Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT1 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS
JUDGE ::NARASARAOPET
PRESENT: Smt Nakka Lavanya, Addl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2026
SESSIONS CASE NO. 668 of 2023
in
PRC no. 16 of 2022
in
Crime no. 79 of 2022
Between: The State represented by
Sub- Inspector of Police, Vinukonda PS ...Complainant.
AND
1.Vemuluri Suresh, S/o Kesava Narayana, Aged 40 years, Viswa-Brahmin by caste, Sattu Bazaar, Vinukonda town.
2.Mutluri Chinna Atchaiah, S/o Ramaiah, Aged 47 years, Madiga by caste, Panakalapalem Village in Vinukonda Mandal.
3.Mundru Anjaneylu, S/o Punnaiah, Aged 60 years, Kamma by caste, Sunnapu Battila Centre, Gorantla in Guntur, now residing at Railway Gate in Vinukonda.
4.Gaddala Bala Veeraiah, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged 29 years, Mnadiga by caste, Mulakaluru Village, Nuzendla Mandal.
...Accused No.1 to 4
This case is coming on 24.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of
Sri T. Parasu Ram, Advocate for the 1st accused and of Sri K. Seeta
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT2 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for the 2nd accused and of Sri K. Butchidantachari,
Advocate for the 3rd accused and of Sri A. Ajay Babu, Advocate for the 4th accused and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter, till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Vinukonda
Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in
Crime No.79/2022 for the offence punishable U/Sec.120-B, 255, 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
2. The brief averment of the charge sheet as follows
The defacto complainant Vidyadharani Suresh Kumar is inhabitant of Flat No.202, Plot No.422, Road No.2, Bhagath Sigh Nagar-1, KPHB,
Hyderabad and doing private job at Hyderabad. The 1st accused and L.W.1 are childhood friends. The A1 was doing real estate business and convinced L.w.1 that the accused would give L.W.1’s land at low price, giving various reasons for giving L.W.1 land between 2015 and 2019 and A1 would give L.W.1 an amount of Rs.41,00,000/- and that Rs.31,00,000/- through bank transfers i.e.,
L.W.1 Account number 025401523474 of ICICI Bank to Accused No.1 account number 3081000503023399 of Tamillnadu Mercantile Bank Limited,
Vinukonda Branch and Rs.10,00,000/- in cash L.W.1 was given. Since then
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT3 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
L.W.1 has repeatedly asked A1 to show L.W.1 the land and register it in his name, without showing L.W.1 the land. The A1 registered in Document
No.4698/2018 dated 24.11.2018 with survey No.72 according to 6.00 acres, and in document No. 4699/2018 dated 24.11.2018 according to Survey No.
72/C an extent of Ac.4.50 acres and gave L.W.1 the documents and pass book of the land as if it belonged to Upparapalem Village in Vinukonda Mandal that Passbook No.368965 for 6.00 acres and Passbook No.358995 and 4.50 acres. The A1 convinced LW-1 that all the land mentioned above was the ancestral land of the A1 and that the rights of the accused had been inherited by the ancestors of A1. Since A1 was a childhood friend of himself, LW-1 believed A1 and took the documents registered in LW-1's name without even seeing where the land was. Currently LW-1 need money so LW-1 decided to sell the land and asked A1 to show LW-1 registered land. But A1 used to postpone showing the land. No matter how many times LW-1 calls A1 from the last six months, A1 does not lift LW-1's phone. So LW-1 came to Vinukonda from Hyderabad to sell himself and showed the pass books LW-1 had at the
Tahsildar's office in Vinukonda [LW-3] and the Tahsildar's office [LW-2] checked the pass book and confirmed that it was a forgery. Similarly, A1 was given to
LW-1's elder brother Vidyadharani Krishna Kishore Kumar Raj a fake appointment letter as an employee in Sattanapalli as an officer of the Urban
Eradication Agency (Andhra Pradesh) (MEPMA). With that LW-1 asked A1
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT4 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 about this matter and A1 came back believing that A1 would give back the money if A1 did not give the correct answer. The A1 deceived LW-1 by creating fake documents, pass books with the forged signatures of the Tahsildar, stamps, signatures of the sub-registrar, and stamps, claiming that the accused had land that the accused did not own. Similarly creating a fake MEPMA appointment letter saying LW-1 will reply to LW-1's elder brother, cheating and deceiving them. Thereby, the A1 cheated LW-1 with dishonestly, created forged document, also it was showed as genuine, gained wrongfully and caused wrongful loss to LW-1 to a tune of Rs.41,00,000/- i.e., L.W.1 transferred money Rs.31,00,000/- from his Account Number 025401523474 of
ICICI Bank to Accused No.1 account of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited and Rs.10,00,000/- in cash L.w.1 was given. Later L.W.1 lodged a report in
Vinukonda Police Station on 14.03.2022 at 18.00 hours about the offence.
Basing on the report lodged by the defacto victim L.W.1, in turn L.W.8 registered it as a case in Crime No. 79/2022 under Section 420, 468 and 474 of IPC of Vinukonda Police Station on 14.03.2022 at 18.00 hours, submitted
FIRs to all the concerned officers, took up investigation, examined L.W.1 in the
PS itself, recorded his detailed statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C and embodied in Part II of his case diary. During the course of investigation, on 16.03.2022, L.W.8 received written information from L.W.3 vide
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT5 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
Rc.No.56/2022-C, dated 16.03.2022 certified that certificate Rc.No. 471/2018,
dated 03.09.2018 Pattadar Pass book vide patta NO. 368965 and 358995 are
does not issued from the office and they totally fake or forged. During further investigation, LW-8 physically examined LWs-2 and 3 on 16.03.2022, recorded their detailed statements U/Sec 161[3] Cr.P.C and embodied in Part-II of his
Case diary. Then LW-8 visited the scene of offence on 16.03.2022, inspected the scene and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence to that effect.
During further investigation, on 16.03.2022, LW-8 received written information from LW-4 vide letter No.Nil/2022, dated 16.03.2022 and informed that the
SALE DEED in Document No.4699/2018, Dated 24.11.2018 and Document
No.4698/2018 dated 24.11.2018 are not genuine and those are not registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Vinukonda. Then LW-8 examined LW-4 on 16.03.2022, recorded his detailed statement U/Sec 161[3] Cr.P.C. and embodied in Part-II of his case diary.
According to the documentary evidence given by LWs-2 to 4 prima facie clearly established against the accused U/Sec 120(B), 255, 420, 468 and 471 IPC.Hence, LW-8 added the sections of law 120(B) and 255 IPC to
U/Sec 420, 468 and 471 IPC and filed a memo before the Hon'ble Court on behalf of prosecution. During the course of investigation, LW-8 seized three counterfeit government stamps from the possession of A1, also seized two
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT6 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 counterfeit government stamps from the possession of A3 and arrested A1 to
A4 on 17.03.2022 at about 12.30 PM at Good Shepherd School, Vellaturu
Road in Vinukonda under a cover of seizure arrest mediator report in the presence of LWs-6 and 7 duly attested by LWs-6 and 7 and sent the A1 to A4 for judicial remand. Now A1 to A4 are confined in the Sub-Jail, Vinukonda. A1 to A4 voluntarily confessed their guilty of offence and their onfessional statements neatly incorporated under a cover of seizure arrest mediator report in the presence of LWs-6 and 7 duly attested by LWs-6 and 7. On 05-07-2022,
LW.8 received bank statement of accused from Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd,
Vinukonda Branch vide Accused Bank A/c No.308100050302399 for the period from 01-01-2015 at 31-12-2019. A copy of bank statement is herewith enclosed. During the course of investigation L.w.8 examined L.W.5 on 18.03.2022 recorded his detailed statements Under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C and embodied in Part-II of his case diary. After completion of investigation L.W.8 filed charge sheet.
3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda took cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 120-B, 255, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 by registering the case as
PRC No.16 of 2022 and after following the due procedure by furnishing copies under section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions,
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT7 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
Sessions Division, Guntur District. The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Guntur
having numbered the same as S.C. No.668 of 2023 made over the same to this Court for trial and disposal in accordance with the Law.
4.On appearance of the accused no.1 to 4 before this Court, charge under section 120-B, 255, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC., were framed against the accused No.1 to 4, read over and explained to them in Telugu as contemplated U/s.228 (2) of Cr.P.C., for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.7 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 were marked, Material object Mo.1 to M.O.5 are marked.
6.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 to 4 were examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., and they denied the incriminating evidence stated by the prosecution witnesses against them and reported no defence evidence.
7.Heard both sides arguments.
8. Points for determination:- “Whether the prosecution has proved their case against all the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 120-B, 255, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC?”
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT8 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
9.P.W.1 Evidence:
I am working in Pharmaceutical company in the name and style of
Natco, Hyderabad. Myself, A1 are child hood friends. A1 doing real estate business. In the year 2015 he met me and informed that he can allot his ancestral property to the lower price. On believing his words through bank I paid an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs and remaining amount Rs. 10 lakhs in cash. A1 did not showed the land to me, but he shown registered document to me on 24-11-2018 with regard to s.no. 72 an extent of Ac. 6.00 cents and s.no. 72 C an extent of Ac. 4.50 cents of Upparapalem fields. Pass book no. 368965 for Ac. 6.00 cents and another pass book no. 358995 for
Ac. 4.50 cents. The said lands are belongs to ancestors of A1. I collected said registered documents from A1 and got verified the same through
Tahasildar (LW3). By the time I came to know that those documents are fabricated. Later I visited Vinukonda SRO office, there I came to know that the said documents are fabricated one. I try to contact A1 over phone, but he did not pick my call. Similarly A1 was given fake appointment letter to my elder brother by name Vidyadharani Krishna Kishore kumar Raju in
Sattenapalli as an assistant officer of Urban eradication Agency (MEPMA).
I met A1 at Vinukonda and requested him to return back my money as the documents are fake. At that time A1 promised that he will return my money,
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT9 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 but he did not return the same. A1 deceived me as such I approached police and handed documents to them. On back of A1 , A2 to A 4 they are all behind A1 and they are cheated me. I presented report against A1 to A 4 to the police. I was examined by the police and they recorded my statement.
Ex.P 1 is my report. It contains my signature. Through ICICI bank I deposited an amount of Rs. 31 lakhs to A1. Ex.P 2 is the account statement of extract of Tamilnadu Merchentail bank of A1. The registered sale deed which which is confronted to me is handed over to my by the accused. Ex.P 3 is the fake registered sale deed dated 24-11-2018. Ex.P 4 is my ICICI bank account statement .
P.W.2 Evidence:
On 15-3-2022 LW 3 handed over report and directed me to conduct enquiry with regard to RC No. 471/2018 dated 3-9-2018 on a direction to verify two pattadar passbooks I.e. 368965 and 365995. As per office records I verified the same and found those are fake pattadar passbooks. One pattadar passbook is belongs to Survey number 72/C of Uppalapadu village an extent of Ac. 1.85 cents govemment punja lands. As per RSR column no. 14 names of Turumella Hanumaiah son of Subrahmanyam name is reflects. As per web land Adangal survey no. 72/C an extent of Ac. 1.85 cents, khata no. 101956 stands in the name of Avula Raghavamma. As per FLR of Venkupalem in
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT10 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
Survey no. 72 government poramboku lands an extent of Ac. 1.64 cents, it was recorded as vagu (Stream), at pattadar column. As per web land Adangal
Survey no. 72/C an extent of Ac. 1.66 cents is mentioned as vagu vide patta по. 200012202. After detailed and thorough enquiry I submitted report to the
Tahasildar. I clearly mentioned in the report that the pattadar passbooks were not issued by Vinukonda Tahasildar. Later I was examined by the police and they recorded my statement.
P.W.3 Evidence:
On 15-3-2022 I received requisition from SHO Vinukonda to verify passbook. Later I get the records from VRO (PW 2) then I verified the same and I noticed that both passbooks are not issued by our office . I given detailed report to the concerned SHO vide RC no. 563 of 2022 -C dated 16- 3-2022 .Ex.P 6 is attested copy of proceedings in RC no. 563 of 2022 -C
dated 16-3-2022. I was examined by the police and recorded by police.
P.W.4 Evidence:
On 15.03.2022 I received requisition from Vinukonda Police station along with two xerox copy of documents vide document No.4698/2018 and 4699/2018. on a request to verify whether the said documents were registered by our office or not. Upon that I personally verified register and noticed that the
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT11 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 said documents are not registered by our office at any point of time and those were fabricated one. Later I submitted a detailed report to the concerned police by mentioning details survey numbers, dates and other particulars of the documents. As per our original documents the said property is sold by
Ammireddy Anjaneyulu and purchased by Koya Mohana Rao, S/o Ramaiah
R/o Bhimavaram, Mundlamuru Mandal of Prakasam District an extent of 334.78 sq yards in document No. 4698/2018 and an extent of 320.805 sq.
yards 1 in document NO. 4699/2018. I also submitted certified copy of EC and original documents to the concerned police officials. Ex.P7 is Report
submitted by incharge Sub-Registrar, Vinukonda vide letter No.Nil/2022,
dt.16.03.2022. Ex.P8 is attested copy of sale deed dt.25.07.2018 vide document No. 4698/2018. Ex.P9 is Attested copy of sale deed dt.25.07.2018 vide document NO. 4699/2018. I was examined by police and recorded my statement.
P.W.5 Evidence:-
My office is situated near Venkateswara Theater, Vinukonda. On 24-11-2018 one Suresh/A1 approached me and purchased two Rs.100/- stamp papers. One stamp paper bearing no. 9730, and another stamp paper bearing no. 9731. A1 purchased above said stamp papers from me. Police shown said stamp papers and confronted my signatures,upon that I
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT12 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 admitted my signatures on both stamp papers on 18-3-2020. Police informed that the above said stamp papers are fabricated and forged by the accused.
I was examined by the police and they recorded my statement.
P.W.6 Evidence:-
On 17-3-2022 around 8.30 am I received phone call from constable of Vinukonda by name Ashok Babu and requested me to come to police station, accordingly myself, LW 7 went to police station around 8.40 am. Then myself, LW 7 , constable , SI of police/LW 8 and other police officials went to
Good Shepperd School, near Vellaturu village, there we noticed four persons are boarding auto , on seeing the police they were try to escape from that place . Immediately police chased and detained four persons .
Then they brought before us and LW 8 interrogated first person and he revealed his name as V. Suresh and further he stated that A2 to A 4 are his friends and they know them for the last five years, further he stated that his old friend by name Vidya dharani Suresh kumar /PW1 who is working at
Hyderabad and they both are in contact over phone. A 1 stated that he is doing real estate business in Vinukonda. A1 informed about this business to PW1 , upon that PW1 requested him to provide land to him. A1 promised to PW 1 that he can allot land for very lessor price at Upparapalem village of
Vinukonda mandal for an extent of Ac. 10 ½ cents . Witness again says that
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT13 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents. Further A1 stated that PW 1 deposited an amount of Rs . 31 lakhs through phone pe and Rs. 10 lakhs liquid cash .
A1 informed to PW1 that he has to prepare land documents in favour of PW1.
A1 to A 4 went to Naaz Center, Guntur , there they approached forged stamp vendors and got obtained forged and fabricated stamps which contains MRO and SRO stamps , then they prepared documents in favour of PW1 and handed over the same to him. A2 forged signatures of VRO,
MRO of Upparapalem village. Further A1 promised to brother of PW1 that he allot job in MEPMA in Hyderabad and he will get salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month. A1 given a fabricated appointment letter to the brother of PW1/ by name Vidyadharani Krishna Kumar. Later they came to know that the said appoint letter is fabricated and fake one. PW1 got suspicion on A1 , upon that he verified passbooks and requested A1 to show existence of land as per the documents. Then A1 burn the documents of PW1 on the day itself. A1 again decided to cheat others , in such way he got obtained three stamps and those were purchased at Hyderabad . Then SI of police seized the said three stamps in my presence from the possession of A1 . The SI of police also seized two stamps from the possession of A 3. Then SI of police questioned the accused about cash advanced by PW1 . Upon that he confessed that he given cash of Rs.1,00,000/- to A4, Rs. 2,00,000/- to A 2,
Rs. 3,00,000/- to A3 and the remaining amount spent for his own and for
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT14 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 family necessities of A1. Then SI of police interrogated A2 to A 4 separately in our presence, they also confessed on the same liens of A1. One constable typed confession statement in a laptop. I gone through the contents and I signed on it. Accused are also signed on the said confession statement.
Witness identified her signature in confession statement. Ex.P10 is confession statement of A1 dated 17-3-2022. Witness identified seized stamps ( Sub registrar, MRO of Vinukonda, Panchayat Secretary of Upparapalem RI of Vinukonda ). MO.1 is one stamp of Vinukonda Sub registrar, MO.2 stamp of Sub registrar , MO.3 is stamp of office of the Tahasildar, Vinukonda, MO.4 is stamp of joint sub registrar,Vinukonda, MO.5 is stamp of Tahasildar,
Vinukonda mandal of Guntur District. Then SI of police seized MO 1 to MO 5 and arrested them and brought them to police station. LW 7 also signed on
Ex.P10. I can identified A1 to A 4 who are present in the court hall.
P.W.7 Evidence:
On 14-3-2022 at 6 pm I received report from PW1 . Basing on Ex.P 1
I registered a case in crime no. 79/2022 under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and I submitted copies of FIR to all officers concerned. Ex.P11 is original
FIR. On the say day I examined PW1 and recored his statement at police station itself. PW1 handed over xerox copies of sale deed certificate ,
Pattadar passbooks -2 in number, Certificate issued by MEPMA . Later I
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT15 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 attested the same. Ex.P12 is attested copies of pattadar passbook of PW1 vide patta no. 368965 . Ex.P13 is Attested copy of appointment letter issued by MEPMA dated 22-7-2017. On 15-3-2022 I sent requisition to Tahasildar ,
Vinukonda , Sub registrar, Vinukonda to verify about pattadar passbooks.
Accordingly they both verified records and issued report that the pattadar passbooks are fake one. Ex.P14 is requisition issued by me to Tahasildar
Vinukonda. Ex.P15 requisition issued by me to SRO Vinukonda. I received reports from PW 3 and PW4. On 16-3-2022 I received report from PW 3 ,
PW 4. On the same day I examined PW3 and PW 4 and recorded their statements. Basing on the report submitted by PW 3 and PW 4 the documents are fake. On the same day I examined PW 2 and recored his statement. On the same day I visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch . Ex.P 16 is rough sketch of scene of offence. As per the documents given by PW 2 to PW 4 prima facie made out against the accused .
Accordingly I added the Sections 120-B, 255 IPC. I filed memo before concerned court. Ex.P17 is Section alteration memo. On 18-3-2022 I examined PW 5 and recorded his statement. I seized Stamp papers no.
9730 and Sl.No. 9731. Ex.P18 is stamp paper Sl.No. 9730. Ex.P19 is stamp paper Sl.No. 9731. On 19-3-2022 I received bank statement from ICICI bank /Ex.P4 which was submitted by PW1. On 5-7-2022 I have received bank statement of Tamilnadu mercantile bank under Ex.P2. On 17-3-2022 at
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT16 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 about 9 hours myself along with mediators PW6, LW 7 visited Vellaturu road,near Good Shepperd school , there I arrested A1 to A 4. I separately interrogated each of the accused in the presence of PW 6 LW 7 and they confessed about commission of offence. Upon that I prepared confession statements . I seized three stamps from A 1, two stamps from A 3, total five stamps under the confession cum seizure mahazar nama. I concluded proceedings around 12.30 pm. After informing the grounds of arrest I arrested A1 to A 4 for complying procedure .Then I produced the accused
before the concerned court for seeking remand. After completion of
investigation I laid charge sheet.
10. Arguments submitted by learned public prosecutor:-
The learned Public Prosecutor, argued that the case rests on a clear chain of evidence establishing the guilt of all four accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution contended that P.W.1, the defacto complainant, was a childhood friend of A1 and was induced by A1 through false promises of ancestral land, leading to a transfer of 31,00,000/- via bank and 10,00,000/-₹₹ in cash to A1 by Pw1. A1, with the active assistance of A2 to A4, created forged sale deeds and pattadar passbooks to legitimize the fraudulent transaction. The prosecution argued that official witnesses, P.W.2 (VRO) and
P.W.3 (Tahsildar), categorically proved that the passbooks were never issued
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT17 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 by their office, and P.W.4 (Sub-Registrar) confirmed that the sale deeds were not registered in their office. The prosecution further relied on the discovery of counterfeit government stamps (M.O.1 to M.O.5) from A1 and A3 during their arrest, which were seized under a mediator’s report (Ex.P10). It was argued that the voluntary confessional statements of the accused before the mediators (P.W.6 and L.W.7) detailed the roles of each accused A2 forging signatures, A3 and A4 assisting in procuring fake stamps and sharing the proceeds thus proving the conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC) and the acts of forgery and cheating.
11. Arguments submitted by learned counsel for Accused No. 1:-
The learned counsel for A1 argued that the entire case of proesucion is flawed and based on the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1, who is an interested party. He argued that the alleged transaction was a civil dispute regarding the sale of land, which was improperly converted into a criminal case. Counsel pointed out that P.W.1 never submitted a written requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) for document verification before filing the police report, indicating a lack of due diligence. A1’s counsel highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s story, specifically that the seized stamp papers were legally purchased from P.W.5, a licensed vendor, and that no forensic analysis was conducted on the disputed documents to prove forgery.
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT18 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
It was argued that the confession statement was not voluntary, and it was prepared at the police station, and was signed under duress. The counsel emphasized that the investigation was biased, as the Investigating Officer (P.W.7) did not send the crucial sale deeds to FSL for expert opinion, thereby failing to establish the essential ingredient of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.
12. Arguments submitted by learned counsel for Accused No. 2:-
The counsel for A2 argued that there is absolutely no substantive evidence linking A2 to the alleged offences. It was submitted that the name of
A2 does not appear anywhere in the initial report (Ex.P1) given by P.W.1, nor is his involvement mentioned in the statements of the official witnesses (P.W.2 to P.W.5). The counsel contended that the prosecution’s entire case against A2 rests solely on the alleged confessional statement (Ex.P10) and the testimony of the mediators (P.W.6). However, P.W.6’s testimony was contradictory regarding the recovery and the presence of the public at the scene. It was argued that no independent witnesses were examined to prove that A2 was involved in forging the signatures of the VRO or MRO, as alleged. In the absence of any direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or independent witnesses, the counsel maintained that A2 has been falsely implicated and deserves the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT19 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
13. Arguments submitted by learned counsel for Accused No. 3:-
The learned counsel for A3 argued that the prosecution failed to produce any credible evidence to show A3’s involvement in the main transaction between A1 and P.W.1. It was pointed out that P.W.1, in his cross-examination, admitted that neither his report (Ex.P1) nor his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement mentioned A3’s name. Furthermore, none of the official witnesses from the
Tahsildar’s or Sub-Registrar’s office identified A3. The counsel heavily criticized the mediator’s report (Ex.P10), pointing out that it was a typed document prepared at the scene, yet it failed to describe the size, colour, or specific details of the two stamps allegedly seized from A3. And that the alleged seizure of M.O.4 and M.O.5 from A3 was an afterthought, as there were no independent witnesses to corroborate the recovery. The counsel highlighted that A3 was simply a friend of A1 and was not connected to the creation or registration of the forged documents, and thus, the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC is unsustainable.
14. Arguments submitted by learned counsel for Accused No. 4:-
The counsel for A4 argued that the prosecution’s case against A4 is the weakest, being based entirely on hearsay and inadmissible evidence. He argued that the name of A4 is conspicuously absent from the FIR, and the testimonies of P.W.1 through P.W.5. The counsel stressed that the only alleged
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT20 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 involvement of A4 comes from the unsubstantiated confession of the co- accused (A1), which is not substantive evidence under the Indian Evidence
Act. The cross-examination of P.W.7 (the Investigating Officer) revealed that no independent documentary proof or eyewitness account exists to connect A4 to the transaction or the forgery. The counsel contended that A4 was merely present at the wrong place at the wrong time, and the police, under pressure to show progress, roped him into the case without any prima facie material. It was argued that the mere receipt of a portion of the money, as alleged in the confession, cannot be proven and does not constitute an offence under the sections charged.
15.In support of their contentions, the learned counsel for the accused No4 relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court:
1. Parveen @ Sonu vs. The State of Haryana, Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.) No. 5438 of 2020, 9 SCR 643 in the above case honorable supreme court mentioned the judgment of Indra Dalal V. State of Haryana 2015 AIR SCW 3474
17. The word “confession” has nowhere been defined. However, the courts have resorted to the dictionary meaning and explained that incriminating statements by the accused to the police suggesting the inference of the commission of the crime would amount to confession and, therefore, inadmissible under this provision. It is also
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT21 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 defined to mean a direct acknowledgment of guilt and not the admission of any incriminating fact, however grave or conclusive. section 26 of the Evidence Act makes all those confessions inadmissible when they are made by any person, whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless such a confession is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Therefore, when a person is in police custody, the confession made by him even to a third person, that is, other than a police officer, shall also become inadmissible.
2. Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail vs. Spl. Director, Enforcement Directorate & Anr., Appeal (Crl.) 1216 of 2001, (2007) 10 SCR 804
15. Apart therefrom the High Court was bound to take into consideration the factum of retraction of the confession by the appellant. It is now a well- settled principle of law that a confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of the conclusion deducible therefrom
3. Rajendra Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal etc., 2025 INSC 1193,
29. We are afraid that the submission of the State counsel, that as the appellants themselves stated that they took the police to the place where they hid the weapons, by which they committed the offence indicates that the appellants admitted to have committed the offence with the above weapons, cannot be accepted. The statement of the appellants that the weapons recovered were the weapons of crime cannot be read against them in view of sections 25 and 26 read with section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Only that part of the statement which leads the police to the recovery of the weapons is admissible, and not the part which alleges that the weapons recovered were actually the weapons of crime.
30. The above three provisions of the Evidence act are beneficial to bring home the point. They read as under:
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT22 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 “25. Confession to police officer not to be proved.––No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.––No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
Explanation.––In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882)
27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.––Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”
31. A simple reading of all the three provisions conjointly reveals that the first two provisions are substantive, whereas section 27 is in the nature of an exception. Sections 25 and 26, at one hand, provide that no confession made to a police officer or to any person while in custody of the police, shall be admissible against a person accused of any offence, on the other hand, section 27 provides an exception to the above provisions. It states that so much of the information, received from an accused person in custody of the police, whether in the nature of confession or otherwise, as related distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be admissible. This means that not all information disclosed by a person in police custody is required to be proved as against the accused person; only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact is admissible and can be proved.
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT23 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
Point no.1:-
16.The prosecution’s case hinges primarily on the testimony of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence relating to the land transaction. P.W.1’s evidence regarding the transfer of 31,00,000/- to A1’s bank account through₹ the bank statements. Here Exp2 is bank statement of accused no.1 and Exp4 is bank statement of Pw1. but no where it shows the amount of 31,00,000/-₹ was sent to accused by Pw1, but it shows different denomination of amount in various dates the same also not show by prosecution and not even marked those amounts in the exhibits, simply they filed statement of accounts of both accused and defacto complainant, therefore the amount transferred by pw1 to accused no.1 account was not proved that the amounts were transferred for the purpose of purchasing the land from accused no.1. However, the crux of the offence under Section 420 IPC is the existence of a dishonest intention from the inception. While P.W.1 claims he was promised ancestral land, the evidence regarding the forgery of the documents (Ex.P3 and Ex.P12) is what transforms this from a potential civil breach of contract into a criminal offence.
First it shall be ascertained whether the documents used to induce P.W.1 were indeed forged, and if so, who were the individuals responsible for their creation and use.
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT24 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
17.Here the testimony of official witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4 is critical to establishing the element of forgery. P.W.2 (VRO) and P.W.3 (Tahsildar) were unequivocal in their statements that the pattadar passbooks
Ex.P12 were not issued by their office and were entirely fabricated. Their reports, marked as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, serve as strong evidence against the authenticity of the documents. Similarly, P.W.4 Sub-Registrar testified that the sale deeds Ex.P3 were not registered in the office, providing Ex.P7, Ex.P8, and Ex.P9 to support this. The consistent testimony of these three disinterested public officials, whose official records were examined, conclusively proves that the documents handed over by A1 to P.W.1 were forged and fabricated. The defence’s cross-examination failed to shake the credibility of these witnesses or the veracity of the official records they relied upon.
18.Turning to the involvement of accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (A2, A3,
A4), the evidence presents a stark contrast. The initial report (Ex.P1) lodged by P.W.1 on 14.03.2022 names only A1. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he did not mention the involvement of A3 in his report or his161
Cr.P.C. statement. Furthermore, P.W.1 conceded that he first stated in court that A2 to A4 were behind A1. This admission significantly weakens the prosecution’s claim that A2, A3, and A4 were part of a prior conspiracy or
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT25 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 directly involved in the initial act of cheating. The testimony of the official witnesses (P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4) also remains silent on the identities of A2 to
A4, as their role was limited to verifying the documents presented by P.W.1, which were already in existence by 2018.
19.The prosecution’s main evidence against A2, A3, and A4 is the confession cum seizure report (Ex.P10) and the testimony of the mediator
P.W.6. However, the law is well-settled that a confessional statement made
before a police officer is inadmissible, and while a statement before a
magistrate or independent mediator can be considered, it is not substantive
evidence against co-accused. The testimony of P.W.6, while narrating of arrest and confession, suffers from several procedural infirmities. The cross- examination revealed that the exact auto-rickshaw number, the direction of escape, and the precise roles of each constable were not recorded. Crucially, no written requisition was issued to P.W.6 to act as a mediator, and the proceedings took over three hours at a public location, yet no independent passersby were made witnesses.
20.Regarding A3, the mediator P.W.6 stated that two stamps (M.O.4 & M.O.5) were seized from his shirt pocket. However, the Investigating Officer (P.W.7) admitted that he did not mention the size, colour, or specific identification marks of these stamps in the seizure report, making the identity
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT26 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 of the seized articles suspect. The recovery of these stamps is not corroborated by any independent evidence linking them to the forged documents, nor was any expert evidence tendered to prove that these stamps were used on the forged sale deeds. The mere possession of stamps resembling government office seals, without any forensic link to the forged documents in question, is insufficient to prove that A3 actively participated in the creation of the forged sale deeds or the cheating of P.W.1.
21.The case against A4 is even more tenuous. His name is absent from the FIR and from the testimony of all witnesses except the mediator. The confession statement (Ex.P10) alleges that A1 gave ₹1,00,000/- to A4.
However, this is a statement made by a co-accused and lacks any corroborative independent evidence. No bank transaction or independent witness was produced to prove this payment. The Investigating Officer (P.W.7) admitted during cross-examination that, apart from the confession of the accused, there is no documentary proof to connect A4 to the offence. The principle of law that a co-accused’s confession cannot be the sole basis for conviction applies squarely to the case against A4, rendering the prosecution’s evidence against him insufficient.
22.The evidence against A2 is similarly deficient. The allegation that
A2 forged the signatures of the VRO and MRO is based entirely on the
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT27 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 confessional statement (Ex.P10). No handwriting expert was called to compare the alleged forged signatures with the specimen signatures of the public officials. The investigation was flawed in this regard, as the crucial step of sending the disputed documents for forensic analysis was omitted. In the absence of expert opinion and independent eyewitnesses, the charge against
A2 for forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, and for conspiracy under
Section 120-B, remains unproven.
23.In the present case by applying the judgments relied by
accused no.4 counsel pertaining to Honorable apex court Parveen @
Sonu (supra) with the present case the confession (Ex.P10) was made by the accused while in police custody and in the presence of a police officer (P.W.7). Although mediators were present, the statement was recorded during an investigation led by the police, and the mediators are not Magistrates. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a confession made to a police officer is
inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and a confession made while in police custody (even to a third person) is inadmissible under Section 26 unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. The statement in
Ex.P10, being a confession made to the police and while in police custody without the presence of a Magistrate, is thus inadmissible as substantive
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT28 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 evidence against the accused who made it, and certainly cannot be used against the co-accused.
24.By applying the judgment of Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail (supra), with the present case, a confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking assurance. In the present case, there is no other independent, reliable evidence against A2, A3, or A4. Therefore, even if the confession would be insufficient to convict the co-accused.
25. By applying the another judgment relied by the accused no.4
counsel on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh and Ors.
(supra) with the present case, Only that part of the information which leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible. The part of the confession stating that the stamps were used for forgery, or that the accused shared the proceeds of crime, is not admissible as it does not relate distinctly to the discovery of a fact. Here, even the recovery of stamps (M.O.4 & M.O.5) from A3 is not linked by any forensic evidence to the forged documents. Thus, the confessional statement (Ex.P10) is stripped of any probative value against A2, A3, and A4.
26.As per the above judgments, the law is well-settled that a confessional statement made before a police officer is inadmissible, and
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT29 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 confession of accused no.1 against co accused i.e. A2 to A4 is not sufficient.
Hence accused no.2 to 4 can be given benefit of doubt.
27.With regard to accused no.1 who is primary accused, the evidence stands on a different footing. The direct testimony of P.W.1, coupled with the bank statements (Ex.P2 and Ex.P4), proves the transfer of money.
The testimony of P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4, confirmed by official records, proves that the documents (Ex.P3 and Ex.P12) provided by A1 to P.W.1 were forged.
The fact that A1 was in possession of these forged documents and used them to induce P.W.1 to part with 41,00,000/- establishes the offence of cheating₹ under Section 420 IPC. the overwhelming documentary and oral evidence from independent public officials creates a formidable chain of circumstances pointing only to A1’s guilt.
28.Considering the entire evidence, the prosecution has successfully proven the charges against A1 beyond reasonable doubt. His actions of presenting forged sale deeds and passbooks, which were subsequently verified as fake by the competent authorities, and receiving a substantial sum of money in return, clearly constitute the offences of cheating (420 IPC), using a forged document as genuine (471 IPC), and the forgery of documents (468
IPC). I find no merit in A1’s defence that it was a civil dispute. However, for A2,
A3, and A4, the prosecution has failed to establish any act of conspiracy or
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT30 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026 direct involvement in the cheating or forgery beyond the inadmissible and uncorroborated confessional statements of A1. The benefit of doubt must be extended to them.
29.In light of the above discussion I conclude that while the prosecution has laid a strong foundation against A1 through direct and documentary evidence, the same cannot be said for the other accused. The investigation’s failure to secure forensic evidence linking A2 to the alleged signatures, A3 to the specific stamps used on the forged documents, and any independent evidence against A4 and they given benefit of doubt, as the prosecution failed to prove the case against A2 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt.
30.In the result, Accused No.1 alone is FOUND GUILTY for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code. He is accordingly convicted in terms of section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and acquitted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 255 of the IPC. Accused
Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are found not guilty and they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them for the offences under Section 420, 468, 471, 255, 120-B of IPC in terms of section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 to MO5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT31 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
Typed to my dictation to the Junior Assistant (Outsourcing), corrected and pronounced by me in open court on 6 th day of April, 2026.
ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
NARASARAOPET.
Quantum of sentence
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the convicted accused (A1). The Accused no.1 who is present in Court and is heard on the question of sentence. The convict submits that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and further stated that he did not commit offence and prays for a lenient view.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, where the convict committed forgery of public document and cheated PW1 by using said documents. Hence I am not taking any lenient view I come to conclusion that sentence shall be awarded to the accused no.1.
The accused no.1 is convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ( 3 ) Years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (6) month.
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT32 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
Further the accused no.1 is convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC to undergoRigorous
Imprisonment for a period of (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months.
Further the accused no.1 is convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (3 ) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by the accused if any is ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Accused no.1 appraised about his right to prefer appeal against this judgment, and the accused no.1 is served the copy of judgment at free of cost.
Typed to my dictation directly to the Junior Assistant (Outsourcing) in open court, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on 6 th day of April, 2026 .
Sd/- N. lavanya
ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
NARASARAOPET.
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT33 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:For Defence: PW1: V. Suresh Kumar-None- PW2: Shaik Saida Saheb PW3: G. Anil Kumar PW4: Billa Mastan Sharif PW5: P. Venkata Srinivasa Rao P.W6: R. Sujatha PW7: D. Chennakesavulu
Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:For defence: Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1 -Nil- Ex.P2: Account statement of extract of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank of A1. Ex.P3: Registered Sale deed Ex.P4: ICICI bank account statement of P.W.1 Ex.P5:Attested copy of report submitted by P.W.2 to MRO, Vinukonda. Ex.P6:Attested copy of proceedings in RC.Nio. 563 of 2022 -C dated 16.03.2022 Ex.P7:Report submitted by incharge Sub-Registrar, Vinukonda vide letter No.Nil/2022,dt.16.03.2022 Ex.P8: Attested copy of sale deed dt.25.07.2018 vide document No. 4698/ Ex.P9: Attested copy of sale deed dt.25.07.2018 vide document No. 4996/2018. Ex.P10: Confession statement of A1 dated 17.03.2022 Ex.P11: Original FIR Ex.P12: Attested copies of Pattadar passbook of P.W.1 vide patta No.368965 Ex.P13: Attested copy of appointment letter issued buy MEPMA dated 22.7.2017 Ex.P14: Requisition issued by P.W.7 to Tahsildar, Vinukonda. Ex.P15: Requisition issued by P.W.7 to SRO, Vinukonda. Ex.P16: Rough Sketch of scene of offence Ex.P17: Section alteration memo Ex.P18: Stamp Paper Sl.No.9730 Ex.P19: Stamp Paper Sl.No. 9731
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT34 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
Material objects marked
M.O.1: One Stamp of Vinukonda Sub-Registrar M.O.2: Stamp of Sub Registrar M.O.3; Stamp of Office of the Tahsildar, Vinukonda M.O.4: Stamp of joint sub registrar, Vinukonda. M.O.5: Stamp of Tahsildar, Vinukonda Mandal.
Sd/- N. lavanya
ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
NARASARAOPET.
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT35 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
In the Court of the Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge: Narasaraopet,
01) Number of Sessions Case: S.C.No.668 of 2023
02) Name of the complainant and : Sub-Inspector of Police, it’s Cr. No Vinukonda P.S, Cr. No.79/2022
03) Name of the Committal Court and
Magistrate Its PRC No.:Junior Civil Judge Court,
Vinukonda PRC No.16 of 2022
04) Description of the accused:
1.Vemuluri Suresh, S/o Kesava Narayana, Aged 40 years, Viswa-Brahmin by caste, Sattu Bazaar, Vinukonda town.
2.Mutluri Chinna Atchaiah, S/o Ramaiah, Aged 47 years, Madiga by caste, Panakalapalem Village in Vinukonda Mandal.
3.Mundru Anjaneylu, S/o Punnaiah, Aged 60 years, Kamma by caste, Sunnapu Battila Centre, Gorantla in Guntur, now residing at Railway Gate in Vinukonda.
4.Gaddala Bala Veeraiah, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged 29 years, Mnadiga by caste, Mulakaluru Village, Nuzendla Mandal.
...Accused No.1 to 4
05) Date of committal: 20-09-2023
06) Date of receipt of record: 17-10-2023
07) Date of appearance of accused : 04.12.2023
08) Date of commencement of trial: 11-07-2025
09) Date of closure of trial: 10-03-2026
10) Date of judgment: 06-04-2026
11) Nature of offence : U/s.120-B, 255, 420, 468, 471 of IPC
Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, NRT36 APGU130006072023
S.C.No.668-2023,dt.06.04.2026
12) Plea of the accused : Accused No.1 is pleaded guilty for the charge under Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC and acquitted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 255 of IPC Accused No.2 to 4 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 120-B, 255 ,420, 468, 471 of IPC
13) Finding of the Court : Accused No.1 is found guilty for the above said charge levelled against him. Accused No.2 to 4 are found not guilty for the charge levelled against them.
14) Sentence or order: In the result, Accused No.1 alone is FOUND
GUILTY for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code. He is accordingly convicted in terms of section 235(2) of
Cr.P.C. and acquitted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 255 of the
IPC. Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are found not guilty and they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them for the offences under Section 420, 468, 471, 255, 120-B of IPC in terms of section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.
MO1 to MO5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
15) Explanation for the delay: - No delay
Sd/- N. lavanya
ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
NARASARAOPET.
Copies submitted to:
01. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Nelapadu at Amaravathi, Through the Hon’ble District Judge, Guntur in C.D.,
02. The Hon’ble District Judge, Guntur. Copies to
03. The Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda.
04. The Director of Prosecution, D.No.24-19-12/A, Durgapuram, BRTS Road, Vijayawada,
05. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Narasaraopet. //True copy//