No.2 on 22.11.2018 with an application to mutate their names in Revenue

Records instead of Late Sure Veera Bharani Krishna Murthy, but the Defendant No.2 has refused to do so and advised the Plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, in order to avoid future litigation, the Plaintiffs approached this Court by filing the present

Suit. Hence, the Suit.

5.On Defendant No.1, summons were served by way of paper publication, but no one appeared before the Court objecting the claim of Plaintiffs. Hence, Defendant No.1 is set exparte. The

Defendant No.2, inspite of receiving summons, did not appear

before the Court, hence he is set exparte.

6.On behalf of Plaintiffs, PWs 1 and 2 are examined.

Ex.A1 to A10 are marked.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination that arose is:

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal heirs of Late Sure Veera Bharani Krishna Murthy, as prayed for?

9.Point:

The Plaintiffs in support of their contention, examined

PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A10. Ex.A1 is the Certified

Copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.6943 of 2010, dated

Page 4 of 6 OS No.278/2018 I AJCJ-cum-XV AMM 31.07.2010, Ex.A2 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed bearing

Document No.544 of 2008, dated 25.08.2008, Ex.A3 is the

Certified Copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.2036 of 2008,

dated 13.05.2008, Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed

bearing Document No.2037 of 2008, dated 13.05.2008, Ex.A5 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.2038 of 2008, dated 13.05.2008, Ex.A6 is the Statement of Encumbrance on Property, dated 28.11.2018, Ex.A7 is the Death Certificate of

Late Sure Veera Bharani Krishna Murthy, Ex.A8 is the Marriage

Certificate of Plaintiff No.1 and Late Sure Veera Bharani Krishna

Murthy, Ex.A9 is the Birth Certificate of Plaintiff No.2, dated 11.10.2015 and Ex.A10 is the Birth Certificate of Plaintiff No.3,

dated 30.12.2009.

10.The chief of PW-1 is the replication of plaint averments.

Coming to documentary evidence, Ex.A7 reveals that the said Late

Sure Veera Bharani Krishna Murthy died on 18.10.2015. Ex.A8 reveals the relationship of Plaintiff No.1 with said Late Sure Veera

Bharani Krishna Murthy as his wife. Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 are reflecting the name of Plaintiff No.1 as mother and said Late Sure

Veera Bharani Krishna Murthy as father of Plaintiffs No.2 and 3, respectively. Ex.A1 & A6 show the title of said Late Sure Veera

Bharani Krishna Murthy with respect to the suit schedule property.

11. Even otherwise, since the Defendants Nos.1 and 2 are set exparte, the chief of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to

Page 5 of 6 OS No.278/2018 I AJCJ-cum-XV AMM

Ex.A10, remained un-rebutted and unchallenged. In view of unchallenged testimony of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to

Ex.A10, this Court finds nothing to disbelieve the version of

Plaintiffs.

12. Having regard to facts and circumstances of case and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded that Plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal heirs of said Late Sure Veera

Bharani Krishna Murthy. Accordingly point is answered.

13.In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring the

Plaintiffs as legal heirs of Late Sure Veera Bharani Krishna

Murthy.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of December, 2020.

I ADDI. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

XV ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT RAJENDRANAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1 : Smt. Sure Kumari - NIL -

PW-2 : B. Praveen Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS :-

Ex.A1 - is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.6943 of 2010, dated 31.07.2010

Page 6 of 6 OS No.278/2018 I AJCJ-cum-XV AMM

Ex.A2 - is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.544 of 2008, dated 25.08.2008

Ex.A3 - is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.2036 of 2008, dated 13.05.2008

Ex.A4 - is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.2037 of 2008, dated 13.05.2008

Ex.A5 - is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.2038 of 2008, dated 13.05.2008

Ex.A6 - is the Statement of Encumbrance on Property,

dated 28.11.2018

Ex.A7 - is the Death Certificate of Late Sure Veera Bharani Krishna Murthy Ex.A8 - is the Marriage Certificate of Plaintiff No.1 and Late Sure Veera Bharani Krishna Murthy

Ex.A9 - is the Birth Certificate of Plaintiff No.2,

dated 11.10.2015

Ex.A10 - is the Birth Certificate of Plaintiff No.3,

dated 30.12.2009.

FOR DEFENDANTS

- NIL -

I ADDI. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

XV ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT RAJENDRANAGAR.