CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
1
IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:
JANGAREDDIGUDEM.
PRESENT:- Smt.N.Sree Lakshmi, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem. Friday, this the 6th day of March, 2020.
C.C. No.35/2012
Between:
State: Represented by Circle Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem. … Complainant
And
A1. Mamuduri Karunakar, S/o.Krupadanam, 45 years, SC, Ex. Junior Assistant, Suib-Registrar’s Office, Jangareddigudem. Now at Ameenapeta, Eluru.
A2. Padala Subbireddy, S/o.Narasareddy, 40 years, C-Reddy, Attender, Sub-Registrar Office, Jangareddigudem. Now working as Junior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Polavaram.
A3. Dutta Naga Venkata Lakshmi Vara Prasad, S/o.Ramachandar Rao, 35 years, C-Kapu, Junior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Jangareddigudem, Now Junior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Nidadavolu.
A4. Tripurari Hanumantha Rao (late) (Abated), S/o.Suryam, 57 years, Retired Sub-Registrar, Jangareddigudem. … Accused (Case against A1 was abated as per docket order dt.06.12.2019 as he was died on 19.11.2019 )
This case is coming on 28.02.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of
Complainant/State represented by the police, and of Sri G.Ch. Rambabu,
Learned Counsel on behalf of accused/A1, A2, and of Sri N.V.B.L. Achary,
Learned Counsel on behalf of accused/A3, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Circle Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 120 (B), 468, 471, 409 & 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC) in Crime
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
2
No.1/2004 with the following allegations:
2. The brief averments of prosecution case is that:
a)A1 to A4 are ex-employees of Sub-Registrar Office,
Jangareddigudem and conspired with each other to misappropriate the
Government funds for their personal gain. A1 is the former Junior Assistant worked in Sub-Registrar Office, Jangareddigudem who maintain ‘C’ Account for the collection and ‘D” and ‘H’ accounts and remit such of the collection at Sub-
Treasury, Gopalapuram under appropriate heads by preparing challan forms by obtaining the signatures of the Sub-Registrar, Jangareddigudem. A1 being Junior
Assistant in service, in gross violation of the departmental instructions used to take huge amounts without recording the amount and misappropriated by producing forged challans between 11.03.2003 and 22.12.2003 purported to have been genuine said to be issued by Sub-Treasury Officer, Gopalapuram and recording the particulars in the relevant records. This fraud came to light when
A1 failed to deliver the challan for Rs. 1,99,755/- out of 4 challan amounts taken by him without recording in dispatch register as usual. On persuasion for the challan A1 delivered challan no. 954 by 22.12.2003 for Rs. 1,99,755/- only on 05.01.2004.
b)A3 who is Junior Assistant and worked as in-charge Sub-Registrar from 01.09.2003 to 07.01.2004 at Jangareddigudem, preparing reconciliation statement to Sub-Treasury Officer, Gopalapuram for the receipts and payments transacted to the Sub-Treasury every month and obtained acknowledgment from the person in the dispatch register to whom the remittance amount handed over for remittance at Sub-Treasury, Gopalapuram. A3 who had suspicion over the related delivery of the said challans for Rs. 1,99,755/- referred it to Sub-Treasury Officer, Gopalapuram on 06.01.2004 for which STO,
Gopalapuram informed that challan no. 954/22.12.2003 is not for Rs. 1,99,755/- and challan 954 allotted to other Department. Thus, the presentation of forged challan as genuine by A1 has came to light which A3 referred to District
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
3
Registrar/LW1. Thereupon, LW1 reported the matter to DIG Registration and
Stamps who directed LW2/P.Raghavulu to probe into the matter. LW2 made a detailed inquiry and presented his report in Cr.No. 98/2004, dated 11.01.2004.
c)Basing on the said report presented by LW1, LW17/SI of police registered a case in Crime No.1/2004 for the offences U/Sections. 409, 468, 471
IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he secured the presence of witnesses and recorded their statements U/s.161 Cr.P.C. Further investigation done by LW18/Inspector of police, Polavaram and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and also secured the presence of mediators/LW15 and LW16 and collected sample initials and numeral combination from LWs 5, 8, 10 and 11 under cover of mediator’s report, Dt.
21.01.2004. During the course of further investigation, on 25.01.2004 LW18 secured the presence of LW15 and LW16 and collected sample initials and numeral combination from LWs 12 and 13 under cover of mediator’s report dt.
21.01.2004 for comparison of hand writing expert. Again on 29.01.2004 he collected sample initial and numerical combination from LW14 under cover of mediator report dt. 21.01.2004 for comparison of the hand writing expert and also collected the sample impression of official seal, date stamp and Sub-
Treasury Officer’s stamp on three separate white papers in presence of mediators. On 29.01.2004 as per the instructions of LW18, LW17 visited Sub-
Treasury Office, Gopalapuram along with mediators and examined LW14/STO,
Gopalapuram and collected his sample signatures and numeral combination from LW14 in presence of mediators under the cover of three separate mediator reports and also collected the sample impressions of Sub-Treasury seal, Sub-
Treasury date stamp and stamp of the Sub-Treasury Officer on three separate papers in presence of mediators under cover of mediator report dt. 29.01.2004.
d)Subsequently, LW19 took up further investigation in this case and forwarded the material signatures to Hand Writing Expert, AP, Hyderabad for
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
4 comparison. Further, LW19 and 20 who investigated in this case had made all the strenuous efforts to arrest the accused in this case, but A1 surrendered before the Court on 17.02.2004 and released on bail vide Crl.M.P.No. 1259 of Hon’ble
High Court of AP, Hyderabad dt. 11.02.2004. So also A2 surrendered before the
JFCM Court, Jangareddigudem on 12.05.2006 vide Crl.M.P.No. 625/2006 of
Hon’ble High Court of AP, Hyderabad. A3 surrendered before the JFCM Court,
Jangareddigudem on 24.05.2006 vide Crl.M.P.No. 914/2006 of Hon’ble High
Court of AP, Hyderabad and A4 surrendered before the JFCM Court,
Jangareddigudem on 09.05.2006 vide Crl.M.P.No.910/2006 of Hon’ble High
Court of AP, Hyderabad.
e)During investigation, it is revealed that the forged challans produced by A1 between 11.03.2003 and 22.01.2003 were verified with challan numbers recorded in STO office, Gopalapuram which resulted that the challans presented by A1 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jangareddigudem are forged challans when compared with the challan numbers in Sharaff Chitta Register and STO challan book maintained at Sub-Registrar Office. Thus the challans noted below are established as forged challans.
STO Sub-Registrar office challan Sl.office Amount no. and amount of No.challan remittance shown number 124054080290 255950015215 398510056115 4229429031990 5513150021595 682526022855 7253145029695 833030027170 93561011055025 104250037450 11441232088925 12569125041475 137591201041715
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
5 1488308040950 1531850069730 167222334736130 17522276542530 182715074370 19331244372850 20491206069150 217381082865725 (adjusted) 22923372574485 2314450175230 2436146247075 257056054320 26681803119080 273695090130 285164532 60285 (adjusted) 2974110070845 309484292111780 311525046155 3229594275490 3395413300199755 342855680-- 353827520-- TotalL:2145580
f)During the investigation, on scrutiny of challans, challan no. 240, dt.
11.03.2003 is prepared for Rs. 80,290/- for remittance at Sub-Treasury. At the place of acknowledgment for the amount by STO Office,Gopalapuram, it is noted as Rs. 8290/-. This glaring blatant mistake is not detected by A4 and it was recorded in ‘C’ Register that entire amount remitted under challan no. 240 at page 48 of ‘C’ register maintained in Sub-Registar’s office. The ‘C’ register volume 13 and 14 on verification there are entries at page nos. 48, 54, 62, 73, 82, 91, 94, 96, 97, 130, 124, 129, 141, 159, 178, 190, 192, 199, 206, 211 of volume 13 and page nos. 3, 29, 38, 50, 55, 61, 65, 73, 80 of volume no. 14 wherein challan numbers are not at all noted which is left and checked by A3 and A4. According to the investigation inquiry report of LW2, the total amount of the misappropriation of Rs. 21,16,680/-, an amount of Rs. 46,845/- was
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
6 misappropriated by A3. He admitted the same remitted the amount under challan no. 94, dt. 14.12.2004. His own admission itself proves his appropriation.
A1 thus managed to produce forged challans said to be genuine documents and misappropriated a huge sum of Rs. 21,70,531/- by producing forged challans and another sum of Rs. 24,255/- as recorded. The total 33 challans established the misappropriation. A regular departmental enquiry held against A1 to A3 and
A1 dismissed from service from the date of receipt of said order. A2, A3 on appeal after their dismissal from service are reinstated. Since A4 retired from service, action is initiated and final orders waited. A4 died and death certificate was submitted. LW22 took up further investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused.
3. After perusal of the record, the then learned Judicial Magistrate of I
Class, Jangareddigudem issued notice to the defacto complainant but he didn’t file any objections as such objections treated as nil and the cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sections 120 (B), 468, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A3. As the A4 died, the case against him was abated.
4.On appearance of A1 to A3, copies of documents have been furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. A1 to A3 were examined under
Section 239 Cr.P.C, The charges under Sections 120 (B), 468, 409, 420 r/w 34 of
IPC were framed against them, and the same is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has got examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P27. The learned APP has given up the evidence of L.W.15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 22. At the stage of preparation of judgment, on verification of the record and docket order, it was noticed that no document was marked under Ex.P12. The marking of documents continued from
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
7
Exs.P13 to P27 in the evidence of PW14 on 20.12.2018. As there is no chance to rectify the mistake of changing of exhibit number at this stage as such it was continued in the same serial number for the sake of appendix.
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material elicited against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and no documentary evidence is adduced on their behalf. At the stage of arguments, the case against A1 was abated on 06.12.2019 as he was died on 19.11.2019.
7. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.
8. The learned APP filed written arguments and submitted that prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.21. PWs1 and 9, 11 the Former Attenders in Sub Registrar Office, Jangareddigudem. PWs2 to 4, 6 to 8, 10 are the former staff of Treasury Office, Gopalapuram. PW12 is
Retired District registrar, West Godavari District, PWs13 and 14 are investigation officers. All the evidence read together, it proves the guilt of the accused.
Hence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 120 (B), 468, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and accused are liable for conviction.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for A2 filed written arguments and submitted that no witness deposed anything against A2 in the entire evidence and on 07.12.2003 A2 was relieved from duty at
Jangareddigudem and joined at Tadepalligudem and the alleged incident was occurred on 22.12.2003 and report was given on 09..1.2004 and he is no way concerned to the present case. Where as learned counsel for A3 also filed written arguments and submitted that there are no specific overt acts and evidence was adhered against A3 and the prosecution failed to obtain permission from the competent authority which was mandatory under Section 197 CrPC as A3 is a public servant and prayed to acquit A3 in this case. Hence,
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
8 the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled for acquittal.
10. Now, the points for determination are: - Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A2 and A3 for the offences u/sections 120 (B), 468, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?
11. Point:- I have perused the entire evidence and other material available on record. This case is filed under Sections 120 (B), 468, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A4. However, A4 was died by the time of filing of charge sheet as such cognizance was taken for the above said offence against A1 to
A3. Further, A1 was died at the stage of arguments as such the case against A1 was abated. Now this court has to scrutinize the evidence to connect A2 and A3 for the above said offence.
12.In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to 14. P.W.1 is the then Attender in Sub-Registrar
Office, Jangareddigudem and he deposed that himself and A2 used to remit the challan amounts at Sub-Treasury Office, Gopalapuram and used to take challans by signing in dispatch Register. A1 used to prepared challans. Some times, A1 also used to remit challans in Sub-Treasury office. Subsequently, he came to know A1 did not remit one challan amount in Sub-Treasury Office,
Gopalapuram. He does not know particulars of the amount misappropriated and he knows this much only. During his cross examination, he admitted that there was no deficit of staff members during their period in between 2002 and 2003. He further admitted that he cannot say the registers maintained at Sub-
Registrar Office.
13. PW2 is the then Junior Assistant, Sub-Treasury Office, Gopalapuram.
He deposed that A1 used to work as Junior Assistant in Sub-Registrar Office,
Jangareddigudem and he used to remit the challans in their Sub-Treasury Office,
Gopalapuram and they used to hand over remittance copy to A1. Except that
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
9 he does not know anything about this case. During his cross examination, he admitted that he does not know whether it is not the duty of Junior Assistant, sub-
Registrar Office to remit the challans. He denied the suggestion that there is no record to show that the A1 remitted the said challans.
14. PWs 3 to 8, 11 who are Treasury employees did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile stating that they do not know anything about this case and police never examined them. PW9 is the then
Attender in Sub-Registrar Office, Jangareddigudem deposed that A1 used to remit the challans and A4 informed him that some challans were missed, but he does not know who missed the said challans. Further he categorically deposed that except that he does not know anything about this case and turned hostile to the case of prosecution. During his cross examination by the learned counsel for A1, he admitted that the duty of A1 was to enter the remitted challans in C- account, if they are entrusted to him.
15. PW10 is the then Sub-Treasury Officer, Gopalapuram deposed that in the month of January 2004 one staff of Sub-Registrar Office,
Jangareddigudem came to their office and verified the registers as to the remittance of challans of their office and he noticed that some of the challans were not remitted or some of the challans were remitted for less amount and subsequently tampered the challans with high amount.
16. PW12 is the then District Register, West Godavari deposed that A1 was to maintain accounts pertain to stamps. On 06.01.2014 he received a report from A4/Sub-Registrar stating that A1 has taken four challans relating to collection dated 20.12.2013 for remittance at STO, Gopalapuram, but he return the said three challns, but he did not return fourth challan pertains to stamps. On several request, A1 return fourth challan to A4 on 05.01.2004. during the verification, A4 found variation in the signature of STO and the variation in the ink used on the challan by STO and he did not found seal of STO on the said fourth
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
10 challan. The A4 sub-registrar, Jangareddigudem intimated the same to him and he contacted STO, Gopalapuram. Finally, the said STO, Gopalapuram informed that the fourth challans is fake and not signed by him. A4-Sub-Registrar asked him to conduct inquiry and accordingly, he visited Sub-Registrar Office,
Jangareddigudem on 07.01.2014 and inquired about the complaint. Finally, he came to a conclusion that there was a misappropriation to the extent of Rs.
1,99,755/-. Upon which he gave report under Ex.P9 to Jangareddigudem Police.
17. PW12 during his cross examination admitted that there was no specific office order as on the date of alleged incident entrust the A1 to remit the challans to STO, Gopalapuram and it is the duty of Sub-Registrar to get the challans remitted. He further admitted that he did not make any inquiries has to the alleged forgery on the alleged document, except oral inquiry. He further admitted that there is no document to establish that A1 forged the said challan.
He further admitted that he did not seize an y document to show that at relevant time the A1 is entrusted with the duty of remittance of challans. He further admitted that A3 was Junior Assistant as on the date of alleged incident and that he did not file any document to establish that A3 was in-charge Sub-
Registrar. He further admitted that the said misappropriation was not found in their internal or external audit as such he did not file the audit report along with his report to police.
18. PW13 is the investigating officer deposed that he registered the case basing on the report of PW1. On his requisition, A3 produced 34 challans, despatch register volume-26 & 27, Account-C register volume 13 & 14,
Attendance register of staff of SRO, Jangareddigudem for the year 2002-2003.
He further deposed that the STO, Gopalapuram sent a letter vide RC No. A1-5,
Dt. 13.04.2004 informed that the said 34 challans are not allotted to the SRO,
Jangareddigudem as per their records and that they are fake. Later, he along with LW15/A.B.V.Subba Rao and LW16/C. Kondala Rao visited the office of STO,
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
11
Gopalapuram on 29.01.2004 and collected the sample signatures of STO,
Gopalapuram and also collected sample mediator report. He further deposed that he do not remember whether he produced the dispatch register volume 26 & 27, Account-C register volume no. 13 and 14, Attendance register of staff of
SRO, Jangareddigudem for the year 2002-2003, except Account-C register volume no. 13. He further deposed that the other registers such as dispatch register volume 26 & 27, Account-C register volume no. 14, Attendance register of staff of SRO, Jangareddigudem for the year 2002-2003 and the specimen signatures taken by him are not produced before the court as per their record.
19. During the cross examination of PW13, he admitted that he did not obtain any sanction from competent authority to launch prosecution against the accused either under Cr.P.C. or under Stamp Act. He further admitted that he verified the dispatch register of SRO, Jangareddigudem and they did not contain the signature of A1 to show that he collected the challans from the dispatch clerk and he handed over the challans after remittance to the dispatch clerk. He further adds that he was informed by the witnesses that A1 never signed in dispatch register though he received challans. He further admitted that his investigation did not reveal by any documentary6 evidence that the Sub- registrar, Jangareddigudem entrusted the amounts and challans to A1 for remittance of the same into STO office. He further admitted that the documents collected by him did not disclose that A1 received any amount from Sub-
Registrar for remittance along with challans. He further admitted that the alleged misappropriated amounts were the deficit stamp duty collected by Sub-
Registrar, Jangareddigudem by that time. He further admitted that he did not collect any documentary evidence to show that at relevant period the then
Sub-Registrar/A4 was actually collected the said amount as deficit stamp duty.
He further admitted that there will be a separate register to make entries, whenever the sub-registrar collects any amounts towards deficit stamp duty and that there will be receipts that would be passed for said collection for the
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
12 persons paying the said deficit stamps. He further admitted that his investigation reveals that the attender by name P. Raghavulu/PW9 used to remit the challans.
He further admitted that as per their record the challan dt.22.12.2003 for Rs.
1,99,755/- vide challan no. 955 was signed by Sub-Registrar/A4 and entrusted to the said Attender by name P. Raghavulu. He further added that after such entrustment of said challan no. 955, A1 orally requested A4 to hand over the same to him saying that he was going to STO office for reconciliation statement and upon such request the said challan no. 955 was handed over to A1. He further admitted that he did not collect any document to show that it is the duty of A1 to collect the challans and remit the same. He further admitted that he did not collect the specimen signatures of A1 during his investigation.
20. During the cross examination of PW13 by the learned counsel for
A3, he admitted that he did not examine any audit officer in this case and did not take any documents from District Register/PW12 in respect of status of staff of
SRO, Jangareddigudem. He further admitted Ex.P9/report did not disclose that the said misappropriation was traced in audit report and he did not verify whether any audit were taken place for the year 2002. He further admitted that he cannot say who prepared the said four misappropriated challans. He denied the suggestion that in view of internal disputes the accused in this case was implicated and that they never conspired and they never created any challans and never misappropriated any amount.
21. PW14 is the then Circle Inspector of police, Jangareddigudem deposed that he re-submitted the disputed and admitted challans along with signatures under Exs. P13 to P27 and got forwarded the same to FSL through court. During his cross examination he admitted that they did not obtain any sanction for prosecution of accused either under Cr.P.C. or under Stamp Act. He further admitted that he do not know whether A1 was on leave from 21.12.2003 to 31.12.2003. He further admitted that the attendance register of staff of SRO,
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
13
Jangareddigudem for the year 2002-2003 was not produced before the Court as per their record. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P27 did not disclose that A1 forged the said challans. During his cross examination by the leaned counsel for
A2, he denied the suggestion that A2 is no way concerned with this case. He further admitted that he does not know whether A2 relieved on 07.10.2003 itself from the SRO, Jangareddigudem. During his cross examination by the leaned counsel for A3, he admitted that he did not seize any report books to show that the amount was collected from the beneficiaries. He denied the suggestion that
A3 is no way concerned to this case.
22.After considering the submissions made by both sides, it discloses that the learned APP contended that the evidence available on record is sufficient to convict the accused. Where as the learned counsel for A2 contended that no witness deposed anything against A2 in the entire evidence and on 07.12.2003 A2 was relieved from duty at Jangareddigudem and joined at
Tadepalligudem and the alleged incident was occurred on 22.12.2003 and report was given on 09..1.2004 and he is no way concerned to the present case.
Further, learned counsel for A3 contended that there are no specific overt acts and no evidence was adhered against A3 and the prosecution failed to obtain permission from the competent authority which was mandatory under Section 197 CrPC as A3 is a public servant and prayed to acquit A3 in this case.
23.In addition to his contention, he relied on the decision reported in
B.Samuel Vs State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.Petition No.7797/2007 dt.
18.01.2008 where in Hon’ble High Court held that” failure to properly scrutinize the challans and verify the registers is certainly an or omission, which has reasonable connection with discharge of his official duty, admittedly, the prosecution agency has not applied to the Government for sanction to prosecute the petitioner, who is a public servant with in the meaning of Section 21 IPC, since no sanction order is obtained to prosecute the petitioner, the
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
14 proceedings are liable to be quashed.” In the present case, the prosecution agency also didn’t obtain previous sanction of the Government which is mandatory under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute A3.
24.After going through the entire evidence available on record, it appears to the court that as rightly pointed by learned counsels for A2 and A3, no witness deposed any thing against A2 and A3 in their evidence. PWs 3 to 8, 11 who are Treasury employees are cited as material witnesses in the present case.
However, they did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile by stating that they do not know anything about this case. Therefore their evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
25.While coming to the evidence of PWs1,2, 9 and 12, they have deposed about the cheating and misappropriation committed by A1 to some extent in their evidence. However, the case against A1 was abated on 06.12.2019 as he was died on 19.11.2019. Therefore, their evidence is sufficient to connect A2 and A3 for the offence levelled against them.
26.In view of the above facts and circumstances, this court is of considered view that the standard of proof in criminal Law is that the prosecution should prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that conviction should not be based on mere assumptions and presumptions. In the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to connect A2 and A3 for the offences levelled against them. No witness deposed before the court that A2 and A3 conspired with A1 and misappropriated the amount without remitting to the Government and thereby committed the Government. It is settled Law that if two views are available to the court then the view which is favourable to the accused shall be considered. Under these circumstances, this court has no hesitation to give finding that a reasonable benefit of doubt arose in favour of A2 and A3. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A2 and A3 for the offence under Sections 120 (B), 468, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
15
Accordingly, this point is answered.
27. In the result, A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 468, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused Nos. A2 and A3 are directed to execute personal bonds for Rs. 5,000/- each Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., with a view to appear before Hon’ble Appellate court if any appeal is filed.
Typed to my dictation to my Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 6th day of March, 2020.
II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1 : Beram Gowri Venkata Padmavathi -None- PW2 : Angadala Chakravarthi. PW3 : Gogu Suryanarayana. PW4 : Kothapalli Ramadas Gandhi PW5 : Nerusu Ganeswara Rao PW6 : Kola Lakshmi Vara Prasada Rao. PW7 : Jonnada Venkata Rama Rao PW8 : VSS Srinivas PW9 : Pantham Raghavulu PW10 : MD. Azizdduin. PW11 : Bhogaraju Srinivas PW12 : Koneru Sundara Rao, District Registrar PW13 : B. Rama Krishna,SI of Police PW14 : M. Venkateswara Rao, Inspector of Police.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5. Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6. Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Ex.P6 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8.
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
16
Ex.P7 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.9. Ex.P8 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.11. Ex.P9 : Report of PW12. Ex.P10 : FIR. Ex.P11 : Account-C register volume no. 13. Ex.P12 : ---------- No document marked -------. Ex.P13 : Bunch of Specimen Signatures and hand writing of A1/M. Karunakar from Sl.No.1 to 57 out of which Sl.Nos. 31 to 48 are the specimen challans. Ex.P14 : Bunch of Specimen Signatures and hand writing of A2/Padala Subbi Reddy from Sl.No.58 to 89 out of which Sl.Nos. 74 to 82 and 89 are the specimen challans. Ex.P15 : Bunch of Specimen Signatures and hand writing of A3/DNVCV Prasad from Sl.No.94 to 108 and Sl.No. 116 are the specimen challans. Ex.P16 : Bunch of Specimen Signatures and hand writing of PW5/N. Nageswara Rao from Sl.No.117 to 122 out of which Sl.Nos. 121 and 122 are the specimen challans. Ex.P17 : Bunch of Specimen Signatures and hand writing of PW11/Bhogiraju Srinivas from Sl.No.123 to 150 out of which Sl.Nos. 150 is the specimen challans. Ex.P18 : Bunch of Specimen Signatures and hand writing of PW6/KLV Prasada Rao from Sl.No.151 to 157 out of which Sl.Nos. 155, 156, 157 are the specimen challans. Ex.P19 : Bunch of Specimen Signatures and hand writing of PW7/J.V. Rama Rao from Sl.No. 158 to 154 out of which Sl.Nos. 163 to 164 are the specimen challans. Ex.P20 : Bunch of Specimen Signatures and hand writing of PW10/Hazajuddin from Sl.No.165 to 171 out of which Sl.Nos. 169 to 171 are the specimen challans. Ex.P21 : Bunch of Specimen Signatures and hand writing of PW8/Bhogiraju Srinivas from Sl.No.172 to 177 out of which Sl.Nos. 176 and 177 are the specimen challans. Ex.P22 : Bunch of Specimen Signatures T. Hanumantha Rao from Sl.No.178 to 181. Ex.P23 : Bunch of 24 fake challans. Ex.P24 : Bunch of fake challans (7 in nos.) along with (3) deficit stamp duty letters. Ex.P25 : Bunch of 101 Admitted challans. Ex.P26 : One letter of DLNV Prasad/A3. Ex.P27 : FSL report dt. 25.06.2008 received from AP FSL, Hyderabad.
FOR DEFENCE: – Nil -
Material Objects Marked:
NIL
II AJFCM, Kovvur. FAC: JFCM, JRG.
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
17
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
Calendar cases tried by Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Offence : 22.12.2003
Date of report or Complaint: 09.01.2004
Date of apprehension of accused : A1: 17.02.2004, A2: 12.05.2006, A3: 24.05.2006, A4: 09.05.2206.
Date release on bail, if any: A1: 11.02.2004, A2: 12.05.2006. A3: 24.05.2006, A4: 09.05.2006.
Date of commencement of trail : 14.08.2018
Close of trial : 20.12.2018
Date of sentence or other order : 06.03.2020.
Explanation of delay and remarks : Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution.
Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.35/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-
Complainant: State Represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem in Crime No.1/2004, U/sections 120 (B), 468, 471, 409 & 420 r/w 34 of IPC and
Name of the accused, Father name, Age, calling, Religion, Village and Mandal. A1. Mamuduri Karunakar, S/o.Krupadanam, 45 years, SC, Ex. Junior Assistant, Suib-Registrar’s Office, Jangareddigudem. Now at Ameenapeta, Eluru.
A2. Padala Subbireddy, S/o.Narasareddy, 40 years, C-Reddy, Attender, Sub-Registrar Office, Jangareddigudem. Now working as Junior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Polavaram.
A3. Dutta Naga Venkata Lakshmi Vara Prasad, S/o.Ramachandar Rao, 35 years, C-Kapu, Junior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Jangareddigudem, Now Junior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, Nidadavolu.
A4. Tripurari Hanumantha Rao (late) (Abated), S/o.Suryam, 57 years, Retired Sub-Registrar, Jangareddigudem.
(Case against A1 was abated as per docket order dt.06.12.2019 as he was died on 19.11.2019 ) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-===-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Offence : U/section 120 (B), 468, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
Finding : Not guilty
CC No. 35-2012, Dt.06.03.2020, JCJ, JRG
18
Sentence : In the result, A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 468, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.
A2 and A3 are directed to execute personal bonds for Rs. 5,000/- each Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., with a view to appear before Hon’ble Appellate court if any appeal is filed.
II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem.
Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.