Sri.N.Subba Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs AND STs(POA) ACT CUM VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN

SESSIONS JUDGE: SECUNDERABAD

Dated this the 9th day of October,2012

Present:Sri N. Subba Rao B.Com., LLM Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs(POA) Act cum VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2012

From what court his appeal is Preferred:XI Spl. Magistrate, Secunderabad (old CC 300 of 2008 on the file of Learned X Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Secunderabad

Number of the case on that: C.C.No. 198 of 2011

Number of the Appeal:Crl.Appeal No. 79 of 2012

Name and description of the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused:

Ranki Reddy Govinda Rao S/o.Subba Rao, Age: 35 Years, Occ: Teacher, R/o.Qtr No.A/4/6, NTPC Town, Saint Clare High School, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District

Name and description of Respondent/Complainant:

1. T. Hari Babu S/o. T. Pandu Age: 34 Yrs., R/o.H.No.11-2-459/11, Namalagundu, Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad

2. The State of A.P.

The sentence and law under which It was imposed in the Lower Court:The accused is found guilty for the Offence U/s. 138 of NI Act and he convicted U/s. 255(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to under go R.I. for a period of 2 Six months and to pay compensation sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- within one month from the date of this judgment.

Whether confirmed modified or Reversed and if modified or Reverse and if modified and:

The appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of Lower Trial Court in C.C.No.198 of 2011 dt. 12-01- 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of on which ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.Filing:31-01-2012

2.Presentation:31-01-2012

3.Notice issued by the Court:01-02-2012

4.Bail bond is appellant is let out on bail:-

5.Appellant is ordered to be appeared:22-02-2012

6.Hearing:25-09-2012

7.Judgement:09-10-2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This appeal is coming on for hearing before me upon perusing the material record and Sri A. Ashok Rao Counsel for the Appellant, Sri GB Srinivas Counsel

for the Respondent and Sri M.Kishore Kumar for the state and the matter having

been heard stood over the consideration till this day, this court made the following:

JUDGEMENT

1.This criminal appeal is filed under section 374 (3) to set aside the judgment; conviction and sentence passed by the Learned XI Special Magistrate,

Secunderabad in C.C.No.198 of 2011 dt: 12.01.2012 (old CC 300 of 2008 on the file of Learned X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad) and to allow this appeal and to acquit the Appellant.

2.The Appellant is the accused and the Respondent is the Complainant in the above said C.C.No.198 of 2011.

3

3.The Respondent/Complainant filed a complaint against the Appellant for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

4.The case of the Respondent/Complainant as per the Private Complaint in brief is as follows:

a)The Appellant borrowed the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and executed a promissory note and for repayment of the same; the Appellant issued Ex.P.1 cheque and the Ex.P.1 sent to the bank for collection and the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “no sufficient funds”. The Respondent issued legal notice and inspite of the legal notice, the Appellant did not pay the amount covered under the cheque.

Hence the Complaint.

5. After recording the sworn statement of the Respondent, the Learned

Magistrate, Secunderabad took the case on file for the offence U/sec 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act against the appellant.

6.The Learned Magistrate, Secunderabad furnished the copies of case documents to the appellant as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

7.The Learned Magistrate, Secunderabad examined the Appellant under section 251 of Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.To bring home the guilt of the Appellant, the Respondent/Complainant examined P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to 8 no defence witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

9.After closure of Respondent/Complainant evidence the Appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstances that were appearing against him, he pleaded that the incriminating circumstances appearing against him is false and no defence witnesses were examined.

4

10.On hearing both the Respondent/Complainant and the Appellant/Accused, the Learned Magistrate, Secunderabad found the accused guilty for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C and he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- which is the cheque amount to the Respondent as compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C within one month from the date of the judgment dt: 12.01.2012.

11.Aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction, the present appeal is filed.

12.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant filed written arguments.

13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Trial Court placed reliance on the sole evidence of P.W.1 and also relied on disputed cheque and he further contended that the Respondent failed to establish the legal enforceable debt and he further contended that the Respondent deposed in the cross examination that Ex.P.6 was returned as ‘Unserved’ and he adds he refused and he further contended that the endorsement of the postal department ‘not shown as refused by the addressee as stated by the Respondent in his complaint and also admitted in his cross examination. He further contended that the trial court erred that P.W.1 deposed in his cross examination that the court summons he mentioned the address of the Appellant in the summons different from that of address mentioned in the cover address to the Appellant sent by the court, the Respondent adds that the accused informed him of changing address later which he mentioned in the summons. He further contended that the Trial Court erred that the legal notice was not served to the Appellant and not refused by the Appellant as stated by the Respondent. More over the Respondent did not examine the postal authorities whether the notice was refused by the Appellant or not to establish is allegation against the Appellant. He further contended that the trial court erred in considering 5 that the notice was not served on the Appellant, hence as per preview of section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act specifically provides that the payee or the holder must make a demand by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque. He further contended that the trial court failed to considered the citation reported in 1997 (6) ALT 202 (AP High Court) filed by the Appellant in the lower court. He further contended that the trial court in rely on the citation filed by the

Respondent reported in 2007 (4) ALT 633 (DB) AP. He further contended that the trial court raised presumption under section 27 of General Clauses Act without appreciating the point raised by the counsel for the Appellant with regard to the service of registered post cover containing legal notice and presumption of recording of addressee in the given address. On Ex.A.6 registered post cover was posted on 03.08.2007 and the same was returned on 09.08.2007. Unless and until there is a period of seven clear days between the registered post and return of the postal cover by the post man it cannot be said the due process has been followed.

He further contended that the post man ought to have maintain either the option of the Appellant or his refusal to receive the registered postal cover it is deemed that postman fail to follow postal rules, the post man should have affix information on the conspicuous place that postal cover was to be delivered to the Appellant on the absence of the following procedure by the postal authorities cannot raised. He further contended that the finding of the trial court that the presumption can be raised under section 27 of General Clauses Act is divisive of merit. He further contended that the trial court fail to maintain or record the non-exercising of the act under P.O Act before passing sentence it is mandatory on the part of the trial court to put specific question with regard to proposed sentence except balled statement noting court is recorded about the proposed sentence. He further contended that the sentence part is totally contravention of the law laid down by the Apex Court. He further contended that the trial court erred in finding the difference in signatures of the Appellant on the documents Ex.P.7; Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.1 can easily to find out 6 difference in hand writing of the Appellant. Those documents are filed by the

Respondent are not genuine and further contended that the documents cannot be taken into consideration against the Appellant.

14.On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Lower Court properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and came to the correct conclusion and that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the Lower court.

15.Now the point for determination is whether

1)The Respondent/Complainant prove the guilt of the Appellant for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act?

2)Whether the Lower court judgment; conviction and sentence is sustainable?

16.The points 1 and 2 are co-related and can be discussed together for the sake of convenience.

17.It is the specific case of the Respondent that the Appellant borrowed sum of

Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Only) and executed suit promissory note and subsequently in spite of several demands the appellant did not pay the amount and issued Ex.P.1 cheque and the same is sent to the bank for collection and the same is dishonoured for non-sufficient funds and that it is specific case of the Appellant that the Lower Court did not properly appreciate both oral and documentary evidence and the Lower Court solely relied upon the evidence of P.W.1.

18.P.W.1 filed the chief affidavit. The contents of the chief affidavit treated as chief examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 categorically deposed that the Appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and executed suit promissory note Ex.P.8 and 7 promised to repay the same as and when demand by the Respondent. Subsequently inspite of several requests the Appellant did not pay the amount and issued Ex.P.1 cheque; Ex.P.2 is the cheque return memo dt: 22.05.2007; Ex.P.3 is the cheque return memo dt: 01.08.2007; Ex.P.4 is the office copy of legal notice dt:

03.08.2007; Ex.P.5 is the post receipt dt: 03.08.2007; Ex.P.6 is the returned registered cover addressed to the Appellant dt: 09.08.207; Ex.P.7 is the original agreement between the Appellant and Respondent and Ex.P.8 is the Pro note.

Though P.W.1 was cross examined at length, nothing was found in the cross examination to disbelieve his version.

19.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon a case in between A.

Sudershan Vs. Mannan (Shabir) and another reported in 1997 (6) ALD 202. In the reported case it is held that the register notice sent to the accused returned with postal endorsement “Party continuously absent for seven days”. It is held that it is does not amount to service under the act. As per the section 27 of General Clauses

Act notice sent by the Registered department with acknowledgment due must be deemed to have been duly effected unless contrary proved. The Appellant did not examine any witness contrary to prove the same. So the facts of the reported case are not applicable to the present case. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant also placed a reliance in a case in between Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G

Hegde reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1325. In the reported case it is held that the presumption of innocence as human rights and doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section 139 of N.I Act should be delicately balanced and it largely depends on factual matrix of each case. In the present case the evidence of P.W.1 clearly established that the Appellant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- and executed Ex.P.8 promissory note and inspite of several requests, the Appellant did not pay the amount. So the oral testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P.1 to P.8 it clearly established that the Appellant issued Ex.P.1 cheque to discharge the enforceable 8 debt and the same was dishonoured. So the facts of the reported case are not applicable to the present case.

20.It is not the case of the Appellant that the signature found in Ex.P.1 cheque is not that of the Appellant. It is the case of the Appellant that he himself handed over

Ex.P.1 cheque to the Respondent. So under these circumstances, the burden is on the Appellant to rebut the presumption. But in the present case the Appellant did not examine any witness to rebut the presumption under these circumstances, the

Lower court properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and came to correct conclusion and that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the finding recorded by the Lower court.. Accordingly the Point.No.1 & 2 are answered.

21.In the result, the Appellant is found guilty for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs(POA) Act cum VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

22.When questioned with regard to quantum of sentence. The Appellant stated that he has small child. The Appellant has no parents. He alone has to look after the children. The facts of the case is that the Appellant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees

Three Lakh Only) and executed Ex.P.8 promissory note and did not repay the same and inspite of several demands. The Appellant issued Ex.P.1 cheque for

Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh Only) and the same was sent for collection and later the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Basing on the facts and circumstances it is not fit case to invoke the provisions of the P.O Act or under section 360 of Cr.P.C. The Lower Court found the accused guilty for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted under section 9 255(2) Cr.P.C and he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees

Three Lakh Only) which is the cheque amount to the Respondent/Complainant as compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C within one month from the date of the judgment dt: 12.01.2012. There are no valid grounds to modify the same and the same is confirmed.

Dictated to Personal Assistant transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open Court on this the 9th day of October, 2012.

Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs(POA) Act cum VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this the 29th day of August, 2012

Present: Sri N. Subba Rao, B.Com, LL.M.,

Special Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs & S.Ts

(POA) Act-cum-VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge; Secunderabad.

SC. No. 164 of 2011

(P. R. C. No.7 of 2011 of X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad)

Committed by :Sri D. Sham Mohan Rao

B.A, L.L.B.,

X Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Crime No. & Police Station : Cr.No.120/2010 of P.S. Lalaguda

Name of the Complainant: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Lalaguda Name and Description of the accused :

A.1 A.Sanjay S/o. A. Balaiah Age: 30 Yrs., Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No. 301, Style Home Apartments, Street No.6, HMT Colony, Nacharam, Cyberabad

A.2 E. Ravinder S/o. E.Ram Reddy Age: 32 Yrs., Occ: Fruit Business, R/o.12-12-192/83, Pardiwada, Near Community Hall, Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad

Prosecution conducted by :Sri M.Kishore Kumar Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by : Sri Nagaraju and A.C.Srinivas Accused No.1 and 2

Offences:U/s. 364-A,342,323 r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

The Accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 364 (A), 342, 506 Part II and 323 of IPC and theyacquitted U/sec 232(1) Cr.P.C.The bail bonds of the Accused.No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time subject to condition of Section 437 (a) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 Cell pone Nokia black colour; M.O.2 Cell Phone Reliance silver Metallic colourM.O.3 Apache Motor cycle black and 2 red colour bearing.No. AP 9 BC 3235 were seized from the possession of A.1 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama on 09.10.2010 are in custody of police and M.O.4Cellpone L G Black colour; M.O.5 Cell pone Nokia Black colour M.O.6 Qualis red colour bearing.No. AP 28 AB 3068 were seized from the possession of A.2 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama on 09.10.2010 are also in custody of police and M.O.1 to 6 shall be returned to respective owners on proper identification after expiry of appeal time.

JUDGMENT

1.The Accused.No.1 and 2 have been charged under section 364 (A), 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC connected to P.R.C. No. 7 of 2011 on the file of Learned X Addl. Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad arose out of Cr.No.120 of 2010 on the file of

Lallaguda Police Station, Secunderabad.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police Lallaguda Police station filed the charge sheet against the Accused.No.1 and 2 for the offences under section 364 (A), 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution as per charge sheet are as follows:- a.On 07.102010 at about 6.30 P.m A. and A.2 called wife of L.W.1 D.

Saibaba over pone and asked her to come over near Ganesh temple/Saibaba

Temple, Tarnaka for talking about the issue of acting of her son in cinemas, on which Smt. Shyamala went near Ganesh temple Saibaba Temple at Tarnaka, when she reached there the accused took her away forcibly in Tata Sumo vehicle. Later the accused called L.W.1 D. Sai Baba and demanded him to come over to Tarnaka along with an amount of Rs.50,000/- for releasing his wife, on that L.W.1’s son by name Ashwin aged about 24 years went near

Ganesh Temple/Saibaba Temple, Tarnaka at about 8.30 P.m along with above demanded amount, but the accused also took him away.

b.The accused again called L.W.1 D. Saibaba and demanded to pay further ransom amount of Rs.1,60,000/-for release of his wife Shyamala and his son

Ashwin and threatened with dire consequences if he fails to obey their demand.

3 c.Basing on the complaint of L.W.1 D. Saibaba, L.W.10 N.R.K. Goud

Sub Inspector of Police, Lallaguda Police Station registered a case in

Cr.No.120/2010 under section 364 (A), 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and P.W.4 took up the investigation and during the course of investigation he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and arrested the accused . After completion of investigation charge sheet as filed.

4.After filing the charge sheet the Learned X Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Secunderabad took the case on file under section 364 (A), 342, 323 r/w 34

of IPC against both the accused.

5.When the Accused.No.1 and 2 appeared before the Learned X Addl. Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, copies of documents were furnished to them and the offence under section 364 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Learned X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad has committed the case to the Hon’ble Principle Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and in turn the same is made over to this court for disposal according to law.

6.When the Accused.No.1 and 2 appeared before this court, after hearing the both the prosecution and defence, charges under section 364 (A), 342, 506 Part II and 323 of IPC against the accused were framed, read over and explained to them in telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.For proving the same the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to P.9 and M.Os 1 to 6.

8.The gist of the prosecution evidence is as follows:-

P.W.1 is the witnesses to speak about the offence P.W.2 and 3 are the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama of Ex.P.1 and P.2 and P.W.4 is the Investigating Officer who took up the investigation and filed the charge sheet.

4

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence the Accused.No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against them and they stated that incriminating evidence appearing against them is false and no defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused.

10.Heard the arguments.

11.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the Accused.No.1and 2 for the offence under section 364 (A), 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

12.It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 07.10.2010 at about 6.30 P.m the Accused.No.1 and 2 telephoned L.W.1 D. Saibaba to send his wife to Ganesh

Temple/Saibaba Temple to discuss about acting of his son in the cinemas and when

L.W.2 D. Shyamala wife of L.W.1 went to the Ganesh Temple/Saibaba Temple, A.1 and A.2 took her to another pace and also telephoned to L.W.1 D. Saibaba to bring

Rs.50,000/- for the release of his wife, on that L.W.1 sent his son Ashwin to Ganesh

Temple/Saibaba temple along with demanded money at 8.30 P.m , but the accused also took him away and again they called L.W.1 D. Saibaba and asked to pay Rs.1,60,000/- for release of his wife and son and threatened with dire consequences if he fails to obey their demand. The accused denied the same. The burden heavily lies on the prosecution to prove the same. For proving the same the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 besides Ex.P.1 to P.9 and M.O.1 to 6, so now it has to be seen whether the prosecution evidence is acceptable or not.

13.According to P.W.1 on 09.10.2010 at 5.30 P.m or 6.00P.m A.1 telephoned to him then he immediately rushed to the Sai Baba Temple situated at Tarnaka. From here himself and A.2 picked up Shyamala and dropped her at Seethaphalmandi flyover. After dropping he waited at flyover. After one hour, the accused came along with Shyamala and boarded his quails car and proceeded to A.1 house Nacharam.

5 After dropping them he left his house. Except this he does not know any facts of the case. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He was cross examined by the Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. In the cross examination by the Learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor he denied the contents of Ex.P.1 what he stated before the police.

14.According to P.W.2 his house is adjacent to Lallaguda workshop. About two years back, Lallaguda Police called him and L.W.6 Prakash. Wherein except police personnel he has not found any civilian including the accused. Police obtained his signature and co panch Prakash in plain paper. The propose for obtaining their signatures in plain paper is not disclosed by the Police. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He was also cross examined by the Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that on 09.10.2010 at 2.30 P.m police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of the Accused.No.1 and 2 exclusively. In pursuance of it, at the instance of A.1 police seized one cell phone and car and at the instance of police seized three cell phones and Apache motorcycle black colour. The signature on confession cum seizure panchanama of A.1 is Ex.P.2 and the signature on confession cum seizure panchanama of A.2 is Ex.P.3. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and he did not support the case of the prosecution.

15.According to P.W.3, he does not remember the time when police called him.

By the time he reached the police station, except police personnel he has not found any civilian including the accused. Police obtained his signature on plain paper. . He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He was also cross examined by the

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that on 09.10.2010 at 2.30 P.m police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of the Accused.No.1 and 2 exclusively. In pursuance of it, at the instance of A.1 police seized one cell phone and car and at the instance of police seized three cell phones and Apache motorcycle black colour. The signature on confession cum seizure panchanama of A.1 is Ex.P.4 and the signature on confession cum seizure panchanama 6 of A.2 is Ex.P.5. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

He was not supporting the case of the prosecution.

16.P.W.4 is the Investigating Officer. According to him he took up the investigation and he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and he apprehended the accused and the accused confessed the offence. Confession before the Police Officer is inadmissible in evidence.

17.The Prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 4. P.W.1 to 3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and they go by their earlier version. They did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.4 Investigating Officer is not a direct witness to the incident.

Absolutely there is no material to establish the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against themand they are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

18.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 364 (A), 342, 506 Part II and 323 of IPC and theyacquitted U/sec 232(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused.No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time subject to condition of Section 437 (a) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 Cell pone Nokia black colour;

M.O.2 Cell Phone Reliance silver Metallic colour M.O.3 Apache Motor cycle black and red colour bearing.No. AP 9 BC 3235 were seized from the possession of A.1 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama on 09.10.2010 are in custody of police and M.O.4Cellpone L G Black colour; M.O.5 Cell pone Nokia Black colour

M.O.6 Qualis red colour bearing.No. AP 28 AB 3068 were seized from the possession of A.2 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama on 09.10.2010 are also in custody of police and M.O.1 to 6 shall be returned to respective owners on proper identification after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 29th day of August, 2012.

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –

7

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

SEC’BAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW-1B. Srikanth PW-2Syed Sultan PW-3G.Prakash PW-4S.Ch.Rangaswamy

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1161 Cr.P.C.statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.2Signature of P.W.2 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A.1 Ex.P.3Signature of P.W.2 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A.2 Ex.P.4Signature of P.W.3 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A.1 Ex.P.5Signature of P.W.3 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A.2 Ex.P.6Complaint Ex.P.7FIR Ex.P.8Confessional Statement of A.2 Ex.P.9Confessional Statement of A.1

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1Cell Phone Nokia Black

M.O.2Cell Phone Reliance Silver

M.O.3Apachi Motor Cycle

M.O.4Cell Phone Black

M.O.5Cell Phone Nokia Black

M.O.6Red Colour Qualis Vehicle

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

SECUNDERABAD.