Sri N. Srinivasa Rao

1 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER N.D.P.S. ACT – CUM –

I ADDITIONAL DISTRIT JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

PRESENT: Sri N.Srinivasa Rao,

Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Act-cum-

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru

Friday, the 4th day of November, 2022

CALENDAR EXTRACT

N.D.P.S. S.C. No.09/2017

1. State represented by : Inspector of Railway Police Station, Bhimavaram R.P. Circle.

2. Date of offence : Prior to 28-02-2013; 5-3-2013

3. Date of complaint : 28-02-2013; 5-3-2013

4. Date of apprehension : 5-03-2013

5. Date of release on bail : 11-07-2013

6. Commencement of trial : 21-09-2022

7. Closure of trial : 01-11-2022

8. Name and description of the accused:

Pramukha Raita, S/o.Ghasi Raita, 28 years, r/o.Tikmala Kendu Sahi Village, Sabarapalli Post, Gajapathi District, Orissa State.

9. Offences : Under Section 8 (c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii) (C) and Section 8 (c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

10. Prosecution conducted : Spl. Public Prosecutor. by

11. Accused defended by : Sri T.R.K.S.Srinivas, Advocate for accused.

12. Date of Judgment : 04-11-2022

13. Finding of the Court :Accused is found not guilty of the charges under Section 8 (c) r/w. 20 (b)

(ii) (C) and Section 8 (c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii) (B) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and they are acquitted for the same under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

14. Explanation for delay : There is no avoidable delay.

2 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

15. Remarks : Nil.

ORDER:

In the result,Accused is found not guilty of the charges under Section 8 (c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii) (C) and Section 8 (c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii) (B) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and he is acquitted for the same under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months period as contemplated under Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 – Maroon colour trolley bag which contains 28 Kgs., of Ganja, M.O.2 – Woodland bag which contains 18 Kgs., of Ganja, M.O.3 – Sample packet which contains 100 grams of Ganja, M.O.4 – Sample packet which contains 100 grams of Ganja, and M.O.5 – Brown colour packet which contains 3 Kgs., of Ganja (C.P.No.19/22), shall be produced before the Drug Disposal Committee for the purpose of destruction after the appeal time is over and subject to result of the appeal if appeal is filed. M.O.6 cash of Rs.5,715/- (C.P.No.19/22) shall be confiscated to the Government after appeal time is elapsed.

Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Act –

cum – I Additional District & Sessions

Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Copies to:

1.The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

2.The Principal District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

3.The Collector, W.G., Eluru.

4.The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.

5.The Director of Prosecutions, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad.

6.Spl. Public Prosecutor (NDPS), W.G., Eluru.

3 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER N.D.P.S. ACT – CUM –

I ADDITIONAL DISTRIT JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

PRESENT: Sri N.Srinivasa Rao,

Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Act-cum-

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru

Friday, the 4th day of November, 2022

N.D.P.S. S.C.No.09/2017

1. Complainant : Inspector of Railway Police Station, Bhimavaram R.P. Circle.

2. Name and description of the accused:

Pramukha Raita, S/o.Ghasi Raita, 28 years, r/o.Tikmala Kendu Sahi Village, Sabarapalli Post, Gajapathi District, Orissa State.

3. Crime No. & Police station. : Cr.Nos.18/2013 and 20/2013 of Bhimavaram Railway Police Station, Vijayawada GRP District.

4. Charges under Sections : U/Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20 (b)(ii) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

6. Finding of the Court : Accused is found not guilty of the charges under Section 8 (c) r/w. 20

(b) (ii) (C) and Section 8 (c) r/w. 20

(b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and they are acquitted for the same under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

7. Sentence or Order : In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the charges under Section 8 (c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii) (C) and Section 8 (c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and he is acquitted for the same under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months period as contemplated under Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 – Maroon colour trolley bag which contains 28 Kgs., of Ganja, 4 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

M.O.2 – Woodland bag which contains 18 Kgs., of Ganja, M.O.3 – Sample packet which contains 100 grams of Ganja, M.O.4 – Sample packet which contains 100 grams of Ganja, and M.O.5 – Brown colour packet which contains 3 Kgs., of Ganja (C.P.No.19/22), shall be produced

before the Drug Disposal Committee for

the purpose of destruction after the appeal time is over and subject to result of the appeal if appeal is filed. M.O.6cash of Rs.5,715/- (C.P.No.19/22) shall be confiscated to the Government after appeal time is elapsed.

8. Prosecution conducted by : Spl. Public Prosecutor.

9. Accused defended by : Sri T.R.K.S.Srinivas, Advocate for Accused.

This case has come on 01-11-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor representing the State and of Sri T.R.K.S.Srinivas, Advocate for Accused; and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:--

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Inspector of Railway Police, Rajahmundry Railway

P.S., i/c. Bhimavaram Line Circle, has been filed a detailed charge sheet in

Cr.Nos.18/2013 and 20/2013 of Bhimavaram Railway Police Station, Vijayawada GRP

District, against sole Accused, belongs to Tikmala Kendu Sahi Village, Sabarapalli Post,

Gajapathi District, Orissa State, under Section 8 (c) and 20 (b) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [herein after called for short “NDPS” Act].

2.The case of prosecution, in nutshell, as mentioned in the charge sheet thus; i.On 28-2-2013 at 1.11 P.M., L.W.1 – Shaik Khadar Valli, who is

R.P.F., S.I., Bhimavaram visited Bhimavaram Railway Station having received the information that the contraband Ganja was available in the train bearing No.

17015 and at that time L.W.13 - Sk. Akhil Zama, S.I. of Police, Bhimavaram

RPS., came to the station along with a doctor. At that time L.W.2 – A.Chandra

Shekar, Head Constable and LW.3 – P.Venkateswarlu, Head Constable got down 5 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU from S.9 coach and produced the maroon colour trolley and woodland black colour trolley bags. In that connection L.W.1 – Shaik Khadar Valli addressed a letter to L.W.13 - Sk. Akhil Zama, and handed over the two bags to L.W.13 - Sk.

Akhil Zama, for the purpose of investigation. L.W.13 - Sk. Akhil Zama, S.I. of

Police, Bhimavaram RPS., registered the report in Cr.No.18/2013 under Section 102 Cr.P.C., and Sections 8(b), 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act. Further investigation conducted by L.W.15 – M.Surya Kumar, who worked as Inspector of Police,

Bhimavaram Railway Police Station.

ii.The other allegations leveled against the accused discloses in the charge sheet are that on 5-3-2013 at 11.00 A.M., L.W.15 – M.Surya Kumar,

Inspector of Police apprehended the accused at Tanuku Railway Station Platform in the presence of L.W.7 – K.Surya Venkata Subba Rao and L.W.8 –

Y.Veeranjaneyulu, mediators in Cr.No.20/2013 of Bhimavaram Railway Police

Station. L.W.15 – M.Surya Kumar produced accused before L.W.9 – Jangam

Swamy Raju, Mandal Educational Officer, Tanuku at 1.00 P.M., and the accused confessed about the offences and there he apprehended the accused and seized 3 Kgs., of Ganja with polythene cover kept in the handbag and cash Rs.5,715/- in Cr.No.20/2013. At the time of interrogation, the accused confessed the offence relating to Cr.No.18/2013 of Bhimavaram RPS Police Station. After due investigation, L.W.18 – T.Srinivasa Reddy, Inspector of Railway Police,

Rajahmunedry RPS i/c. Bhimavaram Line Circle, laid charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3.This Court on perusal of the charge sheet and connected material taken cognizance under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act 1985 against sole accused. On production of accused before the court, the copies of case documents are furnished to accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

4.By following the procedure Under Section 228 (1)(b)of Code of Criminal

Procedure framed a charge under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) and Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 against accused, explained the contents of the charge to accused in Telugu language for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.13 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-13, besides MOs.1 to 6 got marked. On behalf of accused,

Exs.D-1 to D-10 got marked. After the closure of evidence of prosecution, accused examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution for which accused denied the incriminating circumstances and he stated that he has no defense witness and he has nothing to say anything about the case.

6.During the trial, learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up

L.W.5 – K.Sankara Rao, L.W.6 – N.Kasi Viswanadha Raju, L.W.8 – Y.Veeranjaneyulu, therefore, the evidence are deemed to be closed. The prosecution failed to examine

L.W.12 – P.Chandra Sekhar and L.W.17 – G.Ramesh Babu and their evidence are deemed to be closed.

7.I have heard arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for accused.

8. Now, in deciding the charge framed against the accused, the points emerges for determination are,

1) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused is

found in possession of 3 Kgs., of Ganja on 05.03.2013 at

11:30 a.m., at South end of the Tanuku Railway Station

Platform?

2) Whether the prosecution has established the possession

of 28 Kgs., of Ganja in maroon colour trolley and 18 Kgs., of

7 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

Ganja in woodland trolley, which was kept by the accused in

S9 compartment in train No.17015 Visakha Express?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved that the

investigation officers had followed the relevant mandatory

provisions under NDPS Act, 1985 in detection and

investigation of the case?

4) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges framed against accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. POINT NO.1 to 3:

In order bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses.

P.W.1 – Shaik Khadar Valli, the then RPF., S.I. of Police, P.W.2 – A.Chandra

Shekar, Head Constable, R.P.F., P.W.3 – R.Venkateswarlu, Head Constable, RFP.,

P.W.4 – M.Sudhakar and P.W.9 – Sk.Akhilzama, the then S.I. of Police, GRP., examined by the prosecution in order to prove the allegations leveled against the accused in

Cr.No.18/2013 of Bhimavaram RPS Police Station.

10. P.W.1 the then S.I. of Police, R.P.F., Bhimavaram Railway Police

Station and he stated in his evidence that on 28-2-2013 at 11.00 P.M., he received phone call from Security Control, Vijayawada and came to know that there were two

Ganja bags were found in train bearing No.17015, which was proceeding from

Bhubaneswar to Secunderabad via., Bhimavaram in S9 Coach and two bags were noticed byP.W.2 and P.W.3. Immediately, he informed the message particulars to

P.W.9, S.I. of Police, RPS., Bhimavaram. Immediately, he himself, P.W.9 and one doctor rushed to the Bhimavaram Railway Station. P.W.9 brought the weighing machine to the Railway Station. P.W.2 and P.W.3 got down in Bhimavaram Railway

Station along with maroon colour trolley and woodland trolley bags. P.W.9 weighed the

Ganja in the two bags and which contained 28 Kgs., of contraband Ganja available in the maroon colour trolley bag (M.O.1) and 18 Kgs., of Ganja available in woodland 8 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU trolley bag (M.O.2). In that connection, P.W.1 addressed Ex.P-1 letter to P.W.9 for further investigation. On that date, P.W.9 taken 100 grams of Ganja from each bag (M.Os.3 and 4). P.W.2 and P.W.3 stated in their evidence that they were on escort duty for the train bearing No. 7015 and while checking the train at Tanuku and found that one bag and trolley under the seat in S.9 Coach and immediately, they were informed the message to Security Control at Vijayawada. The train reached to the

Bhimavaram in the platform, P.W.1, GRP S.I. came to the compartment and they handed over the two bags to P.W.1. P.W.9 asserted in his evidence that on 28-2-2013 at 10.30 p.m., he received a phone call from RPF Authorities regarding the two bags and he rushed to the Railway Station in Platform No.1 along with Government Doctor

P.Chandra Sekhar (L.W.12). He found one maroon colour trolley bag, black and maroon colour travelling bag I the platform of Railway Station and L.W.12 – P.Chandra

Sekhar identified the material and concluded that the material in the bag are Ganja. In that connection, he registered Ex.P-1 report Cr.No.18/2013 Bhimavaram RPS Police

Station under Sections 102 Cr.P.C., 8(b), 20(B)(i) of NDPS Act (Ex.P-4). He handed over the F.I.R., to L.W.15 – M.Surya Kumar, Inspector of Police, for further investigation. In order to prove the said fact, the prosecution also examined P.W.4, who is a vendor in Railway Station and P.W.4 stated in his evidence that on 28-2-2013 at 11-30 p.m., P.W.9, P.W.1 were present in the station and P.W.9 opened the suitcase and bag in his presence and found 28 Kgs., of Ganja and 18 Kgs., of Ganja in the two bags.

11.The prosecution examined P.W.5 and P.W.6, who are V.R.O., of Tanuku and Mandal Educational Officer at Tanuku and acted as mediators at the time of apprehension of accused by P.W.11, the then C.I. of Police, Bhimavaram Railway

Police Station, and seizure of the contraband Ganja (M.O.5). PW.11 – M.Shyamkumar, the then C.I. of Police, Bhimavaram Railway Police Station stated in his evidence that on 5-3-2013 on credible information at 11.30 a.m., he visited Tanuku Railway Station, 9 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

Platform No.2 along with P.W.5 V.R.O., Tanuku and L.W.8 – Y.Veeranjaneyulu and they were at Platform No.2 on southern side and found the accused person on suspicious movements. On interrogation, the accused revealed his identity particulars in Hindi and Orissa languages. At that time P.W.8, who is a Constable at

Tadepalligudem Railway Station and well versed with Hindi language and P.W.8 questioned the accused about the offence particulars and his identity particulars.

P.W.8 translated the version of the accused to P.W.11. P.W.11 further stated that he found one handbag in the possession of accused which contained contraband Ganja.

P.W.11 further stated that he recorded the confessional statement of the accused wherein the accused confessed that he belongs to Kanda Village, Gajapathi District,

Orissa State and he used to bring the contraband Ganja to surrounding to his village and sell in Andhra Pradesh. He boarded the train at Rajahmundry Railway Station and in the meantime he was caught by the police at Tanuku and in that connection, P.W.5 drafted a mediators’ report (Ex.P-2) in the presence of P.W.5 and L.W.8 –

Y.Veeranjaneyulu and obtained signature of accused on Ex.P-2.

12.P.W.11 further stated that on the same day at 1.00 noon time, he produced the accused before P.W.6 – J.Swamy Raju, the then Mandal Education

Officer at Tanuku Mandal Educationl Office, as per the provisions of the NDPS Act. He further stated that in the presence of P.W.6, the accused confessed that in the month of April, 2011 while he was travelling in Bokaro express along with three bags which contain 7 Kgs., of Ganja and due to the fear of the passengers, he got down from the train at Annavaram Railway Station and the accused further confessed that in the month of September, 2011 he boarded Yeswanthapur Express along with 13 Kgs., of

Ganja and as RPF Police and passengers noticed the Ganja and due to fear he got down from the train at Rajahmundry. Accused further confessed that in the month of

June, 2012 he travelled in Janmabhoomi Express with 14 Kgs., of Ganja and the passengers noticed the Gnja and hpe got down at Tuni Railway Station. He further 10 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU stated that the accused confessed that in the month of February, 2013 he travelled in

Bhubaneswar Train with black colour bag which contain 18 Kgs., and maroon colour bag which contain 28 Kgs., of Ganja in order to go to Secunderabad, and having noticed the same by the passengers, he reached nearer to the Bhimavaram and left the train at Bhimavaram. P.W.11 further stated that on 5-3-2013 he found the accused with 3 Kgs., of Ganja and cash of Rs.5,715/- (Rs.1,000/- notes 5, Rs.500/- note 1, Rs.100/- notes 2, Rs.10/- note 1, Rs.5/- note 1) in the purse along with Pan

Card. P.W.11 seized 100 grams of Ganja for the purpose of analysis (M.O.5) and in that connection, P.W.5 drafted a detailed mediators’ report (Ex.P-3). P.W.11 further stated that after completion of the formalities, he sent the accused to the Court for judicial remand to Vijayawada Railway Court and on verification, he came to know that

Tuni RPF Police registered the Cr.No.33/2011, Rajahmundry RPF Police registered the case in Cr.No.71/2011 and Tuni RPF Police registered the case in Cr.No.85/2012 against the accused under Section 20 of NDPS Act. He seized the property in

Cr.No.18/2013 of Bhimavaram RPF Railway Station. He sent the samples in both crimes to Government Laboratory, Kakinada and handed over M.O.6 cash to his successor at the time of his transfer. The evidence of P.W.5, P.W.6 amply corroborated to the evidence of P.W.11 in respect of arrest of accused and seizure of the property from the possession of accused. Ex.P-2 mediators’ report, M.O.5, Ex.P-3 mediators’ report and M.O.6 got marked in the evidence of P.W.5. The evidence of

PW.8 is also corroborated to the evidence of P.W.11 and his evidence further shows that he translated the version of the accused in Telugu language to P.W.11.

13.P.W.7 – G.Rama Raju, who is the vendor in Tanuku Railway Station and he stated in his evidence that on 5-3-2013 at 11-30 a.m., in his presence police officials caught hold the accused along with bag which contain 3 Kgs., of Ganja bag.

14.P.W.10 – P.Venkateswara Rao, the then RPHC Bhimavaram GRP Station, stated in his evidence that on 5-3-2013 at 4.00 p.m., he received Exs.P-2 and P-3 from 11 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

P.W.11 and registered the same in Cr.No.20/2013 under Section 8(c), 20(b)(i) of NDPS

Act (Ex.P-5 F.I.R.). P.W.12 – R.Sk.Bajilal, the then Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram

Circle stated in his evidence that on 2-5-2014 he received chemical analysis reports

Cr.No.18/2013 and Cr.No.20/2013 (Exs.P-6 and P-7) and filed the charge sheet on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court, Vijayawada. P.W.13 stated in his evidence that he filed a charge sheet in I Additional district Court after taken the same from

Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court, Vijayawada, on point of jurisdiction.

15. The case of accused is one of total denial.

16. Learned Counsel for accused strenuously argued that at the Bar that there are several contradictions and omissions in the material witnesses adduced by the prosecution and the confessional statement by the accused before police officer is in-admissible in evidence. The Counsel further argued that the investigation officers in the present case are not followed the important provisions of NDPS Act, mainly under

Sections 42, 55, 57 of NDPS Act, which are mandatory in nature to comply the provisions at the time of search and seizure of contraband Ganja from the possession of the accused. The investigation officer grossly violated the Standing Orders 1/88 and 1/89 at the time of taking of the sample, packing, seal and search of the contraband and there is no seizure of contraband establish by the prosecution in Cr.No.18/2013.

Learned Counsel further argued that admittedly Tuni police officials registered the

Cr.No.33/2011 under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and the

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada acquitted the accused in S.C.No.49/2017.

That itself shows that the prosecution foisted the case against the accused for statistical purpose and moreover, Exs.D-1 to D-10 are sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution.

17.On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the evidence of prosecution against the accused wherein the accused 12 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU confessed the offence before the police officer and the evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

18.Having considered the rival contentions of both Counsels, I have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

19.Exs.D-1 to D-6 contradictions portions marked in the cross-examination of

P.W.5. P.W.5, who acted as one of the mediator in Exs.P-2 and P-3 mediators’ reports. P.W.5 in his cross-examination, he candidly admitted that he stated before II

Addl. District Judge’s Court, Vijayawada in S.C.No.49/2017 that “on 5-3-2013 at 11.30 a.m., I was present in my office” (Ex.D-1), “Constable came to him while I was in my office at 11.15 a.m.,” (Ex.D-2), “including me there were 5 persons as stated in the cross-examination in S.C.No.49/2017” (Ex.D-3), “Constable scribed mahazar at Railway

Station as stated by him in S.C.No.49/2017” (Ex.D-4), “I do not know who weighed the

Ganja as stated in S.C.No.50/2017” (Ex.D-5), and similarly “2nd mahazar was also one

Constable whose name I do not know” (Ex.D-6). On the basis of Exs.D-1 to D-6,

Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the presence of P.W.5 in Railway

Station on 5-3-2013 at 11.00 a.m., at the time of apprehension of accused and seizure of property by P.W.11 is very much doubtful. P.W.5 categorically admitted all the admissions he stated before the another Court i.e., Exs.D-1 to D-6 and therefore, without any hesitation, I hold that his evidence is not trustworthy to prove the contents of Exs.P-2 and P-3 mahazars.

20.P.W.11 in his cross-examination, he candidly admitted that, “I have not prepared any separate mediators’ report in connection the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 in Cr.No.18/2013 of Bhimavaram Railway Police

Station at the time of seizure. It is true I have not written the information received by me at 11.30 a.m., on 5-3-2013 in concerned registers and I never informed the information to my superior officials for obtaining the permission to conduct the investigation. P.W.8 was not appointed as a translator in the department. P.W.8 not signed on Exs.P-2 and P-3 mahazars to prove that he was also present along with me. Exs.P-2 and P- 13 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU 3 does not disclose that it was scribed by P.W.5. It is true the person, who weighed contraband Ganja not signed on Ex.P-3. Witness after perusing the record and stated that N.Kasiviswanadha Raju weighed contraband

Ganja. The name of N.Kasiviswanadha Raju not disclosed in Ex.P-3 mediators’ report. The signature of the accused not obtained on the identity slips affixed on M.O.5. Ex.P-3 contents do not disclose the mode of taking sample. I have not seized the train ticket from the possession of the accused.

21. In view of the clear admissions made by P.W.11, it clearly go to show that the presence of P.W.8 Constable is very much doubtful and moreover, Exs.P-2 and P-3 mediators’ reports contents do not disclose that the Telugu language scripted in Exs.P-2 and P-3 prepared as per the translation of P.W.8 from Hindi language to

Telugu language. It is also an admitted fact by PW.8 in the cross-examination that there is no wax seal or any other seal affixed on M.O.3 and M.O.4. There is no seal on

M.O.5 Ganja packet. At this juncture, learned Counsel for accused mainly contended that the investigation officer P.W.11 has not followed the Standing Orders 1/88, 2/88 which are mandatory requirements to follow the rules at the time of seizure of 3 Kgs., of Ganja from the possession of the accused.

22. In order to appreciate the contention of the Counsel, it is relevant to refer standing order 1/88 dated 15-3-1988 issued by The Narcotic Control Bureau, which provides manner of drawing a sample of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance by the investigation officer. The standing orders were issued by the Government and it is not in dispute that different officers in various Enforcement Agencies are adopting different procedure at the time of drawing for seizure of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substance, particularly with regard to number of samples drawn, quantity of sample, method of sealing, mode of packing and dispatch of sample etc., to the

Laboratory concerned for testing process.

23.It was also noticed by the Government that handling of samples at different stages and places may also become an issue at dispute during the trial. The 14 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

Government felt that a clear and uniform procedure is required to avoid any doubt or confusion at any level. In view of bringing the uniformity in approach, the standing orders, dated 13-6-1989 issued by the Ministry under Section 52 (A) (1) of NDPS Act, 1985 r/w. NCV Standing Orders 1/88 and 2/88 on letter dated 11-4-1988. The

Standing Order 1/89 dated 13-6-1989 deals with sampling, classification etc., of drugs.

All packages/containers shall be serially numbered and kept in lots of sampling.

Sampling from the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance seized shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of witnesses (panch witnesses) and the person from whose possession the drug is recovered, and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the Panchanama. The standing order 1/88 - 1/21 shows the duplicate sample of all seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance must be preserved and kept safely in the custody of the investigation officer along with the case property. It is no doubt true that the procedure contemplated under the standing orders for general procedure for sampling, storage.

24.At this juncture, learned Counsel for accused placed a decision reported in

Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab 1 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ”Logical corollary of these discussions is that the guidelines such as those present in the Standing Order cannot be blatantly flouted and substantial compliance therewith must be insisted upon for so that sanctity of physical evidence in such cases remains intact. Clearly, there has been no substantial compliance of these guidelines by the investigating authority which leads to drawing of an adverse inference against them to the effect that had such evidence been produced, the same would have gone against the prosecution”.

25.In pursuance of the decision No.1 cited supra, I have carefully gone through the evidence of P.W.11 and the evidence of P.W.11 is conspicuously silent that he has strictly followed the Standing Orders 1/88 and 1/89 and therefore, the non- 1 (2008) 16 SCC 417 15 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU following the procedure as contemplated under the Standing Orders 1/88 and 2/88 and 1/89 gives adverse inference to the case of the prosecution. In view of the principle laid down in the decision No.1 cited supra, it is very clear that the investigation authority has to substantially comply the Standing Orders 1/88 and1/89 at the time of taking the sample and in the present case, P.W.11 has not followed the procedure and thus violated the Standing Orders and on that ground alone the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

26.It is relevant to refer the decision reported in Ramaswamy Vs. State of M.P., 2 wherein the Hon’ble High Court in Paragraph 13 observed that “The

Investigating Officer has to explain the reasons for arrest and seizure of the property through the language known to the accused”. Admittedly, in the present case, accused does not know the Telugu language and whereas the contents of Ex.P-2 and

P-3 mediators’ reports are in Telugu language. P.W.8, who translated the version of the accused in Telugu language to P.W.11 and he categorically admitted in the cross- examination that “my signature not found place on Exs.P-2 and P-3”. I do not know the name of the person who brought two mediators’ reports to Railway Station. Ex.P-2 mediators’ report contents does not disclose the fact that as per my translation from

Hindi language to Telugu language, the contents written in Telugu language. Ex.P-3 mediators’ report does not disclose the fact that as per my translation from Hindi language to Telugu language, the contents written in Telugu language”.

27.Therefore, the presence of P.W.8 in Railway Station on 5-3-2013 at 11.30 a.m., is very much doubtful and there is no positive evidence on record to show that the contents of Exs.P-2 and P-3 explained to the accused in Hindi language.

Therefore, without any hesitation, I hold that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the arrest and seizure of the property from the possession of the accused.

2 2005 CrlLJ 1603, 16 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

28.Now, the other aspects are concerned, I have to see whether P.W.11 has followed the mandatory provision under NDPS Act. Firstly, I have to take into consideration under Section 55 of the NDPS Act.

29. On plain reading of provision under Section 55 of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substance Act makes it clear that the duty of the police officer to deposit the seized material in the police station by duly affixing seals. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.11 is conspicuously silent that after seizure of M.O.5 and other Ganja property kept in the police station and affixed the seal, comply the procedure laid down under Section 55 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.

30.P.W.8 in his cross-examination, he candidly admitted that there is no seal on M.O.5 Ganja packet. P.W.11 admitted in his cross-examination that the signature of the accused not obtained on the identify slips affixed on M.O.5. P.W.11 did not produce relevant register of concerned police station to show that the samples and contraband were deposited in the police station by duly affixing the seal in the police station for safe custody. The main object under Section 55 of NDPS Act is to prevent the abuse of the Court and absolutely there is no compliance of Section 55 of NDPS

Act in the present case and it creates a reasonable doubt regarding the seizure of

M.O.5 from the possession of the accused under Exs.P-2 and 3 mediators’ reports.

31.The next section to be considered whether P.W.11 strictly followed procedure at the time of search and seizure as per provision under Section 57 of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. Section 57 of NDPS Act postulates that,

Report of arrest and seizure:-Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure, under this Act, he shall, within forty–eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior.

17 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

32. It is not the case of P.W.11 that immediately after arrest of the accused and seizure of contraband, he send a detailed report to the superior officer, and as such without any hesitation, I hold that the prosecution failed to establish the compliance of Section 57 of NDPS Act.

33.It is also relevant in the present case to referthe decision reported in between Bantapalli Durga Rao and others Vs. State of A.P. 3 , wherein it was held that, “In view of the abnormal delay in sending the samples to the analyst and as the sample does not contain the specimen seal, there is no assurance that it is the same sample which the public analyst tested. Therefore, the appellant/accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. When shrouded with suspicion, there is no alternative except acquit the appellant/accused”.

34.In the present case, as per Exs.P-6 and P-7 reports shows the sample was received by the analyst on 18-3-2013 and whereas, in Cr.No.20/2013 the sample was taken by P.W.11 on 5-3-2013. Admittedly, there is no positive evidence to show that on which date the sample was taken in Cr.No.18/2013. Therefore, there is an extraordinary delay in sending the samples to the analyst by P.W.11 and there is no proper explanation offered by P.W.11 for sending the sample with delay, that itself gives a benefit of doubt to the accused.

35.It is further seen in evidence of P.W.6, in the cross-examination the contradiction statements got marked as Exs.D-7, D-8, D-9 and D-10. It is relevant to refer those contradictions hereunder:

“Learned Counsel for the accused confronted the witness deposition in

S.C.No.50/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Addl.

District Judge, Vijayawada and put a question that he stated in the

deposition that the cash of Rs.5,716/- in possession of the accused. The witness perused the certified copy of the deposition and admitted his signature in S.C.No.50/2017 (P.W.2). The witness also admitted the 32004(3) L.S. 560 18 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU relevant portion i.e., “we found cash of Rs.5,716/- in possession of accused” which is marked as Ex.D-7. Witness admitted the portion in his deposition in cross-examination “he spent with me till 02.00 p.m., at 02.00 p.m., he left from my office” which is marked as Ex.D-8. He also admitted the another portion “police shown 14 Kgs., of Ganja to me in my office at Tanuku. 100 grams of sample was lifted from 14 Kgs., of Ganja”. The portion is marked as Ex.D-9. The witness also admitted another portion “the Ganja was weighed with midday meals weighing mission (digital machine), I cannot say denomination of cash seized” which is marked as Ex.D-10”.

Ex.D-7 shows he stated that he found cash of Rs.5,716/- in possession of accused and whereas, in the present case M.O.6 is cash of Rs.5,715/-. Therefore,

Exs.D-7 to D-10 contradictions clearly infers this Court about the recording of the confessional statement by investigation officer in the presence of P.W.6, is also very much doubtful. Thus, the evidence of P.W.6 is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

36.The entire evidence of prosecution rested upon the confession of the accused before the police officer (P.W.11). Admittedly, there is no recovery of any

Ganja leading to the confessional statement of the accused. Therefore, it is settled principle of law is that the confession of the accused before the police officer is inadmissible in evidence. There is no legally admissible evidence to establish the guilt against the accused. As I already stated that investigation officer has violated the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and in those circumstances, I hold that the prosecution miserably failed to establish or prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly,

Point is answered.

37.In the result,Accused is found not guilty of the charges under Section 8 (c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii) (C) and Section 8 (c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii) (B) of The Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, and he is acquitted for the same under Section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C.

19 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months period as contemplated under Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 – Maroon colour trolley bag which contains 28 Kgs., of Ganja,

M.O.2 – Woodland bag which contains 18 Kgs., of Ganja, M.O.3 – Sample packet which contains 100 grams of Ganja, M.O.4 – Sample packet which contains 100 grams of Ganja, and M.O.5 – Brown colour packet which contains 3 Kgs., of Ganja (C.P.No.19/22), shall be produced before the Drug Disposal Committee for the purpose of destruction after the appeal time is over and subject to result of the appeal if appeal is filed.

M.O.6 cash of Rs.5,715/- (C.P.No.19/22) shall be confiscated to the

Government after appeal time is elapsed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 4 th day of November, 2022.

Sd/-N. Srinivasa Rao

Special Judge under N.D.P.S.

Act – cum – I Additional District

& Sessions Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 - Shaik Khadar Valli.

P.W.2 - A.Chandra Sekhar.

P.W.3 - R.Venkateswarlu.

P.W.4 - Moram Sudhakar.

P.W.5 - K.S.V.Subba Rao.

P.W.6 - J.Swamy Raju.

P.W.7 - G.Rama Raju.

P.W.8 - T.S.Chendra Sekhar.

P.W.9 - Sk.Akhizama.

P.W.10 - P.Venkateswara Rao.

20 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

P.W.11 - M.Shyamkumar.

P.W.12 - R.Sk.Bajilal.

P.W.13 - T.Srinivasa Reddy.

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 -- Letter addressed by P.W.1 dated 28-2-2013.

Ex.P.2 -- Mediators’ report dated 5-3-2013 at 11.30 a.m.

Ex.P.3 -- Mediators’ report dated 5-3-2013

Ex.P.4 -- F.I.R., in Cr.No.18/2013 of Bhimavaram Railway Police Station.

Ex.P.5 -- F.I.R., in Cr.No.20/2013 of Bhimavaram Railway Police Station.

Ex.P.6 -- Chemical analysis report in Cr.No.18/2013.

Ex.P.7 -- Chemical analysis report in Cr.No.20/2013.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D-1 -- Relevant portion in certified copy of deposition in S.C.No.49/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Vijayawada.

Ex.D-2 -- Relevant portion in certified copy of deposition in S.C.No.49/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Vijayawada.

Ex.D-3 -- Relevant portion in certified copy of deposition in S.C.No.49/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Vijayawada.

Ex.D-4 -- Relevant portion in certified copy of deposition in S.C.No.49/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Vijayawada.

Ex.D-5 -- Relevant portion in certified copy of deposition in S.C.No.50/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge-cum-II Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada.

Ex.D-6 -- Relevant portion in certified copy of deposition in S.C.No.49/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Vijayawada.

Ex.D-7 -- Relevant portion in certified copy of deposition in S.C.No.50/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge-cum-II Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada

Ex.D-8 -- Relevant portion in certified copy of deposition in S.C.No.50/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge-cum-II Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada

21 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

Ex.D-9 -- Relevant portion in certified copy of deposition in S.C.No.50/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge-cum-II Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada

Ex.D-10 -- Relevant portion in certified copy of deposition in S.C.No.50/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge-cum-II Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

M.O.1 - Maroon colour trolley bag contains 28 Kgs., of Ganja.

M.O.2 - Woodland bag contains 18 Kgs., of Ganja.

M.O.3 - Sample packet contains 100 grams of Ganja.

M.O.4 - Sample packet contains 100 grams of Ganja.

M.O.5 - Brown colour packet contains 3 Kgs., of Ganja.

M.O.6 - Cash of Rs.5,715/-

For Defence: NIL.

Sd/- N. Srinivasa Rao

Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Act –

cum – I Additional District & Sessions

Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

22 NDPS SC.NO.9/2017 I ADSJ COURT, D.D. 04-11-2022 W.G.DIST., ELURU

1

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU

Present: Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Tuesday, the 2nd day of November, 2022

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017

Between:

1.Pedapaati @ Pedapati Siva Kalyani.

2.Pedapaati @ Pedapati Anu.

3.Pedapaati @ Pedapati Sudha.

4.Pedapaati @ Pedapati Puspavathi.

… Petitioners.

(Petitioners 2 and 3 being minors rep., by their mother/natural guardian i.e., 1st petitioner)

And

1.Choragudi Raju.

2.Yarlagadda Roja.

3.Oriental Insurance Company Limited (3rd Party Hub) rep. by its Manager (Legal), Vijayawada. … Respondents.

This petition has come on 11.10.2022before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.J.V.R.G.Siva Sankar, Advocate for Petitioners and Sri N.Narasimha

Rao, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2 and Sri B.Sambhu Prasad, Advocate for 3rd respondent; and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Claim Petitioners, wife (1st petitioner), two minor daughters (petitioner

No. 2 and 3) and mother (4th petitioner), who are dependants of deceased 2

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

Pedapaati @ Pedapati P.Sudhakar, who died in the motor accident, have filed claim petition under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, r/w Rule 455 of Motor

Vehicles Rules (Amended 54/94), (hereinafter called for short “The Act”) claiming compensation an amount of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization and for costs.

2. In brief, the case of the claim petitioners as mentioned in the claim petition is as follows:

i.On 22-3-2017 at about 3.00 P.M., the deceased Pedapaati @

Pedapati Sudhakar, S/o.Manoharam was proceeding to Digamarru Village of

Palakole Mandal from his house at Gondhi Village of Narasapuram Mandal by motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 37 CB 9804 on the left side of the road and at 3.00 P.M., on the same day, he reached near Sai Baba Temple,

Chinchinada – Digamarry Bypass Road, Digamarru Village, Palakole Mandal,

West Godavari District, and 1st respondent, who drove the offending vehicle i.e., Eicher Van bearing registration No. AP 16 TF 7979, which was coming from Chinchinada side to Digamarru side, and 1st respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without following traffic rules and rules and regulations and without blowing horn and taking any precautionary measures and lost his control over the offending vehicle and rammed the motorcycle of deceased on its back side, as a result of which the rider of motorcycle by name Pedapaati @ Pedapati Sudhakar fall down on the road and sustained severe multiple injuries all over his body.

ii.Immediately after the accident the injured Pedapaati @

Pedapati Sudhakar was shifted to Government Hospital, Palakol on 108

Ambulance, since the injuries sustained were very serious in nature, he was shifted to Bhimavaram Hospitals, Bhimavaram (I.P.No.004156/16-17) for better treatment under emergency on 22-3-2017 with head injury and unconscious state of mind. The team of doctors at Bhimavaram Hospitals, headed by Dr.V.Srinivasa Rao, MS., MCH Neuro Surgery Department conducted surgery (Left temporal Craniectomy + Lax duroplasty done on 3

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

23/3/2017 under General Anaesthesia) and the injured was discharged on 10-4-2017 under the advice of the doctors. The injured was conscious, irritable intermittently following commands at the time of discharge. The injured has undergone suffering from high degree for a considerable length of time of 20 days in hospitals as inpatient. Due to the accident, the injured was unable to move from bed and he was treated at home till his death. He was depending upon others for his personal needs. Regularly the injured was taken medicines as per the advice of the doctors. The petitioners spent nearly Rs.8,00,000/- for her medical expenses, operations, special diet, personal attendance etc. On 24-6-2017 as the health condition of injured - P.Sudhakar was suddenly turned and was very serious in condition, and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Palakol. The injured – Sudhakar was succumbed due to the injuries in the accident and died in the hospital. The duty doctor by name Dr.K.Rama Rao, C.A.S.,

Community Health Centre, Palakol declared that the injured was died and conducted autopsy over the dead body of P.Sudhakar and issued P.M.

Certificate and opined that the death of P.Sudhakar is due to Cerebral

Hemorrhage caused by the accident injury. The accident was occurred purely and solely due to rash and negligent manner driving of 1st respondent, who drove the offending vehicle i.e., Eicher Van bearing registration No. AP 16 TF 7979 at the time of accident.

iii.The 1st informant Y.Sudharsana Rao, who is no other than the brother-in-law of the injured gave statement with regard to the manner of the accident and the statement is registered in Cr.No.41/2017 of Palakole

Rural Police Station under Section 338 of I.P.C., at the first instance and after due investigation, the S.I. of Police, Palakole Rural Police Station laid charge sheet against 1st respondent under Section 338 I.P.C., and subsequent to the death of deceased, the section was altered to Section 304-A I.P.C., by filing a memo.

iv.The deceased Pedapaati @ Pedapati Sudhakar was aged about 35 years and hale and healthy at the time of accident and he was by profession carpenter and was doing carpenter works and used to earn

Rs.18,000/- per month at the time of accident and spent his income completely for his family members. The deceased was sole breadwinner of 4

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

the family and all the family members are depending upon the income of the deceased. They have no other source of income except depending upon the earnings of the deceased. Deceased was maintaining his family members with utmost love and affection.

v.The 1st respondent who is driver of the crime vehicle having valid driving license bearing No. DLFAP 11694010 issued by LA., RTA.,

Gudivada, Krishna District, permitted to drive LMV (Transport) valid up to 29-10-2017 at the time of accident. 2nd respondent is owner of the crime vehicle and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., Eicher Van bearing registration No. AP 16 TF 7979 having valid insurance policy bearing

No.463092/31/2017/1744, issued by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Main

Road, Machilipatnam, Krishna District valid from 22-7-2016 to 21-7-2017.

The crime vehicle was having all valid documents and all the documents are in force at the time of accident.

vi.Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Petitioners are claiming a consolidated amount of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs only) towards compensation under all heads viz., loss future prospects, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, mental agony, medical expenses etc.

vii.Due to sudden demise of the deceased, all the petitioners are in helpless condition and 2nd and 3rd petitioners, who are minor daughters of the deceased, lost their love and affection and fatherly guidelines, depravation of protection, social security, financial support, service and encouragement. Petitioners are suffering with both mental and physical agony and lost their earning source. Hence, the petition.

3.2nd respondent filed detailed written statement and 1st respondent filed adoption memo to adopt the contents of written statement of 2nd respondent.

Respondents 1 and 2 denied all the material allegations in the petition and petitioners shall put to strict proof of the same. The sum and substance of the written statement of respondents 1 and 2, in brief, as mentioned thus:

i.2nd respondent is owner of the crime vehicle which got all valid documents such as R.C., Permits etc. 2nd respondent insured the vehicle 5

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

with 3rd respondent vide Insurance Policy No.463092/31/2017/1744 issued by 3rd respondent, which is valid from 22-7-2016 to 21-7-2017 at the time of alleged accident. 1st respondent driver of the vehicle is having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. There is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy and 3rd respondent is responsible for indemnify the loss caused to the insured i.e., 2nd respondent. Thus, the liability if any with regard to the accident, the 3rd respondent is alone liable to pay entire amount to the petitioners.

ii.Petitioners have to strictly prove the age of the deceased and occupation and earning capacity of Rs.18,000/- per month at the time of accident. 2nd respondent further stated that the deceased is daily coolie, who is earning an amount of Rs.100/- per day. The amount claimed by the petitioners and interest calculated by the petitioners, are excessive and exaggerated. In view of the above pleadings, respondents 1 and 2 urged

before the Court to dismiss the petition.

4.3rd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed a detailed written statement, inter-alia contended that as per the record, it is the case of injuries and that there is no proof or nexus between the injuries and alleged death of the deceased Pedapaati Sudhakar. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of crime vehicle, whereas the rash and negligence was on the part of the injured/rider of the motorcycle at the time of the accident. It is further contended that the negligence if any by the rider of the motorcycle and that there is a contributory and composite negligence in occurring the accident, on the part of the rider. The respondent denied the fact that the injured/rider of the motorcycle was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle with gears. The 6

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

age of the injured is more than 40 years. The manner of the accident, there is a collision of two vehicles and as such the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 37

CB 9804, its owner and insurer are necessary parties to arrive just decision of the case. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary vehicle. 1st respondent was not having valid and effective driving licence and he was not authorised to drive the heavy goods vehicles. 2nd respondent was not having valid and proper registration certificate, fitness certificate etc., at the time alleged accident. The compensation amount claimed by the petitioners is exaggerated, excessive.

The interest rate claimed by the petitioners is contrary to the provision under

Section 3 (1) of Interest Act, 1978. It is further pleaded that the owner of the vehicle did not inform the information about the accident and as such 3rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle as contemplated under Section 134 (c) of M.V. Act and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy. In addition to that as per under

Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of the concerned police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of information about the accident, but the Palakole Rural Police

Station not complied with the statutory requirement under Section 158 (6) of M.V.

Act. In view of the above contentions, 3rd respondent urged before the Court to dismiss the petition with costs.

5.On the strength of the above pleadings, my learned predecessor framed the following issues on 30-7-2018:

1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 22-3-2017 at about

3:00 p.m., was occurred due to rash or negligent driving

of Eicher Van bearing registration No. AP 16 TF 7979

(Crime Vehicle) by the 1 st respondent and whether the

Pedapaati @ Pedapati Sudhakar (deceased) died in the

said accident?

7

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

2) Whether the crime vehicle was owned by the 2 nd

respondent and insured with the 3 rd respondent as on the

date of the accident?

3) Whether there are any contribution of negligence on the

part of the driver of the vehicle (Motorcycle) bearing

registration No.AP 37 CB 9804 in occurrence of the

accident?

4) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if

so, to what quantum and what is the liability of

respondents?

5) To what relief?

(Having gone through the 1st issue it was mentioned the motorcycle as crime vehicle, whereas it can be seen from the record it shows that

Eicher Van bearing registration No. AP 16 TF 7979 is the crime vehicle, and in 2nd issue the 1st respondent was mentioned as owner of the crime vehicle and 2nd respondent was mentioned as insurer, whereas it can be seen from the record it shows that the 2nd respondent is owner of the crime vehicle and 3rd respondent is insurer of the crime vehicle, and in 3rd issue the number of the crime vehicle was mentioned instead of the number of the motorcycle, and therefore, this Tribunal modified the

Issues accordingly, as per the record).

6.During the course of enquiry on behalf of petitioners, 1st petitioner –

Pedapaati @ Pedapati Siva Kalyani examined as PW.1 and eye witness – D.Lazar examined as P.W.2, besides, petitioners examined P.W.3 – V.Srinivasa Rao, who is consultant Neuro Surgeon in Bhimavaram Hospitals. Exs.A-1 to A-22 documents got marked in the evidence of P.W.1. Exs.X-1 and X-2 documents got marked in the evidence of P.W.3.

7.On the other hand, no evidence adduced on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Ex.B1 Policy copy of crime vehicle alone got marked with consent.

8.I have heard arguments of petitioners Counsel and Respondents

Counsels.

9.Petitioners’ Counsel filed a detailed written arguments on 26-7-2022 8

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

to substantiate the contentions of the petitioners. On the other hand, 3rd respondent’s Counsel filed a detailed written arguments on 8-7-2022 to substantiate the pleadings in the written statement of 3rd respondent. I have perused the contentions of written arguments filed by both parties and material on record.

10.ISSUE NO.1:

Whether the pleaded accident dated 22-3-2017 at about 3:00 p.m., was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of Eicher Van bearing registration No. AP 16 TF 7979 (Crime Vehicle) by the 1st respondent and whether the Pedapaati @ Pedapati Sudhakar (deceased) died in the said accident?

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, the 1st petitioner – P.Siva Klyani examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 filed her chief affidavit in lieu of chief-examination and reiterated the contents of the claim petition.

Exs.A-1 to A-22 documents marked in her evidence. Petitioners also examined

P.W.2 – D.Lazar, who is one of the eye witnesses of the incident at the time of accident. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 is not an eye witness in this case.

Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is no avail to prove the manner of accident.

P.W.2 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination, he stated that on 22-3- 2017 while he was returning from agriculture field and proceeded to his house at

Kothapeta of Digamarru Village, Pakalole Mandal and at 3.30 p.m., he reached near Sai Baba Temple, on Chinchinada – Digamarru Bypass Road, Digamarru

Village, to take his motorcycle at Sai Baba Temple, and found that one person was proceeding alone by his motorcycle on the left side of the road towards Digamarru

Village side on Chinchinada – Digamarru Bypass Road and the driver of the Eicher

Van bearing registration No. AP 16 TF 7979, which was coming from Chinchinada side and proceeding towards Digamarru Village side, and the driver drove the van 9

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

in rash and negligent manner with high speed without following rules and regulations and without blowing any horn and without taking any precautionary measures and lost his control over the Eicher Van and rammed the motorcycle on its back side, as a result of which, the rider of the motorcycle fell on the road along with motorcycle and sustained severe head injury, multiple grievous injuries all over his body. He further stated that the accident occurred purely and solely due to rash and negligent driving of the Eicher Van. The name of P.W.2 found as one of the witness in listed witnesses in the charge sheet (Ex.A-6).

11.At this juncture, learned Counsel for Petitioners vehemently contended that P.W.2, who is a crucial eye witness in the case to prove the manner of the accident and the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with contents of Ex.A-6 charge sheet clearly established the fact that the 1st respondent is responsible for the injuries and death of the deceased on the date of accident. S.I. of Police,

Palakole Rural Police Station has elaborately conducted investigation in

Cr.No.41/2017 of Palakole Rural Police Station and laid charge sheet against the 1st respondent, who drove the offending vehicle on the date of accident. Learned

Counsel for 3rd respondent put only 2 or 3 formal suggestion to P.W.2 and all the suggestions were denied by P.W.2. Learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 not cross-examined P.W.2 and the cross-examination for respondents 1 and 2 treated as ‘nil’. Having carefully gone through the cross-examination of P.W.2, nothing was elicited from out of cross-examination of P.W.2 either to impeach his credibility or cast a doubt on his veracity. On the other hand, the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with averments in Ex.A-6 charge sheet clearly established the fact that 1st respondent, who drove the crime vehicle, was found fault in driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and rammed the motorcycle which was driven by the 10

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

deceased on the date of accident. The evidence of P.W.2 inspires confidence to prove the manner of the accident and rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. Furthermore, the contents in Ex.A-1 attested copy of F.I.R., and the allegations in Ex.A-6 charge sheet, would clearly establish the fact that the 1st respondent, who is driver of the offending vehicle, drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to the deceased. Therefore, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and averments of charge sheet and F.I.R., without any hesitation, I hold that P.Sudhakar (deceased) died in the motor accident on account of fatal injuries, in which accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent while driving offending vehicle. Thus, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of petitioners.

12.ISSUE No.2:

Whether the crime vehicle was owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent as on the date of the accident?

In the claim petition, it is contended that 2nd respondent is owner of the offending vehicle and 3rd respondent is insurer of the crime vehicle. Ex.B-1

Policy got marked with consent. Ex.B-1 document clearly go to show that the 2nd respondent is insured of the crime vehicle. There is no serious dispute regarding the ownership and insurance policy. Accordingly, the Issue is answered.

13.ISSUE No.3:

Whether there are any contribution of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle (Motorcycle) bearing registration No.AP 37 CB 9804 in occurrence of the accident?

In this Issue, learned Counsel for 3rd respondent contended that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at the time of accident. As I already stated that learned Counsel for 3rd respondent put only two or three suggestions to P.W.2 and admittedly no suggestion to P.W.2 regarding the 11

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and in the absence of satisfactory or cogent evidence on record, it cannot be said that at the time of accident the negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. Accordingly, the Issue is answered in favour of the petitioners.

14.ISSUE No.4:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of respondents?

In order to prove the injuries and compensation, petitioners examined P.W.3 – Dr.V.Srinivasa Rao, who is consultant Neuro Surgeon in

Bhimavaram Hospitals. P.W.3 stated in his evidence that on 22-3-2017 at 6.00 p.m., the deceased was admitted in Bhimavaram Hospitals with head injury and he was unconscious at the time of admission. He diagnosed B/L Temporal contusion with left FTP thin SDH and B/L MCF fracture and Pneumocephalus. The patient was underwent surgery left temporal Craniectomy and Lax Duroplasty. Patient was discharged on 10-4-2017 and again admitted on 13-4-2017 for procedure and again discharged on 11-5-2017. Ex.X-1 case sheet and Ex.X-2 discharge summary got marked in his evidence.

15.Now, the crux of the point for consideration in this Issue is, which is the eligible amount to be awarded to the claim petitioners.

16.It is settled principle of law laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another 1 , basically three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) 1AIR 2009 SC 3104.

12

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased.

17.In claim petition, the age of the deceased was shown as 35 years.

Ex.A-4 Postmortem Report and Ex.A-3 Inquest Report, shows the age of the deceased was 35 years. At this juncture, learned Counsel for 3rd respondent would contend that as per the admission of P.W.1 in her cross-examination that the

Aadhar Card belongs to her husband discloses the date of birth is deceased is 1980 and therefore, petitioners in order to claim more compensation amount, the age of deceased shown as 35 years. Admittedly, the Aadhar Card was not produced by 3rd respondent and marked as a document. Learned Counsel for petitioners relies upon the decision reported in Vangapalli Muninder Rao and another Vs

Bhukya Rajanna and another 2,wherein the Hon’ble Telangana High Court has observed that in the absence of any documents in proof of age of the deceased, the age mentioned in postmortem examination report shall be considered. As I already stated that the Aadhar Card of the deceased was not produced by the 3rd respondent insurance company and in the absence of sufficient and cogent proof, the Tribunal, in view of the legal principle laid down in the decision 2nd cited supra, the age of the deceased shall be taken into consideration as “35” years, and the relevant multiplier applies to the age group of 31 – 35 is “16”.

18.The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with averments of the claim petition would go to show that the deceased was doing carpenter work and earned an amount of Rs.18,000/- per month. Petitioners have not filed any income proof of the deceased. In the written arguments filed by the petitioners and relies upon the 2 2021 ACJ 2072 High Court of Telangana.

13

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Syed Sadiq Vs Divisional

Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited 3 , in order to prove the fact that the monthly income of the vegetable vendor fixed Rs.6,500/- in which the accident taken place in the year 2008. Admittedly, no income proof filed by the petitioners. In the written arguments, it is further contended that the accident taken place in the year 2017 and seeking the Court to fix the monthly income of the deceased at least Rs.9,000/- per month by considering the depreciation of the rupee value and the increasing cost of living etc. Having considered the financial background of the deceased and number of persons depending upon the income of the deceased, this Tribunal fixed approximately monthly income of the deceased as

Rs.8,000/- per month.

19.It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision No.1 cited supra, at Para No.14 in Smt. Sarla Verma’s case that, though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six, and in case of bachelor, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased, should be half (1/2). The said decision approved in the decision reported in National 3 . 2014 ACJ 627 (SC) 14

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi Case 4 .

20.Therefore, in the light of the above circumstances, in the present case the petitioner No.1 is no other than the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are minor children and 4th petitioner is mother of the deceased. Thus, one-fourth (1/4th) of the income to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

If it is so, the actual monthly income of the deceased after one-fourth (1/4th) deduction is Rs.6,000/- (Rs.8,000-00 – Rs.2,000-00).

21.In decision No.4 cited supra, i.e., National Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while determining the income, an addition of 50% of the actual salary to the income of the deceased, towards future prospectus where the deceased had permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. In the case of deceased was in the age group of 50 to 60 years addition should be 15% “actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax”. It is further held in the citation that “in case deceased was self-exmployed or on a fixed salary, the addition of 40% of the established income should be warranted where the deceased below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% between age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation”. In the present case, the deceased was self-employed and age 35 years and thereby, an addition of 40% of actual monthly income of the deceased is entitled by the claimants towards future prospectus. So, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.3,200/- (8,000 X 40/100).

22.Petitioners are also entitled to amount under conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses as per the judgment of the 42017 (6) ALD 170 15

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

Hon’ble Apex Court reported in National Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Pranay

Sethi Case, as Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/-.

23.Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the after the accident Pedapaati Sudhakar (deceased) was admitted in Bhimavaram Hospitals,

Bhimavaram and he took treatment for 49 days as inpatient and he was also underwent operation and spent an amount Rs.3,55,724/- towards his treatment.

In support of their contention, the petitioners filed Exs.A-13, A-14, A-19 and A-21.

Having considered the evidence of P.W.3 – Dr.V.Srinivasa Rao and medical bills

Exs.A-13, A-14, A-19 and A-21, this Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.3,55,724/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering.

24.In the light of the above discussions and case law, the income of the deceased is calculated as under:

Description Calculation Amount (Rs. Ps.) Income per month 8,000-00

Deduction of 1/4th of amount towards 8,000.00 – 2,000.00 6,000-00 personal expenditure.

Total income (3/4th of amount). 6,000-00 40% of future prospects. 8,000.00 X 40 /1003,200-00

Total Income : 6,000.00 + Rs.3,200.009,200-00 Multiplier 16

Loss of future income 9,200.00 X 12 X16 17,66,400-00 Medical expenditure 3,55,724-00 Pain and suffering 20,000-00 Transportation charges 10,000-00 Total amount under conventional heads : 40,000-00 namely loss of estate, loss of consortium, 15,000-00 funeral expenses as per the Judgment of 15,000-00 Prenay Sethi Case. 70,000-00

Total COMPENSATION PAYABLE : 22,22,124-00

16

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

25.In view of my foregoing discussion, I hold that petitioners herein wife, children and mother of deceased are entitled for compensation of

Rs.22,22,124/-.

26.1st Respondent is driver and 2nd respondent is owner of the offending vehicle, as per Ex.B-1 vehicle is insured with respondent No.3 and the same is in force. Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The Issue is accordingly answered.

27.ISSUE NO.5:

In the result, petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs by granting following reliefs:

(i). The petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.22,22,124/-

(Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand One Hundred and

Twenty Four only) as total compensation.

(ii) The petitioners are entitled for the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

(iii) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this order. They are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.

(iv) On making such deposit, the petitioner No.1 is awarded

Rs.10,00,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw Rs.5,00,000/- with accrued interest on total awarded compensation amount and total costs. The remaining

Rs.5,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank at Eluru for a period of one year. Petitioners 2 and 3 are awarded Rs.5,00,000/- each, and the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.2 and Petitioner 17

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

No.3 separately, in any nationalized bank at Eluru, till they attain their majority.

Petitioner No.4 is awarded Rs.2,22,124/- and she is permitted to withdraw entire amount.

(v) The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs.

(vi) The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) vii) This award is subject to any compensation already awarded

U/Sec.140 of the M.V. Act.

viii) The award is subject to payment of court fee, if any, payable.

ix) The petitioners are not entitled for any interest for the period where the petition was dismissed for default and till it was restored, if any.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I directly on computer device, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 1 st day of November, 2022.

Sd/- N. Srinivasa Rao

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:

P.W.1 Pedapaati @ Pedapati Siva Kalyani.

P.W.2 Dasari Lazar. P.W.3 V.Srinivasa Rao.

For Respondents: - Nil -

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioners:

22-3-2017 Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.41/2017 of Palakole Ex.A.1 Rural P.S., under Section 338-A IPC. 24-6-2017 Attested copy of alteration memo filed by Palakole Ex.A.2 Rural Police in Cr.No.41/2017.

18

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

Ex.A.3 25-6-2017 Attested copy of Inquest report. Ex.A.4 27-6-2017 Attested copy of postmortem report. Ex.A.5 24-3-2017 Attested copy of M.V.I. Report. Ex.A.6 20-5-2017 Attested copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A.7 10-4-2017 Attested copy of wound certificate of the deceased. Ex.A.8 10-4-2017 Discharge summary of the deceased. -- Abstract bill copy of the deceased Pedapati Sudhakar Ex.A.9 for an amount of Rs.2,81,607/-. Ex.A.10 28-8-2017 Essentiality Certificate of the deceased. Ex.A.11 28-8-2017 Emergency Certificate of the deceased. -- Bunch of advance receipt vouchers (7 in number) of Ex.A.12 Rs.1,95,000/- of the deceased. Ex.A.13 10-4-2017 I.P. discharge bill of the deceased for Rs.1,95,000/-. -- Bunch of medical bills (73 in number) of Rs.87,926/- Ex.A.14 of the deceased. Ex.A.15 11-5-2017 2nd Discharge summary of the deceased. -- 2nd Abstract bill copy of 0deceased Pedapati Sudhakar Ex.A.16 for an amount of Rs.3,43,413/-. Ex.A.17 28-8-2017 2nd essential certificate of the deceased. Ex.A.18 28-8-2017 2nd emergency certificate of the deceased. Ex.A.19 11-5-2017 2nd I.P. discharge bill of the deceased of Rs.1,47,000/- -- Bunch of advance receipt of Rs.1,25,000/- (9 in Ex.A.20 number) -- Bunch of medical bills (101 in number) of Ex.A.21 Rs.2,08,724/- of deceased. Ex.A.22 -- C.T. Scan films (4 in number).

For Respondents:

Ex.B.1 -- Copy of Insurance Policy.

Marked through P.W.3:

-- Case sheet IP.No.004156/16-17 of P.Sudhakar Ex.X.1 discharge date 10-4-2017. -- Case sheet IP.No.000146/17-18 of P.Sudhakar Ex.X.2 discharge date 11-5-2017.

Sd/- N. Srinivasa Rao

CHAIRMAN (M.A.C.T.)

Cum-I.A.D.J.,

W.G., ELURU.

19

M.V.O.P.No.713/2017, I ADJ Court,

D.D.01-11-2022. W.G.Dist., Eluru

ETC. 14 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 1

IN THE SPECIAL COURT OF THE JUDGE UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Present: Sri N.Srinivasa Rao,

Judge under Electricity Act-cum-

I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Tuesday, on this the 1st day of November, 2022

ELECTRICITY THEFT CASE NO. 14/2018

Between:

The State: Rep by Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Koyyalagudem, W.G.Dist.

…Complainant.

And

1. Vemula Srinivas Rao, S/o.Veerraju, 44 years, Gowda, Unakaramilli Village, Nidadavole Mandal.

2. Pasalapudi Punnalayya @ Pethuru, S/o.Yeliyya, 40 years, SC-Madiga, Ramachandrapuram Village, Chagallu Mandal.

3. Gunje Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Mallayya, 49 years, Vaddilu, Tadimalla Village, Nidadavole Mandal.

4. Bale Venkatesulu, S/o.Subbarao, 44 years, Vaddilu, Korumamidi Village, Nidadavole Mandal. … Accused 1 to 4.

This case has come on 31-10-2022 before me for hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mrs.G.Rohini, Advocate for the

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

J U D G M E N T

Accused 1 to 4 are charge sheeted in Cr.Nos.70/2018 and 89/2018 of

Koyyalagudem Police Station, for the alleged offence under Section 379 or 411 of IPC., and Section 136 of A.P. Electricity Act, 2003.

2.Brief allegations disclosed in the charge sheet are that, on 8-2-2018 the first informant Sandaka Srinivasulu (P.W.1), Addl. Assistant Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L.,

Koyyalagudem, presented a report in Koyyalagudem Police Station alleging that some unknown offenders committed theft of copper core winding wire, worth of Rs.3,000/- by broke opened the 16 KVA electrical transformer situated in the field of Kottapalli

ETC. 14 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 2

Venkata Rao (P.W.2). The report is registered by D.V.Ramana (P.W.6), H.C., as in

Cr.No.70/2018 under Section 379 I.P.C., and Section 136 of Electricity Act, 2003 of

Koyyalagudem P.S.

i.On 27-2-2018 the first informant Sandaka Srinivasulu (P.W.1),

Addl. Assistant Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Koyyalagudem, presented another report in Koyyalagudem Police Station alleging that some unknown offenders committed theft of copper core winding wire, worth of Rs.5,000/- by broke opened the 25 KVA electrical transformer situated in the field of one Pasupuleti

Ramachandra Rao. The report is registered by D.V.Ramana (P.W.6), H.C., as in

Cr.No.89/2018 under Section 379 I.P.C., and Section 136 of Electricity Act, 2003 of Koyyalagudem P.S.

ii.D.Ravi Kumar (P.W.8), S.I. of Police, Samisragudem Police Station apprehended the accused 1 and 2 on 12-4-2018 at 10.00 A.M., in the presence of two mediators viz., K.T.R.Lakshmi Narasimham (P.W.4) and Tirumalla Venkata

Ratnam (P.W.5) and recorded the confessional statement of Accused at the outskirts of Timmarajupalem Village of Nidadavole Mandal, in Cr.No.50/2018 of

Samisragudem Police Station, and seized stolen property concerned in

Cr.No.54/2018 under cover of mahazar, and on the same day at about 1-45

P.M., he arrested A-3 at his house in Tadimalla Village and at 2-30 P.M., he arrested A-4 at his house in Korumamidi village and recovered the stolen property concerned in Cr.No.70/2018 from the possession A-3 and also recovered stolen property concerned in Cr.No.89/2018 from the possession of

A-4, and he informed to L.W.13 – M.Surya Bhagavan (P.W.7), S.I. of Police,

Koyyalagudem Police Station regarding the arrest of accused and seizure of

M.Os.1 and 2, and S.I. of Police, Koyyalagudem filed P.T. Warrant on 16-5-2018 brought the accused to this crime and he verified the investigation conducted by

ETC. 14 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 3

D.V.Ramana (P.W.6), H.C., and eventually filed the charge sheet against accused. Hence, the charge.

3.The charge sheet taken on file under Sections 136 (1)(A) of Electricity Act, and Sections 379 or 411 of I.P.C.

4.After appearance of accused 1 to 4 before the Court and copies furnished to accused, they examined under Section 228 (2) Cr.P.C., and charges framed under

Section 136 of The Electricity Act, 2003 alternatively Section 137 of The Electricity Act, 2003. The charges explained in Telugu to Accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to bring home guilt against Accused 1 to 4, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 and Exs.P-1 to P-9 got marked and material objects MOs.1 and 2 [copper wire] got marked.

6.During the trial, learned Public Prosecutor has given up L.W.3 –

K.Muneswara Rao, L.W.4 – T.Satyanarayana, L.W.6 – N.Satyanarayana, L.W.7 –

I.Krishna, L.W.8 – P.Satyanarayana, and therefore their evidence are deemed to be closed.

7.After closure of the evidence on behalf of prosecution, Accused No.1 to 4 are examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and explained the incriminating material against Accused and Accused denied the offence and stated that a false case has been foisted and accused reported no defense evidence.

8.Not the point for determination in this case is

“1) Whether the prosecution could able to establish guilt

against the accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable

doubt?

2) Whether the evidence of prosecution is sufficient to

establish the essential elements under Section 136 and

137 of The Electricity Act, 2003?”

ETC. 14 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 4

9.I have heard arguments of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Counsel

for accused.

10.Point No. 1 and 2:

The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to substantiate the accusation against accused No.1 to 4.

11.P.W.1 – Chandaka Srinivasa Rao, Assistant Engineer, Bayyannagudem by that time he was first informant in the case. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that on 6-2- 2018 P.W.2 – K.Venkata Rao informed to him that the copper wire in the transformer committed theft in his land, which is located at Saripalli Village, and he visited the land and found that transformer fell on the ground and the copper wire committed theft by some unknown offenders, and in that connection on 6-2-2018, he presented Ex.P-1 report to Koyyalagudem Police Station. He further stated that 24-2-2018 P.W.3 –

K.Rama Rao approached him and informed to him that the copper wire in the transformer committed theft in his land, which is located at E.V.Palem Village, and he visited the land and found that the copper wire from the transformer committed theft by some unknown offenders, and in that connection on 25-2-2018, he presented

Ex.P-2 report to Koyyalagudem Police Station

12.P.W.6 – D.Venkata Ratnam, the then Head Constable, Koyyalagudem P.S., stated that on 8-2-2018, P.W.1 came to Koyyalagudem P.S., and presented Ex.P-1, and he registered Ex.P-1 in Cr.No.70/2018 under Section 379 IPC., and Section 136 (1) of A.P. Electricity Act and Ex.P-6 is F.I.R., and he visited the place of offence i.e., land of P.W.2 situated at Saripalli village, and prepared Ex.P-7 rough sketch. He also recorded the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and others. He further stated that on 27-2- 2018, P.W.1 presented Ex.P-2, and he registered Ex.P-2 in Cr.No.89/2018 under

Section 379 IPC., and Section 136 (1) of A.P. Electricity Act and Ex.P-8 is F.I.R., and he visited the land of P.W.3 and prepared Ex.P-9 rough sketch. He also recorded the statements of P.W.1, P.W.3 and others.

ETC. 14 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 5

13.P.W.8 - D.Ravi Kumar, the then S.I of Police, Samisragudem Police

Station, testify in his evidence on 12-4-2018 at 10.00 A.M., he visited Sivalayam

Panchayat, Timmarajupalem of Nidadavole Mandal and at that time two persons tried to escape having seen the police officials, and he caught hold them and on interrogation, they revealed their identity particulars as A-1 and A-2, and he further stated that on interrogation A-1 confessed that he himself and A-2 to A-4 committed theft of copper wires in the month of February, 2018 in the fields of Saripalli Village of

Koyyalagudem Mandal, in the 4th week of February, 2018 A-1 to A-4 committed theft of copper wire in Padugulapalem village of Koyyalagudem Mandal, Eduvadalapalem

Village and they also confessed about the commission the theft of copper wire in different village, and he apprehended A-1 and A-2 under the cover of Ex.P-3 Mahazar, and on the same day at 1.45 Noon time A-1 and A-2 led mediators and other police officials to the house of A-3 at Tadimalla village, and A-3 brought two bag which contain copper wire pertaining to Cr.No.70/2018 and he seized M.O.1 copper wire from the possession of A-3 under the cover of Ex.P-4 mahajar in the presence of two mediators, and at 2-30 P.M., A-1 and A-2 led same mediators and other police officials to the house of A-4 at Korumamidi village, and A-4 brought one bag which contain copper wire bundle pertaining to Cr.No.89/2018 of Koyyalagudem P.S., and he seized

M.O.2 copper wire from the possession of A-4 under the cover of Ex.P-5 mahajar in the presence of mediators. The evidence of PW.4 – T.Rama Lakshmi Narasimha and

P.W.5 - Tirumala Venkata Ratnam, who are mediators at the time of apprehension of the accused, is amply corroborated the evidence of P.W.8.

14.The prosecution examined P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are independent witnesses in the case. P.W.2 stated in his evidence that he is resident of Saripalli

Village and he lives by cultivation, and in the month of February, he visited his field in the morning time found that the transformer in his field fell on the ground, and the copper wire in the transformer committed theft by some unknown offenders and he lodged complaint to P.W.1. P.W.3 stated in his evidence that he is having land an

ETC. 14 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 6 extent of Ac.6.00 cents in Yeduvadalapalem, and on 24-2-2018 he visited his land and found that copper wire in the transformer committed theft by some unknown offenders during the night time on 23-2-2018, and he gave report to P.W.1.

15.P.W.7 – M.Surya Bhagavan, the then S.I. of Police, simply stated in his evidence that he verified investigation conducted by P.W.6 in two crimes, and on 16-4- 2018 he filed P.T. Warrant having known the fact that Samisragudem Police officials arrested the accused, and he produced the accused in this case on execution of P.T.

Warrant, and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

16.The case of accused is one of total denial.

17.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are independent witnesses in the case, is not sufficient to prove that Accused No.1 to 4 are the person committed the theft of copper wires from the transformers in the field of P.W.2 and P.W.3. Therefore, without any hesitation, I hold that the ingredients under Section 136 of The Electricity

Act, 2003, not made out against the accused No.1 to 4.

18.The entire edifice of the case of the prosecution rested upon P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.8 to prove the arrest of the accused and seizure of the stolen property i.e.,

M.Os.1 and 2 from the possession of accused No.3 and 4 under Exs.P-4 and P-5 mahazars. P.W.4 and 5 stated in their evidence that S.I. of Police apprehended the accused 1 and 2 at the outskirts of Timmarajupalem Village and on the confession of

A-1 and A-2, P.W.8 arrested A-3 and A-4 at their respective houses, P.W.8 seized copper wire from the possession of A-3 and A-4 at their respective houses under the cover of Ex.P-4 and P-5 mahazars. P.W.4 in his cross-examination, he candidly admitted that Ex.P-3 mahazar contents discloses the date and time of commencement of the proceedings and closing of the proceedings, but on perusal of contents of

Ex.P-3, it did not disclose the date and time of commencement of the proceedings.

Exs.P-4 and P-5 mediators reports contents shows that the identity slips which were

ETC. 14 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 7 signed by the accused affixed on the seized property, but M.Os.1 and 2 do not disclose identify slips, and the particulars of the bag, which was produced by A-4, not disclosed in Ex.P-5. P.W.8 candidly admitted in his cross-examination that similar type of M.O.1 and M.O.2 copper wires easily available in the market. P.W.6 in his cross-examination, admitted that Ex.P-1 does not disclose the value of the stolen property and the signature of P.W.1 not found in Column No.14 in FIR, and complaints filed by the farmers not enclosed to Ex.P-1 report. The evidence of P.W.8 conspicuously silent they obtained signatures of the accused on Exs.P-4 and P-5. During the course of investigation, P.W.6 and P.W.7 had not secured any documents regarding the details of the transformers and service connections of the transformers and the electricity bills alleged to be paid by the original owners of the transformers. In view of the glaring contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, without any hesitation, I hold that their evidence inspires less confidence in the mind of the Court to prove arrest of the accused and seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2 property from the possession of the accused and thus, the prosecution agency miserably failed to establish the guilt against the accused 1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. The points are answered accordingly.

19.IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 136 and 137 of The Electricity Act, 2003, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charges.

M.O.1 and M.O.2 copper wire in C.P.No.21/2022 shall be handed over to

Assistant Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Bayyannagudem, after expiry of appeal time and on being identified by concerned Police.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I directly on computer device, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 1 st day of November, 2022.

Sd/- N. Srinivasa Rao

JUDGE UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT-CUM-

I ADDITONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE,WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

ETC. 14 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 - Ch.Srinivasa Rao.

P.W.2 K.Venkata Rao.

P.W.3 K.Rama Rao.

P.W.4 T.Rama Lakshmi Narasimha.

P.W.5 - T.Venkata Ratnam.

P.W.6 - D.Venkata Ramana.

P.W.7 - M.Surya Bhagavan.

P.W.8 - D.Ravi Kumar.

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L- .

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 6-2-2018 Report presented by P.W.1 in Koyyalagudem P.S.

Ex.P.2 25-2-2018 Report presented by P.W.1 in Koyyalagudem P.S.

Ex.P.3 12-4-2018 Relevant portion of mahazar, drafted at 10.00 A.M.

Ex.P.4 12-4-2018 Relevant portion of mahazar, drafted at 1.45 P.M.

Ex.P.5 12-4-2018 Relevant portion of mahazar, drafted at 2.30 P.M. (Attested copy)

Ex.P.6 8-2-2018 F.I.R. in Cr.No.70/2018 of Koyyalagudem P.S.

Ex.P.7 -- Rough sketch prepared at the land of P.W.2.

Ex.P.8 27-2-2018 F.I.R. in Cr.No.89/2018 of Koyyalagudem P.S.

Ex.P.9 -- Rough sketch prepared at the land of P.W.3.

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L -.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

M.O.1 -- One Copper wire bundle in Cr.No.70/2018 of Koyyalagudem P.S.

ETC. 14 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 9

M.O.2 -- One Copper wire bundle in Cr.No.89/2018 of Koyyalagudem P.S.

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L -.

Sd/- N. Srinivasa Rao

Judge under Electricity Act-cum-

I Additional District & Sessions

Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Copies to:

1.The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., Amaravathi.

2.The Director of Prosecutions, Govt. of A.P.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, W.G., Eluru.

ETC. 14 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 10

CALENDRA AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

CALENDAR CASES TRIED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT - CUM - I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Date of offence Report or complaint Apprehension or Released on bail. Appearance of accused (1) (2) (3) (4) 05-02-2018 08-02-2018 16-05-2018 13-7-2018 (A-1) 23-02-2018 27-02-2018 (On P.T. Warrant)

Commencement of Close of trial Date of Judgment Explanation for delay trial (5) (6) (7) (8) 06-10-2022 31-10-2022 01-11-2022 ---

Judgment of Electricity Theft Case No. 14/2018 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under Electricity Act - cum - I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Complainant:- The State : Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Koyyalagudem.

Name of the accused : Father’s Name; Age; Caste/Religion; Calling; Village; & Mandal

1. Vemula Srinivas Rao, S/o.Veerraju, 44 years, Gowda, Unakaramilli Village, Nidadavole Mandal.

2. Pasalapudi Punnalayya @ Pethuru, S/o.Yeliyya, 40 years, SC-Madiga, Ramachandrapuram Village, Chagallu Mandal.

3. Gunje Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Mallayya, 49 years, Vaddilu, Tadimalla Village, Nidadavole Mandal.

4. Bale Venkatesulu, S/o.Subbarao, 44 years, Vaddilu, Korumamidi Village, Nidadavole Mandal. … Accused 1 to 4.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE : Theft of copper wire and dishonestly retained the stolen property. Punishable under Sections 136 and 137 of Indian Electrical Act, 2003. FINDING : Accused No.1 to 4 found not guilty of the charge under Section 136 and 137 of The Electricity Act, 2003.

RESULT : IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 136 and 137 of The Electricity Act, 2003, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charges.

M.O.1 and M.O.2 copper wire in C.P.No.21/2022 shall be handed over to Assistant Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Bayyannagudem, after expiry of appeal time and on being identified by concerned Police.

Sd/- N. Srinivasa Rao

JUDGE UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT-cum-

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

ETC. 14 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 11

ETC. 17 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 1

IN THE SPECIAL COURT OF THE JUDGE UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Present: Sri N.Srinivasa Rao,

Judge under Electricity Act-cum-

I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Tuesday, on this the 1st day of November, 2022

ELECTRICITY THEFT CASE NO. 17 /2018

Between:

The State: Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chagallu Police Station.

…Complainant.

And

1. Vemula Srinivas Rao, S/o.Veerraju, 44 years, Gowda, Coolie, Unakaramilli Village, Nidadavole Mandal.

2. Pasalapudi Punnaiah @ Pethuru, S/o.Yellayya, 40 years, SC-Madiga, Ramachandrapuram Village, Chagallu Mandal. … Accused 1 and 2

This case has come on 31-10-2022 before me for hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mrs.G.Rohini, Advocate for the

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

J U D G M E N T

Accused 1 and 2 are charge sheeted in Cr.No.106/2016 of Chagallu Police

Station, for the alleged offence under Section 379 of IPC., and Section 136 (1) (A) of

A.P. Electricity Act.

2.Brief allegations disclosed in the charge sheet are that, the first informant

Dommeti Jagadeswara Rao, Addl. Asst. Engineer, APEPDCL, Kovvur, I/c. Chagallu, presented a report in Chagallu Police Station alleging that some unknown offenders committed theft of copper core winding wire by broke opened 25 KVA of SS No.102 with Service No.978 & 114 and 25 KVA of SS.No.103 with Service No.129, 995, 226 two electrical transformers situated at the outskirts fields of Markondapadu Village.

ETC. 17 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 2

The report is registered by L.W.10 – M.Danaraju, A.S.I. of Police as in Cr.No.106/2016 under Section 379 I.P.C., and Section 136 (1) (A) of Electricity Act of Chagallu Police

Station.

3.D.Ravi Kumar (P.W.7), S.I. of Police, Samisragudem Police Station apprehended the accused 1 and 2 on 12-4-2018 at 10.00 A.M., in the presence of two mediators viz., K.T.R.Lakshmi Narasimham (L.W.7) and Tirumalla Venkata Ratnam (P.W.5) and recorded the confessional statement of Accused at the outskirts of

Timmarajupalem Village of Nidadavole Mandal, in Cr.No.50/2018 of Samisragudem

Police Station and accused confessed that they committed theft of copper wire relating to Cr.Nos.106/2016 and sold to the same to unknown persons, and he informed to the

S.I. of Police, Chagallu Police Station regarding the arrest of accused, and L.W.13 –

N.Ravi Kumar, S.I. of Police, Chagallu P.S., filed P.T. Warrant on 27-4-2018 brought the accused to this crime and he verified the investigation conducted by L.W.10 –

M.danaraju, ASI of Police, M.Jayababu (P.W.6), S.I. of Police and L.W.12 – S.Rama

Krishna, S.I. of Police, and eventually filed the charge sheet against accused. Hence, the charge.

4.The charge sheet taken on file under Sections 136 (1)(A) of Electricity Act, and Sections 379 of I.P.C.

5.After appearance of accused 1 and 2 before the Court and copies furnished to accused, they examined under Section 228 (2) Cr.P.C., and charges framed under Section 136 alternatively Section 137 of The Electricity Act, 2003. The charges explained in Telugu to Accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to bring home guilt against Accused, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 5 and Exs.P-1 to P-7 got marked.

ETC. 17 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 3

7.During the trial, learned Public Prosecutor has given up L.W.2 – Immani

Satyanarayana Raju, L.W.4 – Sunkavalli Suryanarayana, L.W.7 – K.Rama Lakshmi

Narasimham, L.W.10 – M.danaraju, L.W.12 – S.Rama Krishna, L.W.13 – N.Ravi Kumar and therefore their evidence are deemed to be closed.

8.After closure of the evidence on behalf of prosecution, Accused No.1 and 2 are examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and explained the incriminating material against Accused and Accused denied the offence and stated that a false case has been foisted and accused reported no defense evidence.

9.Not the point for determination in this case is

“1) whether the prosecution could able to establish guilt

against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable

doubt?

2) whether the evidence of prosecution is sufficient to

establish the essential elements under Section 136 and

137 of The Electricity Act, 2003?”

10.I have heard arguments of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Counsel

for accused.

11.Point No. 1 and 2:

The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses to substantiate the accusation against accused No.1 and 2.

12.P.W.1 – D.Jagadeeswara Rao, Assistant Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Kovvur

Town by that time he was in-charge of Chagallu and first informant in the case. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that on 13-8-2016, P.W.3 – Balarama Murthy, L.W.4 –

S.Suryanarayana, L.W.2 – Satyanarayana Raju, L.W.5 – Ramana Rao, approached to him and informed to him that the copper wire in two transformers committed theft by some unknown persons, and in that connection on 14-8-2016, he presented Ex.P-1 report to Chagallu Police Station. He further stated that he visited the fields of L.W.2 –

ETC. 17 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 4

Satyanarayana Raju, P.W.3 – Balarama Murthy, L.W.4 – S.Suryanarayana, L.W.5 –

Ramana Rao and observed the same.

13.On 14-8-2016 L.W.10 – M.Dhanaraju, A.S.I. of Police registered Ex.P-1 filed by P.W.1 in Cr.No.106/2016 under Section 379 I.P.C., and Section 136(1)(a) of

Electricity Act (Ex.P-3 F.I.R.). L.W.10 – M.Dhanaraju, A.S.I. of Police recorded the statement of P.W.1 and visited the place of offence i.e., the land of P.W.2 and prepared Ex.P-4 rough sketch. He also recorded the statements of L.W.2 –

Satyanarayana Raju, P.W.3 – Balarama Murthy and L.W.4 – S.Suryanarayana.

14.P.W.7 - D.Ravi Kumar, the then S.I of Police, Samisragudem Police

Station, testify in his evidence on 12-4-2018 at 10.00 A.M., he visited Sivalayam

Panchayat, Timmarajupalem of Nidadavole Mandal and at that time two persons tried to escape having seen the police officials, and he caught hold them and on interrogation, they revealed their identity particulars as A-1 and A-2, and he further stated that on interrogation A-1 confessed that he himself and A-2 to A-4 committed theft of copper wires in the month of February, 2018 in the fields at Saripalli Village of

Koyyalagudem Mandal, in the 4th week of February, 2018, they committed the theft of copper wire in Padugulapalem Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, Eduvadalapalem Village and they also confessed about the theft of the copper wire in different villages. A-1 and A-2 confessed that they sold the copper wire committed theft in the village of

Markondapadu at Rajahmundry to unknown persons and the amount distributed equally and spent the amount for bad vices. He arrested A-1 and A-2 under cover of mahazar (Ex.P-2), and he informed the same to the S.I. of Police, Chagallu Police

Station about the arrest of the accused. The evidence of PW.5 – Tirumala Venkata

Ratnam, who is one of the mediators at the time of apprehension of the accused, is amply corroborated the evidence of P.W.7.

15.The prosecution examined P.Ws.2 and 3, who are independent witnesses in the case. P.W.2 stated in his evidence that he is having lands an extent of Ac.9.00

ETC. 17 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 5 cents in Markondapadu village and himself and L.W.4 – S.Suryanarayana having joint transformer in the agricultural land of L.W.4, and on 13.8.2016 in the morning time, he visited his field and found that the transformer was damaged and some unknown offenders committed theft of copper wire in the transformer. P.W.3 whose lands are located in Markondapadu village stated that the transformer service number 103 is located in the land of L.W.2 – I.Satyanarayana Raju, and on 13.8.2016 in the morning time, he visited his field and found that the transformer was damaged and some unknown offenders committed theft of copper wire in the transformer. P.W.2 and 3 further stated that on 13-8-2016, they informed the same to P.W.1 and on the next day P.W.1 lodged the report in the police station. P.W.4 – Mamidi Eswara Rao, who is

Lineman stated in his evidence that P.W.2, P.W.3 and L.W.4 – S.Suryanarayana informed to him that some unknown offenders committed the theft of copper wires in two transformers in their fields, and he informed the same to P.W.1.

16.P.W.6 simply stated in his evidence that he verified the investigation conducted by L.W.10 – M.Dhanaraju, A.S.I. of Police, and he handed over the C.D. file to L.W.12 – S.Ramakrishna, and his successor L.W.13 – N.Ravikumar produced the accused on P.T. warrant before the Court and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

17.The case of accused is one of total denial.

18.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who are independent witnesses in the case, is not sufficient to prove that Accused No.1 and 2 are the person committed the theft of copper wires from the transformers in the fields of P.W.2, P.W.3 and L.W.2 –

Satyanarayana Raju. Therefore, without any hesitation, I hold that the ingredients under Section 136 of The Electricity Act, 2003, not made out against the accused No.1 and 2.

19.The entire edifice of the case of the prosecution rested upon P.W.5 and

P.W.7 to prove the arrest of the accused and seizure of the stolen property. P.W.7

ETC. 17 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 6 stated in his evidence stated that 12-4-2018 at 10.00 A.M., he visited Sivalayam

Panchayat, Timmarajupalem of Nidadavole Mandal and at that time two persons tried to escape having seen the police officials, and he caught hold them and on interrogation, they revealed their identity particulars as A-1 and A-2 and A-1 and A-2 confessed that they sold the copper wire committed theft in the village of

Markondapadu at Rajahmundry to unknown persons and the amount distributed equally and spent the amount for bad vices. P.W.5 mediators also corroborated the version of P.W.7. As per their evidence, nothing was seized from the possession of

A-1 and A-2 relating to this crime. In view of the evidence on record, without any hesitation, I hold that their evidence inspires less confidence in the mind of the Court to prove arrest of the accused and seizure of property, and thus, the prosecution agency miserably failed to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. The points are answered accordingly.

20.IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 136 The Electricity Act, 2003 or under Section 137 of The Electricity

Act, 2003, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charges.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I directly on computer device, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 1 st day of November, 2022.

Sd/- N. Srinivasa Rao

JUDGE UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT-CUM-

I ADDITONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE,WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 - D.Jagadeeswara Rao.

P.W.2 - I.Balaram Murthy.

ETC. 17 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 7

P.W.3 - T.Ramana Rao.

P.W.4 - M.Eswara Rao.

P.W.5 - T.Venkata Ratnam.

P.W.6 - M.Jayababu.

P.W.7 - D.Ravi Kumar.

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L- .

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 14-8-2016 Report given by P.W.1 in Chagallu Police Station.

Ex.P.2 -- Attested copy of relevant portion in the mediators report dated 12-4-2018 at 10.00 A.M.

Ex.P.3 14-8-2016 F.I.R. in Cr.No.106/2016 of Chagallu Police Station under Section 379 IPC.

Ex.P.4 -- Rough sketch prepared at the land of P.W.2.

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L -.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/- N. Srinivasa Rao

JUDGE UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT-CUM-

I ADDITONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE,WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Copies to:

1.The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., Amaravathi.

2.The Director of Prosecutions, Govt. of A.P.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, W.G., Eluru.

ETC. 17 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 8

CALENDRA AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

CALENDAR CASES TRIED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT - CUM - I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Date of offence Report or complaint Apprehension or Released on bail. Appearance of accused (1) (2) (3) (4)

Prior to 13-08-2016 14-08-2016 27-4-2018 13-7-2018 (A-1) (On P.T. Warrant) 18-7-2018 (A-2)

Commencement of Close of trial Date of Judgment Explanation for delay trial (5) (6) (7) (8) 11-10-2022 31-10-2022 01-11-2022 ---

Judgment of Electricity Theft Case No. 17/2018 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under Electricity Act - cum - I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Complainant:- The State : Sub Inspector of Police, Chagallu Police Station.

Name of the accused : Father’s Name; Age; Caste/Religion; Calling; Village; & Mandal

1. Vemula Srinivas Rao, S/o.Veerraju, 44 years, Gowda, Coolie, Unakaramilli Village, Nidadavole Mandal.

2. Pasalapudi Punnaiah @ Pethuru, S/o.Yellayya, 40 years, SC-Madiga, Ramachandrapuram Village, Chagallu Mandal. … Accused 1 and 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE : Theft of copper wire and dishonestly retained the stolen property. Punishable under Sections 136 and 137 of Indian Electrical Act, 2003. FINDING : Accused No.1 and 2 found not guilty of the charge under Section 136 and 137 of The Electricity Act, 2003.

RESULT : IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 136 The Electricity Act, 2003 or under Section 137 of The Electricity Act, 2003, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charges.

Sd/- N. Srinivasa Rao

JUDGE UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT-cum-

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

ETC. 13 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 1

IN THE SPECIAL COURT OF THE JUDGE UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Present: Sri N.Srinivasa Rao,

Judge under Electricity Act-cum-

I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Tuesday, on this the 1st day of November, 2022

ELECTRICITY THEFT CASE NO. 13 /2018

Between:

The State: Rep by Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Koyyalagudem Police Station.

…Complainant.

And

1. Vemula Srinivas Rao, S/o.Veerraju, 44 years, Gowda, Unakaramilli Village, Nidadavole Mandal.

2. Pasalapudi Punnalayya @ Pethuru, S/o.Yeliyya, 40 years, SC-Madiga, Ramachandrapuram Village, Chagallu Mandal. … Accused 1 and 2.

This case has come on 31-10-2022 before me for hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mrs.G.Rohini, Advocate for the

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

J U D G M E N T

Accused 1 and 2 are charge sheeted in Cr.Nos.54/2018 of Koyyalagudem

Police Station, for the alleged offence under Section 379, 411 of IPC., and Section 136 of A.P. Electricity Act, 2003.

2.Brief allegations disclosed in the charge sheet are that, the first informant

Nunna Apparao, A.A.E., Operation, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Koyyalagudem, presented a report in Koyyalagudem Police Station alleging that some unknown offenders committed theft of copper core winding wire, worth of Rs.3,000/- by broke opened the 25 KVA electrical transformer situated in the field of Allam Nageswara Rao (P.W.1) and

Kethireddy Jabilli Jabilli (P.W.4). The report is registered by L.W.7 –

ETC. 13 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 2

B.Vayunandhanarao, H.C., and D.V.Ramana (P.W.3), H.C., as in Cr.No.54/2018 under

Section 379 I.P.C., and Section 136 of Electricity Act, 2003 of Koyyalagudem P.S.

3.D.Ravi Kumar (P.W.5), S.I. of Police, Samisragudem Police Station apprehended the accused 1 and 2 on 12-4-2018 at 10.00 A.M., in the presence of two mediators viz., K.T.R.Lakshmi Narasimham (L.W.5) and Tirumalla Venkata Ratnam (P.W.2) and recorded the confessional statement of Accused at the outskirts of

Timmarajupalem Village of Nidadavole Mandal, in Cr.No.50/2018 of Samisragudem

Police Station and seized copper wire weighing about 8 Kgs., in Cr.Nos.54/2018 under cover of mahazar, and M.Surya Bhagavan (P.W.4), and he informed to the S.I. of

Police, Koyyalagudem Police Station regarding the seizure of M.O.1, and S.I. of Police,

Koyyalagudem filed P.T. Warrant on 16-5-2018 brought the accused to this crime and he verified the investigation conducted by D.V.Ramana (P.W.3), H.C., and eventually filed the charge sheet against accused. Hence, the charge.

4.The charge sheet taken on file under Sections 136 and 137 of The

Electricity Act, 2003 or Sections 379 or 411 of I.P.C.

5.After appearance of accused 1 and 2 before the Court and copies furnished to accused, they examined under Section 228 (2) Cr.P.C., and charges framed under Sections 136 and 137 of The Electricity Act, 2003. The charges explained in Telugu to Accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to bring home guilt against Accused, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 5 and Exs.P-1 to P-5 got marked and material objects MO.1 [copper wire] got marked.

7.During the trial, learned Public Prosecutor has given up L.W.1 – Nunna

Apparao, since he died, and also given up L.W.3 – Ch.Nageswara Rao, L.W.4 –

P.Pentaiah, L.W.5 – K.T.R.Lakshmi Narasimham and therefore their evidence are deemed to be closed.

ETC. 13 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 3

8.After closure of the evidence on behalf of prosecution, Accused No.1 and 2 are examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and explained the incriminating material against Accused and Accused denied the offence and stated that a false case has been foisted and accused reported no defense evidence.

9.Not the point for determination in this case is

“1) whether the prosecution could able to establish guilt

against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable

doubt?

2) whether the evidence of prosecution is sufficient to

establish the essential elements under Section 136 and

137 of The Electricity Act, 2003?”

10.I have heard arguments of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Counsel

for accused.

11.Point No. 1 and 2:

The prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses to substantiate the accusation against accused No.1 and 2.

12.P.W.1 – Allam Nageswara Rao, in whose land the copper wire committed theft, stated that he is resident of Pongutur Village, he lived by cultivation and he is having Ac.2.00 cents of land in Ponguturu Village, and in the month of January, 2018 during the night time, some unknown offenders committed theft of copper wire from the transformer in his field, and he found the incident in the morning time and he informed the incident particulars to A.E./L.W.1.

13. On 26-1-2018 P.W.3 – D.Venkata Ramana, Head Constable, registered

Ex.P-3 filed by A.E./L.W.1 in Cr.No.54/2018 under Section 379 I.P.C., 136 (1)

Electricity Act (Ex.P-4 F.I.R.). P.W.3 recorded the statement of L.W.1/A.E., and visited the land of P.W.1 and prepared Ex.P-5 rough sketch. He also recorded the statements of P.W.1, L.W.3 – Ch.Nageswara Rao, L.W.4 P.Pentaiah.

ETC. 13 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 4

14.P.W.5 – D.Ravi Kumar, the then S.I of Police, Samisragudem Police

Station, testify in his evidence on 12-4-2018 at 10.00 A.M., he visited Sivalayam

Panchayat, Timmarajupalem of Nidadavole Mandal and at that time two persons tried to escape having seen the police officials, and he caught hold them and on interrogation, they revealed their identity particulars as A-1 and A-2, and he further stated that on interrogation A-1 confessed that he kept the copper wire relating to the present crime in his house. He further stated that A-1 and A-2 confessed that they committed theft of copper wire in Ponguturu Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, and they also confessed about the theft of the copper wire in another villages and in different crime numbers. He further stated that A-1 led him and mediators to his house at

Vunakaramilli Village of Nidadavole Mandal and at that time A-1 brought one bag from his house, and he found only one copper wire bundle in the bag and he identified that the wire relating to Cr.No.54/2018 of Koyyalagudem Police Station (M.O.1). He further stated that he apprehended the accused in Cr.Nlo.50/2018 of Samisragudem Police

Station and in that connection he prepared a mahazar (Ex.P-1) and he informed the same to the S.I. of Police, Koyyalagudem Police Station about the arrest of the accused. The evidence of PW.2 – Tirumala Venkata Ratnam, who is one of the mediators at the time of apprehension of the accused, is amply corroborated the evidence of P.W.5.

15.The prosecution examined P.W.1, who is independent witness in the case.

P.W.1 simply stated in his evidence that in the month of January, 2018 during night time, some unknown offenders committed theft of copper wire from the transformer in his fiend and he found the incident in the morning time, and in that connection he informed the incident particulars to L.W.1/A.E.

16.P.W.4 – M.Surya Bhagavan, the then S.I. of Police, Koyyalagudem P.S., simply stated in his evidence that he verified the investigation conducted by P.W.3 and

ETC. 13 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 5 filed P.T. Warrant and brought the accused to present case and filed the charge sheet against the accused.

17.The case of accused is one of total denial.

18.The evidence of prosecution is not sufficient to prove the fact that the accused were the persons committed the theft of copper wire (M.O.1) from

Transformer in the land of P.W.1 at Pongutur Village, and as such the ingredients under Section 136 of The Electricity Act, 2003, not made out against the accused.

19.The entire edifice of the case of the prosecution rested upon P.W.2 and

P.W.5 to prove the arrest of the accused and seizure of the stolen property i.e., M.O.1 from the possession of accused No.1 under Ex.P-2 mahazar. P.W.2 stated in his evidence that S.I. of Police apprehended the accused at the outskirts of

Timmarajupalem Village and on the confession of A-1, P.W.5 seized 7 bundles of copper wire from the possession of A-1 at his house under the cover of Ex.P-2 mahazar, whereas, P.W.5 stated in his evidence he found only one copper wire bundle in the bag. P.W.2 in his cross-examination, he candidly admitted that Ex.P-2 mediators report contents shows that the identity slips which were signed by the accused affixed on the seized property, but M.O.1 does not disclose identify slips. Further the prosecution not examined L.W.5 – K.T.R. Lakshmi Narasimham, who is the scribe of

Exs.P-1 and P-2, and the non-examination of scribe is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is not in dispute that L.W.1/A.E., has not mentioned the value of the stolen property in Ex.P-3 and the signature of L.W.1/A.E., not found in Column No.14 in Ex.P-4 FIR, and the complaints filed by the farmers not enclosed to Ex.P-3 report.

The evidence of P.W.5 conspicuously silent they obtained signatures of the accused on

Exs.P-1 and P-2. Further P.W.5 admitted in his cross examination that M.O.1 copper wire easily available in the market. During the course of investigation, neither P.W.3 nor P.W.4 secured any documents regarding the details of the transformers and service connections of the transformers and the electricity bills alleged to be paid by

ETC. 13 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 6 the original owners of the transformers. In view of the glaring contradictions in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5, without any hesitation, I hold that their evidence inspires less confidence in the mind of the Court to prove arrest of the accused and seizure of M.O.1 property from the possession of the accused and thus, the prosecution agency miserably failed to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

The points are answered accordingly.

20.IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 136 and 137 of The Electricity Act, 2003, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charges.

M.O.1 copper wire bundles in C.P.No.20/2022 shall be handed over to

Assistant Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Koyyalagudem, after expiry of appeal time and on being identified by concerned Police.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I directly on computer device, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 1 st day of November, 2022.

Sd/- N. Srinivasa Rao

JUDGE UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT-CUM-

I ADDITONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE,WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 - A.Nageswara Rao.

P.W.2 - T.Venkata Ratnam.

P.W.3 - D.Venkata Ramana.

P.W.4 - M.Surya Bhagavan.

P.W.5 - D.Ravi Kumar.

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L- .

ETC. 13 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 7

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 12-4-2018 Attested copy of mediators report drafted at 10.00 a.m.

Ex.P.2 12-4-2018 Attested copy of relevant portion of mediators report drafted at 12.15 noon.

Ex.P.3 26-01-2018 Report given by L.W.1 – N.Appa Rao in Koyyalagudem Police Station.

Ex.P.4 26-01-2018 F.I.R. in Cr.NO.54/2018 of Koyyalagudem Police Station.

Ex.P.5 -- Rough sketch prepared at the land of P.W.1.

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L -.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

M.O.1 -- Copper wire weighing about 8 Kgs.

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L -.

Sd/- N. Srinivasa Rao

Judge under Electricity Act-cum-

I Additional District & Sessions

Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Copies to:

1.The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., Amaravathi.

2.The Director of Prosecutions, Govt. of A.P.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, W.G., Eluru.

ETC. 13 of 2018 I. A.D.S.J. Court DD.01-11-2022 W.G., Eluru 8

CALENDRA AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

CALENDAR CASES TRIED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT - CUM - I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Date of offence Report or complaint Apprehension or Released on bail. Appearance of accused (1) (2) (3) (4) 22-01-2018 26-01-2018 16-5-2018 13-7-2018 (A-1) (on P.T.Warrant) 18-7-2018 (A-2)

Commencement of Close of trial Date of Judgment Explanation for delay trial (5) (6) (7) (8) 07-10-2022 31-10-2022 01-11-2022 ---

Judgment of Electricity Theft Case No. 13/2018 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under Electricity Act - cum - I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Complainant:- The State : Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Koyyalagudem, W.G.Dist.

Name of the accused : Father’s Name; Age; Caste/Religion; Calling; Village; & Mandal

1. Vemula Srinivas Rao, S/o.Veerraju, 44 years, Gowda, Unakaramilli Village, Nidadavole Mandal.

2. Pasalapudi Punnalayya @ Pethuru, S/o.Yeliyya, 40 years, SC-Madiga, Ramachandrapuram Village, Chagallu Mandal. … Accused 1 and 2. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE : Theft of copper wire and dishonestly retained the stolen property. Punishable under Sections 136 and 137 of Indian Electrical Act, 2003. FINDING : Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 136 and 137 of The Electricity Act, 2003.

RESULT : IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 136 and 137 of The Electricity Act, 2003, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charges.

M.O.1 copper wire bundles in C.P.No.20/2022 shall be handed over to Assistant Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Koyyalagudem, after expiry of appeal time and on being identified by concerned Police.

Sd/- N. Srinivasa Rao

JUDGE UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT-cum-

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.