Kum.Navyashri.V

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR

Present: Kum. V. JOSHMA SRI,

III A DDL . C IVIL J UDGE (JD), G UNTUR

FAC IV A DDL . C IVIL J UDGE (JD), G UNTUR

Thursday, the 09 th day of January, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.1717 of 2021. CALENDAR CASE No.1717 of 2021.

Between :

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban … Complainant

-And-

1. Kollipara Venkata Subba Rao S/o Khadaraiah, 45 years, Vysya, D.No.8-8-91, Nehru Nagar, 3rd lane, Guntur.

2. Danda Siva S/o Mukunda Rao, 44 years, Padmasali, 8th lane, Kakumanuvari Thota, Guntur. … Accused

This case came before this Court on 07.1.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and of

Sri V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for the Accused A1 and A2, and upon perusing the record and having stood over till this date for consideration, this

Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur filled charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 in Crime number 394 of 2020 for the offences punishable u/Secs.420 of Indian Penal Code (brevity for ‘IPC’) and

Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act (brevity for ‘E.C Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell that :

i.Accused A1 used to purchase PDS rice from ration card holders and he used to sell the said PDS rice to the pubic for higher rate and earns money 2 wrongfully. About 6 months back, A1 purchased Padmja Rice Traders rice Mill at Suvarchala and illegally transported the PDS rice through A2 in the APPE goods auto bearing No.AP 07 TM 4264, transported the rice to the market and earning more money. As such on 22-07-2020 he took 42 PDS rice bags about 7.80 quintals in the auto of A2 and while taking the auto, police caught hold of them. A1 also kept PDS rice at Padmaja rice traders rice mill, Chemallamudi village, Vatticherukuru Mandal and also LW.10 seized 100 bags each bag weighing about 50 kgs and seized 50 quintals of PDS rice in the presence of mediators. A1 also kept PDS rice in his house located at 3rd lane, Nehru Nagar,

Guntur and also LW.10 / SI of Police, Lalapet PS seized each 177 bags of total 36 quintals of PDS rice and seized the total 36 quintals of PDS rice in the presence of mediators and drafted mediatornama and duly attested by the mediators LW.8 / Syed Naltha and LW9 / Ande Arun Naga Sai.

ii.LW.10 with the assistance of LWs.1 to 3 chased the accused and caught hold of them and arrested them at 9.15 p.m in the presence of mediators and seized ape auto bearing No.AP 07 TM 4264 containing with 42 white bags weighing about 7.80 quintals and seized total 50 quintals of PDS rice in the presence of mediators further Lw.10 rushed to the house of A1 located at 3rd lane, Nehru Nagar, Guntur and also seized each 177 white bags total 36 quintals of PDS rice in the presence of mediators and drafted mediatornama and duly attested by the mediators i.e., LWs.8 and 9.

iii.LW.10 / RM Vijay Kumar, SI of Police, Lalapet PS brought accused to

Lalapet PS at 5.30 p.m along with the seized material and ape auto bearing

No.AP 07 TM 4264 and registered the mediatornama as a case in

Cr.No.394/2020 u/sec.420 of IPC, Sec.7 of EC Act of Lalapet PS on 22-07-2020 at 5.30 p.m submitted copies of FIRs to all concerned officers, examined Lws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offences, prepared rough sketches of the scene of offences, arrested A1 and A2 and sent them for remand and handed over the seized PDS rice in MLS point of Lw.7 / Ch.

Gowtham Chowdary.

3

Iv. During the course of investigation, LW.10 obtained analysis report from

P. Jayanthi, District Manager, A.P State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited through is letter No.3 (181)/2019/ seized stocks dated. 16-10-2020 opined that the referred sample was analyzed as per the instructions and confirmed as Raw

Rice grade. It is not possible to distinguish betwe4en PDS and other rice. The corporation can not confirm the refereed sample as rice under PDS. After completion of investigation, Lw.10 filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act.

4. On appearance of accused A1 and A2, this Court furnished relevant copies of documents to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.This Court examined the accused A1 and A2 u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and framed charges against them u/sec.420 of IPC and Sec. 7 of EC Act in telugu, and explained the accsation leveled against them in telugu, for which, they denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12 and MO.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lw.2 / PC.4002 Sk. Nagur, Lw.3 / PC.3826 G.

Siddaiah of Lalapet PS and LW.9 / Ande Arun Nagar.

7.After the closure of prosecution’s evidence, this court examined the accused A1 and A2 under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against them in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, they denied the allegations and reported no defence evidence. None of the witnesses were examined in behalf of defence. Accordingly, defence side evidence was closed.

8. Heard both sides arguments.

4

9. Now the points for determination are :-

“ Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of accused A1 and

A2 for the offence u/Sec.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act beyond

reasonable doubt ?”

10. POINT:

i.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state has contended that on 22-07-2020, PW.7 on information arrested the accused A1 and A2 in the presence of PW.1 to 5 and seized 42 bags of PDS rice weighing about 7.8 quintals under the cover of mediatornama Ex.P1 and 100 bags of PDS under the cover of Ex.P2 and 177 bags of PDS rice under tehc voer of Ex.P3. He has further contended that the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 7 and that their ocular evidences are corroborating with each other and supported by the documentary evidence in Ex.P1 to P12 and MO.1 and prayed this Court to convict the accused for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and Section 7 of the EC Act.

ii.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has contended that the accused did not commit any offence and he is falsely implicated in this case. He further contended that PW.7 who is the investigating officer has not weighed the rice bags at the scene of offence. He further contended that there is no evidence to show that the seized rice is PDS rice. He further contended that the PW.1 is the police Head constable, and Pws.3 to 5 are the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence, but they did not support the case of the prosecution. He further contended that prosecution failed to prove the case and prayed this Court to acquit the accused.

iii.To prove the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the prosecution shall prove that the accused persons violated the order passed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. To prove the offence under section 420 of IPC, the prosecution shall prove that the accused committed cheating of public and government. To prove the above said offence, the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 7 and in total got marked Ex.P1 to P12 and MO.1.

5 iv. In order to prove the prosecution case, D. Srinivasa Rao (LW.1) the then

Head constable, Lalapet PS examined as PW.1. During his examination-in- chief, he deposed that on 22.7.2020 while he was present in the police station,

SI of police/LW10 received credible information about the illegal transportation of PDS rice. On that LW10 secured LW8 and LW9 as mediators, and then Lw10 took himself, LW2 and LW3 along with mediators proceeded to Hindu College.

There they has conducted the vehicle checking and there they observed one

Goods auto coming towards them, on seeing the police, the driver and another person in the auto tried to skulk away and Lw10 caught hold of the two persons with the help of the staff. He further deposed that on inquiry, they revealed their names as K.Venkatasubbarao/A1 and Siva/A2. He further deposed that

Witness identified A1 and A2 who were present in the open court. On further inquiry, A1 and A2 confessed about the illegal transportation of PDS rice and also confessed that they purchased PDS rice from the card holders at lower rates and sell the same to mills at Chammallamudi village for higher rates in the presence of mediators. Later, SI of police informed them the illegal transportation of PDS rice is an offence and arrested A1 and A2. On verification of the auto, they found 42 bags of PDS rice weighing approximately about 8 quinttals. A2 is the auto driver. Then SI of police seized 42 bags of PDS rice and the auto in the possession of A1 and A2 in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediatornama duly attested by the mediators. He further deposed that LW10/SI of police also took 3 samples of seized PDS rice each weighing about 500 grams, then, Lw10 shifted A1, A2 along with seized rice and auto to the police station.

v.During the cross examination of Pw.1, it was elicited that the scene of offence is a busy locality with the passage of vehicles. Further elicited that they did not secure any written document form the auto to show that seized rice is

PDS rice and there are no government logos or symbols are affixed on the seized rice bags. Further elicited that Lw.10 did not called for any civil supply officers to the scene of offence. PW.1 did not sign on the mediatornama. PW.1 6 denied suggestion that the seized rice bags were not weighed at the scene of offence and that no information about weighing machine was mentioned in the mediatornama.

vi. Further the prosecution examined the mediator for arrest of the accused and seizure of PDS rice and MO.1 by name Syed Naltha (Lw.8) as PW.2.

During the chief examination, he deposed that on 22-7-2020 at about 2-30 p.m

S.I of Police, Lalapet Police Station called him. On that himself and L.W.9 went to Lalapet Police Station. S.I of Police informed them about the case and requested them to act as mediators and they both accepted for the same. On that himself, L.W.9, S.I of Police and along with other staff went to Hindu

College, Guntur. He further deposed that they observed one auto bearing No:

AP 07 TM 4264 coming from Market side towards Hindu College, then police stopped the said auto. He further deposed that two persons were present in that auto. He further deposed that S.I of Police enquired the said two persons in his presence. He further deposed that the said persons revealed their names as Kollipara Venkata Subba Rao/A1, Danda Siva /A2 and further confessed that they used to purchase PDS rice from Card Holders at lower price and polished the same in their mill and sell the same at hight price for profit. He further deposed that police seized 42 bags of P.DS weighing about 7.8 quintals in our presence. He further deposed that police also drawn three sample each weighing 500 grams from the seized PDS rice in their presence. Police seized rice bags and auto in their presence and prepared mediatornama to that effect duly attested by himself and L.W.9. Ex.P1 is the mediatornama dated 22.7.2020 at about 3-00 p.m. Witness identified A1 and A2 who were present in the open court.

Vii.PW.2 further deposed that basing on the confession of the accused we went to Chamallamudi village, Vattecherukuru mandal, they went to the rice mill of A1 of you, there they found 100 bags of PDS rice weighing about 50

Quintals. He further deposed that Police seized the said 100 bags of PDS rice 7 in their presence and also prepared mediatornama to that effecet. He further deposed that police also drawn three samples from the seized 100 bags of PDS rice, each sample weighing about 500 grams each. Ex.P2 is mediatornama

dated 22-7-2020 at 6-00 p.m. He further deposed that from there, they went to

the house of A1 situated in 3rd line Nehrunagar, Guntur. There A1 has taken one

Iron Shed for rent opposite to his house and in that shed, they found 177 bags of PDS rice in total weighing about 36 Quintals. He further deposed that police seized the said 177 bags of PDS rice and drawn three samples from the seized bags each weighing about 500 grams each. He further deposed that as illegal transportation and storage of P.DS rice is an offence. He further deposed that

S.I of Police arrested A1 and A2 and seized all the rice bags. Mediatornama was prepared to that effect. Ex.P3 is the mediatornama dated 22.7.2020 at 8-30 p.m. He further deposed that himself and L.W.9 are signed on the said mediatornama. He further deposed that police also seized the auto from the possession of accused in our presence. Later police shifted seized PDS rice and auto and arrested them and shifted the same to the Police Station.

Viii.During the cross examination of PW.2, it was elicited that the seized bags are white colour plastic bags and there are no government logos or symbols on the plastic bags. Further elicited that no neighbouring persons at the scene of offence gave any report to police about illegal storage of PDS by the accused.

Further elicited that the scribe of meditornama is not mentioned in Ex.P1. PW.2 denied suggestion that he never participated in any raid and he signed on

Ex.P1 in the police station at the request of police and that he is deposing false.

ix. Further the prosecution examined the eye witness to the alleged occurrence by name V. Mallesh (LW.4) as Pw.3, M. Srinivas (LW.5) as PW.4 and J. Venkatesh (Lw.6) as PW.5. During their chief examination, they deposed in one voice that they do not know anything about the case facts. Further deposed that no person was arrested infornt of them and no property seized in the presence at any time. They further deposed that they were not examined by the police.

8 x. Further the prosecution examined the then MLS point, Civil Supplies

Corporation, Guntur by name Chinnam Gowtham Chowdary (LW.7) as PW.6.

During his chief examination, he deposed that on 23-07-2020 in the afternoon hours, Civil Supplies Deputy Tahasildar one Ziya Ulhaqa handed over 319 bags of rice of different sizes, total weighing about 39.80 quintals to him for safe custody.

xi.During the cross examination of PW.6, it was elicited that he do not know from whom the said rice was seized. The said PDS rice bags not weighed infornt of him and not even handed over receipt pertaining to the weight of said bags. Further elicited that there is no government logos on the said rice bags.

He did not mention the registration number of the vehicle in which the said rice bags transported to their MLS point.

xii. Further the prosecution examined the investigating officer by name

R.M.Vijay Kumar (LW.10) as PW.7, during the chief examination, he deposed the similar version as deposed by PW.1. Further PW.7 deposed that on 22-07-2020 at about 3.00 p.m, he received credible information about the illegal transportation of PDS rice, on that, he secured Pw.2 and Lw.9 as mediators. He further deposed that he along with mediator PW.1, LW.2, LW.3 went to a road margin at Hindu College, Lalapet. There the driver of auto bearing No. AP 07 TM 4264 tried to escape along with the auto on seeing the police and he caught hold of him with the help of his staff. He further deposed that he questioned the driver and another person who was present in the auto.

They revealed their names as Kollipara Venakta Subba rao / A1 and Danda

Siva / A2. Further enquiry, they confessed about the illegal transportation of

PDS rice, then he verified the auto and found 42 white bags of PDS rice in total weighing about 7.8 quintals. He further deposed that as the illegal transportation is an offence, he arrested A1 and A2 and seized 42 white bags of

PDS rice in the presence of mediators and prepared mediatornama / Ex.P1 and duly attested by the mediators. Then, he shifted the accused and seized rice bags to the police station and basing on the mediatonrama, he registered a 9 case in Cr,.No.394 of 2020 for the offence u/s.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act and issued FIR. Then he submitted the original to the court and copies to the concerned officials.

Xiii. Pw.7 further deposed that further enquiry, A1 and A2 confessed about the illegal storage of PDS rice at Chammalamudi village of Vatticherukuru

Mandal. Based on the confession, on 22-07-2020 at 6.00 p.m, he along with his staff visited Chammalamudi village and verified the rice mill. He further deposed that in the godown at the rice mill, 100 bags of PDS rice each weighing about 50 kgs each was found in the godown and he seized the said 100 bags of PDS rice in the presence of PW.2 and LW.9. He prepared mediatornanama / Ex.P2 duly attested by the mediators. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence at Chammalamudi village.

xiv.Pw.7 further deposed that both of you also confessed that they has stored PDS rice at Asbestos sheeted room in front of the house at 2nd lane,

Nehru Nagar. Based on the confession, they went to the above said place, and on verification, he found 177 bags of PDS rice, in total 36 quintals. Then, he seized the same in the presence of mediators and prepared mediatornama /

Ex.P3 to that effect. Ex.P3 was prepared from 8.30 p.m to 9.30 p.m on 22-07-2020. Then, he shifted the seized rice bags to the police station and

MLS point incharge for safe custody. Then he took three samples of 500 grams each from the seized rice bags and sent the same through MRO for analysis.

You obtained return of auto from the Joint Collector, Guntur. He further deposed that he observed three scene of ofefnces and prepared rough sketch of the three scene of offences. He further deposed that he examined PW.1,

Lw.2 and 3 recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements. Then, he served Sec.41-A of

Cr.P.C notices to A1 and A2. He received analysis report opining that the “referred sample was analyzed as per the instructions and confirmed as raw rice grade -A. It is not possible to distinguish between PDS rice and other rice.

The corporation can not be confirmed the referred sample as rice under PDS0.

After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.

10 xv.During the cross examination of Pw.7, it was elicited that he is the complainant and the investigating officer in this case. He did not mention in

Exs.P1 to P3, he called for weighing machine and weighed the rice bags at the scene of offence. He did not secure any local inhabitants at the scene fo offence to act as mediators int his case. Further elicited that he did not submit to the seized stock to the concerned Deputy Tahasildar. PW.7 denied suggestion that as per analysis report, thought he seized rice is not determined as PDS rice, he falsely implicated A1 and A2 in this case and he conducted table investigation and prepared entire record at the police station.

xvi.The main contention of the learned counsel for the accused A1 and A2 is that the rice bags are not weighed. It is elicited from the cross examination of

PW.1, 2 and PW.7 that the rice bags were not weighed at the scene of offence.

When both PW.1 and PW7 have not weighed the bags, then how they have come to the conclusion that the weight of the total bags of rice. On perusal of

Exs. P1 to P3, it is nowhere mentioned in the mediatornama that they weighed the seized rice bags at the scene of offence. Moreover there are no reasons mentioned by the investigating officer for not weighing the rice bags. Further

PW.7 has admitted that he handed over the seized rice to Pw.6. This shows that only based on the confession of the accused, PW.7 has come to a conclusion that the seized rice bags weighed and the said rice is not weighed at the scene of offence. But the said confession is affected by sec.25 of Indian

Evidence act. This shows that PW.1, 2 and PW.7 has failed to follow the procedure laid down under the code of criminal procedure 1973.

xvii.The contention of the Learned counsel for the accused is that the investigating officer has not enquired about the source of the PDS rice. On perusal of evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.7, there is no whisper about the source from where PDS rice is bought by the accused and to whom rice was to be sold. This part of the evidence shows that the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to show that accused committed cheating of the 11 government and other public. Hence the same creates doubt in the mind of the court to believe the case of prosecution and the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the accused has committed cheating under sec.420 of IPC.

xiii.The other contention of the accused A1 and A2 is that there is no confirmation that the seized rice is PDS rice. PW.1, 2 and 7 have admitted in their cross examination that apart from the confession of the accused A1 and

A2, they does not have any proof to show that the seized rice is PDS rice. PW.7 also admitted that he did not draw any samples from the seized rice at the scene of offence. On perusal of evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.7, there is no whisper as to how they came to a conclusion that the seized rice is PDS rice.

Therefore, normally, it is not possible to differentiate PDS rice from same variety of rice available in market. Hence, it is not possible for any person to differentiate PDS rice from same variety available in open market through naked eye. The prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the seized rice is PDS rice and the accused has violated Sec.3 of EC act and committed offence under section 7 of EC Act.

xix.Considering the evidence of PW.1 and PW.7, there is no doubt that the evidence of police officials has to be treated like any other witnesses, if their evidence is inspiring the confidence of the court. Furthermore, though

PW.1 and PW.7 supported the case of the prosecution, they gave admission in their cross examinations that they did not examine any locals at the scene of offence though it was a busy residential locality. PW.1 and PW.7 has failed to state any reason for their failure to secure independent mediators when the scene of offence is a residential locality and further shows lacunas in following the mandatory provisions as contemplated under the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. Furthermore prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence as to how they have come to the conclusion that the seized rice is

PDS rice or not. Further on perusal of the evidence of Pws.3 to 5 who are eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence, but they did not support the case of the 12 prosecution and they completely turned hostile. This creates a doubt about the investigation done by PW.7 and casts a shadow on the case of the prosecution.

As such the evidence of PW.1, 2 and PW.7 cannot be relied as cogent and trustworthy. To the facts on hand and besides admissions of PW.1, PW.2 and

PW.7, this court finds many lacunae in the evidence of PW.1, Pw.2 and PW.7, thus this court holds that their evidence is not inspiring confidence of the court. As such it is unsafe to rely upon their evidence to convict the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s 420 IPC and Sec. 7 of E.C. Act beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favor of the defence.

11.In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.420 of IPC, Sec.7 of EC Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same U/sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail and surety bonds of the accused A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.

MO.1 is already returned to its owner shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the court on this the 09 th day of January, 2025.

III Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Guntur.

FAC IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (J.D),

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION :

PW.1 : D. Srinivasa Rao, PW.2 : Syed Naltha, PW.3 : Voora Mallesh, 13

PW4. : M. Srinivas, Pw.5 : J. Venkatesh, PW.6: Chinnam Gowtham Chowdary, PW.7:R.M. Vijay Kumar

FOR DEFENCE : --NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 is the mediatornama dt. 22-07-2020 at about 3 p.m, Ex.P2 is the mediatornama dt. 22-07-2020 at 6.00 p.m, Ex.P3 is the mediatornama dt. 22-07-2020 at 8.30 p.m. Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3, Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4, Ex.P6 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5, Ex.P7 is the true copy of acknowledgment dt. 23-07-2020, Ex.P8 is the original FIR, Ex.P9 is the rough sketch at Hindu College, Lalapet, Ex.P10 is the rough sketch at Chammaludi village, Ex.P11 is the rough sketch at Nehru Nagar, Ex.P12 is the analysis report,

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

M.OS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

MO.1 is the auto bearing No.AP 07 TM 4264.

III Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Guntur.

FAC IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (J.D),

GUNTUR.

14

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CC.No.1717 of 2021.

Date of Offence: 22-07-2020 Date of Filing: 22-07-2020 Date of Apprehension of accused: 22-07-2020 Date of Released on bail: Released on bail Date of Commencement of trial: 18-10-2023 Date of Close of trial: 09-12-2024 Date of Sentence or order: 09-01-2025 Explanation for delay :- This case was taken on file on 24-06-2021. On 30-1-2024 the accused A1 and A2 called present and Copies was furnished to them and on the same day, the accused A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., charges were framed, they denied the offences and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to P12 is marked. On 07-01-2025 accused were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, reported no defence evidence. Heard Arguments. On 09-01-2025, Judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Between : State: Sub Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban … Complainant

-And-

1. Kollipara Venkata Subba Rao S/o Khadaraiah, 45 years, Vysya, D.No.8-8-91, Nehru Nagar, 3rd lane, Guntur.

2. Danda Siva S/o Mukunda Rao, 44 years, Padmasali, 8th lane, Kakumanuvari Thota, Guntur. … Accused ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :- U/Secs. 420 of IPC, Sec. 7 of EC Act Plea of accused :- Pleaded Not guilty Finding :- Found not guilty SENTENCE OR ORDER:-

In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.420 of IPC, Sec.7 of EC Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same U/sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail and surety bonds of the accused A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 is already returned to its owner shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

III Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Guntur.

FAC IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (J.D),

GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to: Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

15

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Kum. V. NAVYASHRI,

IV A DDL . J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE , G UNTUR .

Wednesday, this the 29th day of March, 2023.

CALENDAR CASE NO.2821 OF 2020.

Between :

State : Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Asst. Director of Agriculture ® (FAC), Macherla, Guntur District. … Complainant.

AND

1. M/s. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Traders, D.NO.1-21/E, Main Road, Durgi village and Mandal – 522612, represented by Maguluri Naraiah S/o Buchaiah, D.No.1-21/E, Karampudi road, Durgi village and Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Maguluri Naraiah S/o Butchaiah, D. No.1-14, Durgi village, Durgi Mandal, Guntur District.

3. M/s. Swastick Seeds Corporation, D. No.7-171, NH5, Lalpuram, Guntur.

4. M/s. Siddi Ramana Reddy, S/o Siddi Eswara Reddy, 30 years, 4th lane, AT Agraharam, Gutnur.

... Accused

This case came before this Court on 21-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Y. Kishore Kumar, Counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4, and upon perusing the record and having stood for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Asst. Director of Agriculture (Regular),

Macherla, filed complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences u/sections 7 (b) r/w 19 of the Seeds Act and Clause 13 (c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.

2. The Brief averments of the complaint as follows:

i.On 30-07-2019, the Seed Inspector and Mandal Agricultural Officer (R),

Durgi Mandal, Sri K. Anji Reddy(LW.1) inspected the premises of the accused

No.1 firm in the presence of the mediators Dara Kondalu(Lw.3) and Amtakuri

Srinivasarao(Lw.4) and collected seed samples for the purpose of arranging analysis of the samples for determining its quality parameters. Initially he has issued a notice in form VI to A1 prior to the drawl of seed samples to 2 inform his (seed Inspector) intention to draw samples under relevant provisions contained in Seed Act, 1966, Seed Rules made there under and

Seed Control Order, 1983. Then he has collected the seed samples as per the details furnished in form VIII issued to A1 and sent the samples along with relevant documents i.e., Form V and information slip containing the details of the samples drawn to the Seed Testing Laboratory, Yemmiganur for the purpose of analysis. The Asst. Director of Agriculture and Seed Analyst,

Yemmiganur, after conducting the analysis of the sample has informed vide his reference letter ROC No.SDTL/595/19-20 dt. 29-08-2019 that the sample of Chilli Amaravathy 339 bearing Lot No.19A6 T/L sent by the Seed Inspector was found to be not confirming to the requirements of minimum limits of germination which is a key parameter in determining the quality of the Seed as per the provisions of Section 6(a) of Seed Act, 1966. The analytical report sent by the Seed Analyst in Form VII to the Seed Inspector(LW.1) revealed that, the seed in question Chilli Amaravathy 339 bearing Lot No.19A6 T/L was possessing 60% of germination only against the minimum limits of germination set out as 49% for Chilli Amaravathy 339 and thus the sample has been declared as sub-standard by the Seed Analyst for not confirming to the quality requirements in terms of levels of germination.

ii.It is further submit that, the Seed Inspector(LW.1) after receipt of analytical report in Form VII in duplicate from the Seed Testing Laboratory, he has inspected the business premises of A1 on 05-09-2019 amid two mediators Dara Kondalu(Lw.3) and Amtakuri Srinivasarao(Lw.4) and served a copy of the analytical report to A1 duly seeking proper acknowledgment from

A1, then he has seized the following registers and records connected with purchase and sale of sub-standard seed by A1 under the cover of mediatornama.

iii.It is further submit that, the Seed Inspector / LW.1 after seizing the records i.e., 1. seed stock register of A1 firm containing 132 pages, 2. Seed

Bill Book No.6 of A1 firm containing 100 bills in which used up to 90 bills and

3. Bill of supply invoice No.6 dated 11-06-2019, and approached this Hon’ble court and obtained orders on 24-10-2019 for retaining the seized records under the custody of Seed Inspector for submitting the same in the court at the time of filing of compliant. The Seed Inspector thereafter has reported compliance to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur explaining the legitimate actions taken by him under the provisions of the law after receipt of analytical report from the Seed Testing Laboratory in this case.

iv.It is further submit that to bring to the kind notice of the Hon’ble court 3 that, the Joint Director of agriculture, Guntur who is the licensing authority for grant licenses for selling of seeds in the District has issued showcase notice to all the accused in this case asking them to explain the reasons for not taking action against them for having indulged in commission of offence u/sec.7 (b) Seed Act, 1966 and Clause 16 (c) of Seed Control Order, 1983 by producing storing and selling sub-standard of Seed of Chilli Amaravathy 339 in question.

v.It is further submit that, the replies submitted by the accused were not treated to be taken into consideration by the Licensing Authority and issued further instructions to seed inspector(LW.1) and Assistant Director of

Agriculture(LW.2) vide RC. No. Planning 5/1595-K/2019 dated 19-11-2019 to file the case in the Hon’ble court. The Commissioner and Director of

Agriculture, A.P. Hyderabad vide circular memo No.SRC (2) 493/2015 dated 03-08-2015 has issued instructions informing that, the consent of the

Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, AP, Hyderabad is dispensed with as the consent of the HOD for prosecuting the accused is neither necessary nor it supports the rules. Under the circumstances submitted above, LW.1 has approached the Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor, and explained the facts of the case. The Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor, after going through the entire file of the case opined that, the accused can be tried under Sec.7 (b) of Seed Act, 1966 and 13 (c) of Seed Control Order, 1983 for the violations observed in the case. Hence, B. Kabbi Reddy(Lw.2), Assistant Director of Agriculture(R),

Macherla filed complaint.

3. This Court took cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offence u/Sections 7 (b) r/w 19 of the Seeds Act and Clause 13 (c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and issued summons to them.

4. After appearance of accused A1 to A4, this Court furnished relevant case documents to them as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. This Court examined the accused A1 to A4 u/s 251 of Cr.P.C, for the offence u/sections 7 (b) r/w 19 of the Seeds Act and Clause 13 (c) of the

Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, read over and explained the same to them, for which, they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P23 on its behalf.

7.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused A1 to

A4 were examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C, by explaining them the incriminating material made against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for 4 which they denied, and reported no defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence side evidence is closed.

8.Heard both sides arguments.

9.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the

accused No.1 to 4 for the offences u/Sections 7 (b) r/w

19 of the Seeds Act and Clause 13 (c) of the Seed

(Control) Order, 1983, beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

10. POINT :- i. The learned Sr. APP submitted that through the evidence of Pws.1 and 4 coupled with documentary evidence including the analytical report, the prosecution has successfully established that the accused manufactured, distributed and stocked the sub-standard seed for the purpose of sale to the farmers to get wrongful gain as such prosecution clearly and categorically proved their case hence she requested the Court to convict the accused A1 to A4 severely as per law.

ii.On the other hand, learned defence counsel for the accused A1 to A4 vehemently argued that except the evidence of Pws.1 and 4, no independent corroboration for lifting of samples and seizure of records since the prosecution is failed to examine the crucial witnesses who is analyst and

Joint Director of Agriculture to substantiate the contents of the analytical report and show cause notices, on which, the entire case of the prosecution was relied, hence, non-examination of the analyst and the JDA, Guntur is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further contended that Pws.1 and 4 did not follow the procedure of handbook prescribed by the central government in lifting the samples, sealing, packing and sending the sample for analysis, if any variation found in the analyst report is because of erroneous lifting of sample and defective procedure of analyst moreover accused lost the opportunity to examine the analyst since prosecution did not cite him as witness. Since Pws.1 and Pw.4 did not follow the procedure and without any independent corroboration it is not proper to convict the accused hence he requested the court to acquit the accused.

iii.It is the case of the complainant that the Mandala agricultural officer i.e Pw1 visited the premises of A1 which is situated at D. No.1-21/E, Main

Road, Durgi village and Mandal on 30.07.2019 has drawn the sample of Chilli

Amaravathy 339 variety under the powers conferred as per Sec.13 (c) Seed (control) Order, 1983 and Sec.7 (b) seed should conform to the minimum 5 limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) of section 6, if seed failed the prescribed germination, it is offence u/Sec.19 of Seed Act." iv. Legal points involved in this case:

The complainant has to prove the alleged offence is u/S.7 (b) of Seed

Act, 1966 punishable u/Sec.19 Seed Act and Sec.13 (c) of Seed (control)

Order 1983.

Sec.7. Regulation of sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties :-

No person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety, unless-

(a) Such seed is identifiable as to its kind or variety:

(b) Such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) of section 6 ;

Sec.6. Power to specify minimum limits of germination and purity,

etc :-

The Central Government may, after consultation with the Committee- and by notification in the Official Gazette, specify-

(a) The minimum limits of germination and purity with respect to any seed of any notified kind or variety;

(b) The marker label to indicate that such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) and the particulars which such mark or label may contain.

The Seeds (Control) Order 1983

Sec.13. Inspection and punishment

(c) Draw samples of seeds meant for sale. export and seeds imported, and send the same in accordance with the procedure laid down in Schedule I to a laboratory notified under the Seeds Act, 1966(54 of 1966) to ensure that the sample conforms to standard of quality claimed;

Sec.19 Seed Act, 1966 defines Penalty :-

If any person:-

(a) Contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder; or

(b)Prevent a Seed Inspector from taking sample under this Act; or

(c) Prevents a Seed Inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under this Act. he shall, on conviction, be punishable-

(i) For the first offence with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, and 6

(ii) In the event of such person having been previously convicted of an offence under this section. with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

v. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution examined all the cited witnesses. PW.1 is said to be MAO, Durgi Mandal, who lifted the samples, sent the sample for analysis. Pw.4 is said to be ADA, Macherla, who filed the complaint against the accused persons. Pws.2 and 3 are the mediators in their presence Pw.1 lifting the samples and seized the records. Apart from the oral evidence, on behalf of the prosecution Ex.P1 to P23 Documents were marked.

vi. Coming to the evidence of PW1 who is Mandala agricultural officer cum Seed Inspector , Durgi Mandal, he deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 30-7-2019 at about 11-00 a.m, he inspected the premises of A1 M/s

Lakshmi Narasimha Traders, situated Door No:1-21/1E, Durgi and at that time

A2 represented by A1 was present in the shop. He further deposed that he secured two mediators i.e. D.Kondalu(L.W.3) and A.Srinivasa Rao(LW.4) and in their presence he verified the registers, records available cotton seed stock in the shop of A2. He further deposed that he issued Form-VI and Form-

I to the A2 and expressed his intention to draw the sample from Chilli seed and accordingly he has drawn three samples from three products i.e., Chili

Malleswari and Chilli Amaravathi-339 as per the provisions of Seed Act. He further deposed that he took the samples in each 500 Grams and identified the said sample one part as laboratory sample, second one is referee sample and third one dealer sample filled in clean white cotton bag and inserted information slip in part of the sample, tied with twine thread and sealed with lac and then he sent the laboratory sample to seed analyst for testing,

Yemmiganuru, Kurnool District under the cover of mediatornama. He further deposed that on 29-8-2019 analyst report stating that second product i.e.

Chilli Amaravathi-339 is substandard and he served analysis report to A2 on 5-9-2019 in the presence of mediators. He further deposed that he obtained safe custody orders from the Honorable Court and seized the stock register,

Bill Book, Purchase Bill. He further deposed that J.D.A issued show cause notices to the accused and he has obtained legal opinion from Sr.APP on 14.02.2020 and A.D.A filed complaint before the Honorable Court against the

Accused A1 to A4. Through his evidence Exs.P1 to P19 and Mo.1 were marked.

vii. B. Kabbi Reddy(LW.4), who is Asst. Director of Agriculture, Macherla, is examines as PW.4 and during his examination-in-chief he deposed that on 7 19-11-2019 he received documents from JDA, Guntur relating to this case, he verified the said documents and observed that as per Exs.P5 and P6 the germination of Chilli Seeds, Amaravathi 339 bearing Lot No.19A6 T/L having 49% of germination instead of 60%, hence, the said sample is declared as sub standard, the licensing authorities and JDA, Guntur addressing a letter i.e., Ex.P17 dated 19-11-2019 and according to the said letter, he was not satisfied with the reply notice issued by A1 and A3 and instructed him to file the complaint against the A1 and A3 , he also observed the legal opinion i.e.,

Ex.P19, accordingly, he filed complainant against A1 to A4.

viii. The mediators for drawl of samples and seizure of records Dara

Kondalu(Lw.3) and Amtakuri Srinivasarao(Lw.4) were examined as Pws.2 and

3. During their chief examination, they deposed that about one year back, they went to the office of PW.1 on their personal work, PW.1 requested them and obtained their signatures on some papers, but they does not know its contents. As PW2 and 3 resiled from their earlier statements, the Learned

APP declared them as hostile and cross examined PW2 and 3 after obtaining permission. In the cross examination of PW2 and 3, they denied the suggestion put forth by the Learned APP that PW.1 lifted samples in their presence and seized case records in their presence and prepared mediatornama to that effect and he signed on the same and now he is deposing false to help the accused.

ix.In the cross examination, learned defence counsel at length cross examined the Pws.1 and 4 with regard to the procedure adopted for lifting of samples and omissions in the form VI, Form VIII and dispatch of the sample to the analyst. It is elicited from the cross examination of PW.1 that there is chance of exposing the subject seeds to weather conditions and the cloth bag is not water resistant. It is further elicited from cross examination of

PW.1 that he cannot say the transit conditions of seed sample and that the cloth bag is not covered with strong paper. Finally suggested that he did not follow the procedure laid down in seeds act and that only for statistical purpose he filed a complaint against the accused and they did not violate any rules under Seed Act.

x. On further going through the entire evidence of Pws.1 to 4, it is clear that Pws.1 and 4 mainly relied on the opinion of the analyst, who issued

Ex.P5 analytical report to say that the subject product i.e. Chilli Amaravathi 339 was possessing 60% of germination only against the minimum limits of germination set out as 49% and thus the sample has been declared as sub standard by the Seed analyst for not confirming to the quality requirements in terms of levels of germination. However, the analyst who issued Ex.P5 8 analytical report is not examined before the Court on behalf of the prosecution to substantiate the contents of the analytical report.

xi.Now, it is to be seen whether non-examination of the analyst is fatal to the case of the prosecution or not? On perusal of Ex.P5 analytical report, it is clear that the sample was analyzed and the analytical report was issued to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Seed Analyst, Seed Testing Laboratory,

Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. According to Sec.293 of Cr.P.C, though some of the Scientific Officers are given exemption from giving evidence before the

Court and considering their reports as substantiate piece of evidence without examining the analysts, the analyst who issued Ex.P5 is not given such exemption U/sec.293 of Cr.P.C. Pws.1 and 4 did not bring the detailed protocol from analyst in which method he followed for sample analysis. So also JDA, Guntur who issued show cause notices and received explanations from the accused is not examined. Moreover, no explanation or reason offered from the prosecution for non-examination of the analyst and JDA in this case. The entire case of the prosecution is solely resting on the opinion of the analyst issued under Ex.P5. PW1 and 4 did not produce any written proceedings from the JDA, Guntur to show that his non satisfaction of the explanations submitted by the accused and giving instructions to file complaint.

xii.On summing up the entire evidence of Pw.1 and 4, it is clear that the analytical report got admitted in the evidence of Pw.1. Further, there is no whisper in the evidence of Pw.1 about the procedure adopted by the analyst in analyzing the sample. Hence, in view of non examining the analyst as to the contents of the analytical report hence, without any hesitation, it is held that the non-examination of the analyst is certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution and on that ground alone, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

There is some force in the contention raised by the learned defence counsel that only for statistical purpose and to fulfill their quota filed cases against accused.

xiii.Taking into consideration of arguments on both sides without any independent corroboration basing on the evidence of interested witness, In the circumstances as per the cardinal principle of criminal justice system guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt if there is any doubt arises in the prosecution version benefit of doubt goes to accused only.

xiv. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, evidence on record is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

9

Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

11. In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sections 7 (b) r/w 19 of the Seeds Act and Clause 13

(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and accordingly, they are acquitted

U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 is the referee sample shall be destroyed, after expiry of the appeal time.

Directly typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of March, 2023.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : PW.1 : K. Anji Reddy PW.2 : D. Kondalu PW.3 : A. Srinivasa Rao PW.4 : B. Kabbi Reddy

For Defence:- --Nil--

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the Inspection Reports, dt.30-7-2019.

Ex.P2 is theForm-VI & Form-VIII, dt.30-7-2019.

Ex.P3 is theForm-V, dt.30-7-2019.

Ex.P4 is theMediatornama at the time of drawal of sample, dt.30-7-2019.

Ex.P5 is theAnalysis Report vide ROC No:STDL/55/1-20, dt.29-8-2019.

Ex.P6 is theForm-VII analysis report, dt.29.8.2019.

Ex.P7 is theMediatornama dt.5-9-2019 at the time of serving analysis report.

Ex.P8 is theSeed stock register containing pages 132.

Ex.P9 is theSeed Bill book of A1 firm containing 100 Bills which used up to 90 bills.

Ex.P10 is the Bill of supply invoice No:66, dt.11.6.2019.

Ex.P11 is the Form No:IV, dt.5.9.2019.

Ex.P12 is the Custody Orders, dt.24.10.2019.

Ex.P13 is the show cause notice to the dealer, dt.24.10.2019.

Ex.P14 is the Explanation of dealer, dt.5.11.2019.

Ex.P15 is the Show cause notice to the Distributor, dt.24.10.2019.

10

Ex.P16 is the Explanation of distributor, dt.5-11-2019.

Ex.P17 is the Rc.No:Planning 5/1595/-K/2019, dt.19.11.2019.

Ex.P18 is the RC.No:SRC(2)/493/2015, dt.3-8-2015 of the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, AP Hyderabad.

Ex.P19 is the Legal Opinion of Sr.APP, dt.14.02.2020.

Ex.P20 is the signature of Pw.2 on the mediatornama. Ex.P21 is the signature of Pw.2 on the mediatornama. Ex.P22 is the signature of Pw.2 on the mediatornama. Ex.P23 is the signature of Pw.2 on the mediatornama.

FOR DEFENCE :--Nil--

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 is the Referee sample.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

11

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.2821 of 2020.

Offence: 30.07.2019 Filing: 26-02-2020 Apprehension of accused:-- Released on bail:-- Commencement of trial: 06.04.2021 Close of trial: 13.02.2023 Sentence or order: 29.03.2023

Explanation for delay: Due to non service of summons to the accused and witnesses by the complainant, the delay has occurred.

Between :

State : Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Asst. Director of Agriculture ® (FAC), Macherla, Guntur District. … Complainant.

AND

1. M/s. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Traders, D.NO.1-21/E, Main Road, Durgi village and Mandal – 522612, represented by Maguluri Naraiah S/o Buchaiah, D.No.1-21/E, Karampudi road, Durgi village and Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Maguluri Naraiah S/o Butchaiah, D. No.1-14, Durgi village, Durgi Mandal, Guntur District.

3. M/s. Swastick Seeds Corporation, D. No.7-171, NH5, Lalpuram, Guntur.

4. M/s. Siddi Ramana Reddy, S/o Siddi Eswara Reddy, 30 years, 4th lane, AT Agraharam, Gutnur.

... Accused

Offence: u/Sec. 7 (b) r/w 19 of the Seeds Act and Clause 13 (c) of the Seed (Control) Order, 1983 Plea of guilty: Pleaded not guilty. Finding : Found Not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sections 7 (b) r/w 19 of the Seeds Act and Clause 13

(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 is the referee sample shall be destroyed, after expiry of the appeal time.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

12

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR

Present: Kum. V. JOSHMA SRI,

III A DDL . C IVIL J UDGE (JD), G UNTUR

FAC IV A DDL . C IVIL J UDGE (JD), G UNTUR

Thursday, the 26 th day of December, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.5884 of 2022. CALENDAR CASE No.5884 of 2022.

Between :

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban … Complainant

-And-

1. Thammisetty Veera Swamy S/o Guravaiah, 21 years, Vaddera, Sivanagaraju colony, Sivareddypalem, Guntur town.

2. Kommalapati Srinivas S/o Yedukondalu, 24 years, Kamma, Balaji Nagar, Nandivelugu road, Old Guntur, Guntur. … Accused

This case came before this Court on 23.12.2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and of

Sri V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for the Accused A1 and A2, and upon perusing the record and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur filled charge sheet against the accused in Crime number 129 of 2021 for the offences punishable u/Secs.420 of Indian Penal Code (brevity for ‘IPC’) and Sec.7 of

Essential Commodities Act (brevity for ‘E.C Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell that :

i.A1 is residing at Sivanagarju colony, Sivareddypalem, Guntur town and living by driving auto, A2 is disposed PDS rice in black market on higher rate in the auto of A1 and running clandestine business. A1 is native place is Durga Bhavnai colony near B.Ed., college, Dachepalli village. About four years back, A1 along with with parents are migrated to Gutur about their existence and residing in

Sivanagarjau colony and living by doing coolie works. Later A1 purchased one

TATA Ace auto bearing No.AP 078367 from Seelam Ramesh who is his brother 2 friend by paying an advance of Rs.20,000/- on monthly installment an amount of

Rs.9,000/- on 05-04-2021 Seelam Ramesh contacted A1 and offered him for hire work from A2, on that A1 agreed and contacted with A2 about hire work, A2 instructed him to come to Suddapalli Donka of Old Guntur area about 4.00 a.m along with vehicle. As per the instructions of A2, he went to Suddaplli donka on 06- 04-2021 at 12 noon, on that A2 loaded 25 bags in the auto of A1 and offered him to transport the PDS rice he gave more value of hire charges, on that A1 agreed and followed with A2, A2 went on bike, A1 drive the auto and followed A2, A1 reached near Etukuru bypass road along with auto containing with PDS rice bags police came there and caught hold of him, on seeing the police, A2 escaped from the place.

ii.LW.5 / RM Vijay Kumar, SI of Police, Lalapet PS received on information, on 06-04-2021 about the illegal transposition of PDS rice and on that Lw.5 along with

Lws.1 and 2 mediators are rushed Etukuru bypass road at 4.00 p.m and found A1 along with loaded TATA Ace auto bearing No.AP 07 TB 8367 and A1 tried to escape from there. But Lw.5 with the assistance of Lws.1 and 2 chased the A1 and caught hold of him and arrested him at 5 p.m in the presence of mediators and seized TATA Ace auto bearing No.AP 07 TB 8367 containing with 25 bags weighing about 1000 Kgs of PDS rice and drafted mediatornama and duly attested by the mediators.

iii.Then, LW.5 brought A1 along with seized property to Lalapet PS and registered the medaitornama as a case in Cr.No.129/2021 u/s.420 fo IPC and sec.7 of EC Act of Lalapet PS on 06-04-2021 at 5.30 p.m, submitted copies of FIR to all the concerned offices and took up investigation.

Iv. During the course of investigation, LW.5 examined Lws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements, then visited the scene of offence along with Lws.1 and 2 inspected the scene of offence thoroughly. The scene of offence is located at

Etukuru by pass road, a rough sketch of the scene of offence is prepared.

v. Lw.5 served notice against A1 u/s.41 (A) of Cr.P.C with instructions to appear before the Hon’ble court. On 20-07-2021 A2 came to the police station and appear before Lw.5. After verify his name and address Lw.5 secured notice to

A2 u/s.41A of Cr.P.C. The vehicle TATA Ace bearing No.AP 07 TB 8367 which was seized in this case, parked in the police station premises. Lw.6 contained further 3 investigation, after completion of investigation, Lw.6 filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act.

4. On appearance of accused, this Court furnished relevant copies of documents to her as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.This Court examined the accused A1 and A2 u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and framed charges against acused u/sec.420 of IPC and Sec. 7 of EC Act in telugu, and explained the accsation leveled against them in telugu, for which, they denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lw.6 / J. Amaravardhan, SI of Police, Lalapet PS.

7.After the closure of prosecution’s evidence, this court examined the accused

A1 and A2 under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against them in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, they denied the allegations and reported no defence evidence. None of the witnesses were examined in behalf of defence. Accordingly, defence side evidence was closed.

8. Heard both sides arguments.

9. Now the points for determination are :-

“ Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of accused A1 and A2

for the offence u/Sec.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act beyond

reasonable doubt ?”

10. POINT:

i.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state has contended that on 06-04-2021, PW.4 on information arrested the accused in the presence of PW.1 and 2 and seized 25 bags of PDS rice weighing about 1,000 kgs by preparing police proceedings / Ex.P3. He has further contended that the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 4 and that their ocular evidences are corroborating with each other and supported by the documentary evidence in Ex.P1 to P6 and prayed this

Court to convict the accused for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and Section 7 of the EC Act.

4 ii.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has contended that the accused did not commit any offence and he is falsely implicated in this case.

He further contended that PW.4 who is the investigating officer has not weighed the rice bags at the scene of offence. He further contended that there is no evidence to show that the seized rice is PDS rice. He further contended that the

PW.3 is the police constable, and no independent witnesses were examined by the investigating officer in this case. He further contended that prosecution failed to prove the case and prayed this Court to acquit the accused.

iii.To prove the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the prosecution shall prove that the accused persons violated the order passed under

Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. To prove the offence under section 420 of IPC, the prosecution shall prove that the accused committed cheating of public and government. To prove the above said offence, the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 4 and in total got marked Ex.P1 to P6.

iv. In order to prove the prosecution case, Sk. Nagoor Vali (LW.2) deposed as

PW.3. During his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 06-04-2021 while he was on duty, Lw.5 took him, Lw.1, Pw.1 and PW.2 went to Etukuru Bypass road,

Guntur at about 4.00 p.m. There one auto was coming towards them and they tried to stop the auto. Then, they stopped the auto and enquired the driver about his name and address particulars, on that he informed the name as Veera

Swamy / accused A1. On further enquiry, A1 confessed that he got produce with

A2 / A. Srinivas through one Seelam Ramesh and Selam Ramesh has instructed him to go Suddapalli Donka for hire purpose. Accordingly on 06-04-2021 in the afternoon hours, A1 went to Suddapalli donka and there A2 loaded auto with the

PDS rice bags and A1 and A2 were transporting the PDS rice in the auto. He further deposed that A2 was travelling on the bike infront of the auto and as they caught hold of the auto, A2 escaped from there. They verified the auto and found 25 bags of PDS rice weighing about 40 kgs each, in total 1,000 kgs of PDS rice.

Among those bags, 5 bags were jute bags and 20 were plastic bags. He further deposed that As A1 was illegally transporting the PDS rice in his auto, SI of Police arrested the A1 and seized the auto along with rice bags. PW.1 and PW.2 acted as mediators in this case. SI of Police prepared mediatornama. He can identify the auto driver / A1. Witness identified A1 who is present in the open court. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

5 v.During the cross examination of Pw.1, it was elicited that Pws.1 and 2 came along with the scene of arrest from their police station. Further elicited that the scene of arrest is a busy locality. There are not shops and residential houses at the scene of arrest. Further elicited that SI of Police did not try to seize the rice bags at the scene of arrest in his presence. Further elicited that the except the confession of accused, there is no other documentary proof to show that the seized rice is PDS rice. Further elicited that there are no government logos and symbols on the seized rice bags. Pw.1 denied suggestion that he did not patriate in any ride and the mediatornama was prepared at the police station and that the accused is falsely implicated in this case and that he is deposing false at the instance of his superiors.

vi. Further the prosecution examined the investigating officer by name

R.M.Vijay Kumar (LW.5) as PW.4, during the chief examination, he deposed the similar version as deposed by PW.3. Further PW.4 deposed that on 06-04-2021 prior to 4.00 p.m, he received credible information about the illegal transportation of PDS rice. On that, he secured Pw.1 and Pw.2 as mediators. He along with mediators LW.1, PW.3 went to Etukuru bypass road. There they found one TATA

Ace bearing No. AP 07 TB 8367 going towards bypass road and he stopped the vehicle. On questioning the driver namely T. Veera Swamy / A1, he confessed that on the request of A2 / K. Srinivas, he went to Suddapalli Donka and loaded PDS rice in the above said auto. A1 of you further confessed about illegal transportation of PDS rice. Then, A1 of you showed the PDS rice in the auto and on verification, 20 plastic bags of PDS rice weighing about 40 kgs each. 5 jute bags of PDS rice weighing about 40 kgs each. A1 further stated that A2 has escaped from there. As the illegal transportation of PDS rice is an offence and he arrested A1 in the presence of mediators and seized 25 bags of PDS rice. He prepared mediatornama to that effect duly attested by the Pw.1 and PW.2. Witness failed to identify A1 who was present in the open court. Then, he shifted the accused A1 and seized rice bags along with auto no. AP 07 TB 8367 to the police station.

Based on the mediatornama, he registered a case in Cr.No.129/21 u/s.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act and issued FIR. Then he submitted the original to the court and copies to the concerned officials. He also took sample from the seized rice bags for analysis. Then, he handed over the seized rice bags to the MLS point incharge through MRO. Then, he served sec.40-A of Cr.P.C notice to A1. He further deposed that on 20-04-2021 he secured the presence of A2 at the police station and then served Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C notice to him. Witness identified A2 6 who is present in the open court. As per the proceedings of the Joint collector, he released the TATA Ace vehicle to the owner of the property. Though, he forwarded the samples to the analysis. The concerned authorities has refused to issue analysis report due to technical issue. He recorded sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of

LW.1 and PW.3. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Further investigation took up by Lw.6 and after completion of investigation, Lw.6 filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.

vii. During the cross examination, it was elicited that as per rough sketch /

Ex.P6 hotels are situated nearby scene of offence. Further elicited that Pws.1 and 2 were not belongs to the scene of offence locality. Further elicited that he did not mention in the mediatornama that the logos and symbols on the seized rice bags.

Further elicited that except the confession of the accused, he did not mention any reasons in the mediatornama for coming to a conclusion that the seized rice is a

PDS rice. Further elicited that he did not verify the variety of rice and he did not know whether the seized rice is available in the open market. Pw.4 denied suggestion that the entire record is prepared at the police station and that he conducted table investigation int his case.

viii.To put emphasis on the recovery of PDS rice, the prosecution examined the mediators for arrest of the accused and seizure of the case property by names K.

Prasad (Lw.4) as Pw.1 and V. Krishna Rao (LW.3) as PW.2. During their chief examination, they deposed in one voice that they do not now anything about this case. They further deposed that police did not to arrest any person and did not record any confession in their presence and police did not seized any property in their presence. They signed on some papers at the instance of police. They further deposed that they do not know the contents of the same.

ix. Considering the evidence of PW.3 and 4, there is no doubt that the evi- dence of police officials has to be treated like any other witnesses, if their evidence is inspiring the confidence of the court. But during the cross examina- tion of PW.3 and 4, they admitted thatexcept confession of the accused, they does not have any documentary proof to show that the seized rice is PDS rice.

PW.3 and 4 also stated that they did not weigh the seized rice bags at the scene of offence. Both PW.3 and 4 have deposed that the scene of offence is a busy local- ity. Further PW.3 and 4 admitted in their cross-examination that except the confes- 7 sion of the accused, they does not have any documentary proof regarding the commission of the offence.

x.The main contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the rice bags are not weighed. It is elicited from the cross examination of PW.3 and PW.4 that the rice bags were not weighed at the scene of offence. When both PW.3 and

PW4 have not weighed the bags, then how they have come to the conclusion that the weight of the total bags of rice is 1000 kgs. On perusal of Ex. P3, it is nowhere mentioned in the mediatornama that they weighed the seized rice bags at the scene of offence. Moreover there are no reasons mentioned by the investigating officer for not weighing the rice bags. Further PW.4 has admitted that he handed over the seized rice to Civil supplies officials. This shows that only based on the confession of the accused, PW.3 and PW.4 has come to a conclusion that the seized rice bags weighed about 1000 kgs and the said rice is not weighed at the scene of offence. But the said confession is affected by sec.25 of Indian Evidence act. This shows that PW.3 and PW.4 has failed to follow the procedure laid down under the code of criminal procedure 1973.

xi.The contention of the Learned counsel for the accused is that the investigating officer has not enquired about the source of the PDS rice. On perusal of evidence of PW.3 and PW.4, there is no whisper about the source from where

PDS rice is bought by the accused and to whom rice was to be sold. This part of the evidence shows that the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to show that accused committed cheating of the government and other public. Hence the same creates doubt in the mind of the court to believe the case of prosecution and the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the accused has committed cheating under sec.420 of IPC.

xii.The other contention of the accused is that there is no confirmation that the seized rice is PDS rice. PW.3 and 4 has admitted in their cross examination that apart from the confession of the accused, they does not have any proof to show that the seized rice is PDS rice. PW.4 also admitted that he did not draw any samples from the seized rice at the scene of offence. On perusal of evidence of

PW.3 and PW.4, there is no whisper as to how they came to a conclusion that the seized rice is PDS rice. Therefore, normally, it is not possible to differentiate PDS rice from same variety of rice available in market. Hence, it is not possible for any person to differentiate PDS rice from same variety available in open market 8 through naked eye. The prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the seized rice is PDS rice and the accused has violated Sec.3 of EC act and committed offence under section 7 of EC Act.

xiii.Considering the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4, there is no doubt that the evidence of police officials has to be treated like any other witnesses, if their evidence is inspiring the confidence of the court. Furthermore, though

PW.3 and PW.4 supported the case of the prosecution, they gave admission in their cross examinations that they did not examine any locals at the scene of offence though it was a busy residential locality. PW.3 and PW.4 has failed to state any reason for their failure to secure independent mediators when the scene of offence is a residential locality and further shows lacunas in following the mandatory provisions as contemplated under the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. Furthermore prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence as to how they have come to the conclusion that the seized rice is PDS rice or not.

Further on perusal of the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 who are the mediators for arrest of the accused and seizure of the PDS rice, but they did not support the case of the prosecution and they completely turned hostile. This creates a doubt about the investigation done by PW.4 and casts a shadow on the case of the prosecution. As such the evidence of PW.3 and 4 cannot be relied as cogent and trustworthy.

To the facts on hand and besides admissions of PW.3 and PW.4, this court finds many lacunae in the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4, thus this court holds that their evidence is not inspiring confidence of the court. As such it is unsafe to rely upon their evidence to convict the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s 420 IPC and Sec. 7 of

E.C. Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favor of the defence.

11.In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.420 of IPC, Sec.7 of EC Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same U/sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail and surety bonds of the accused A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A

Cr.P.C. No order needs to be passed as to the case property since no property is produced before the Court in this case.

9

Directly typed to dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the court on this the 26 th day of December, 2024.

III Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Guntur.

FAC IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (J.D),

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION :

PW.1 : K. Prasad, PW.2 : V. Krishna Rao PW.3 : Sk. Nagoor Vali PW4. : R. M. Vijay Kumar

FOR DEFENCE : --NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 is the signature of Pw.1 on the mediatornama dt. 06-04-21 at 4 p.m. Ex.P2 is the signature of Pw.2 on the mediatornama dt. 06-04-21 at 4 p.m. Ex.P3 is the mediatornama dt. 06-04-2021 at 4 p.m. Ex.P4 is the original FIR. Ex.P5 is the letter addressed to Tahasildar. Ex.P6 is the rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

M.OS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

NIL

III Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Guntur.

FAC IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (J.D),

GUNTUR.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CC.No.5884 of 2022.

Date of Offence: 06-04-2021 Date of Filing: 06-04-2021 Date of Apprehension of accused: 20-07-2021 Date of Released on bail: 41A of Cr.P.C Date of Commencement of trial: 22-05-2024 Date of Close of trial: 09-12-2024 Date of Sentence or order: 26-12-2024 Explanation for delay :- This case was taken on file on 24-12-2022. On 29-08-2023 the accused A1 and A2 called present and Copies was furnished to the accused and on 11-08-2023, the accused A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., charges were framed, they denied the offences and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P6 is marked. On 10-12-2024 accused A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, reported no defence evidence. Heard Arguments. On 26-12- 2024, Judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Between : State: Sub Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban … Complainant

-And-

1. Thammisetty Veera Swamy S/o Guravaiah, 21 years, Vaddera, Sivanagaraju colony, Sivareddypalem, Guntur town.

2. Kommalapati Srinivas S/o Yedukondalu, 24 years, Kamma, Balaji Nagar, Nandivelugu road, Old Guntur, Guntur. … Accused -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :- U/Secs. 420 of IPC, Sec. 7 of EC Act Plea of accused :- Pleaded Not guilty Finding :- Found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER:-

In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.420 of IPC, Sec.7 of EC Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same U/sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail and surety bonds of the accused A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A

Cr.P.C. No order needs to be passed as to the case property since no property is produced before the Court in this case.

III Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Guntur

FAC IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (J.D).,

GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to: Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: GUNTUR

Present: Kum. V. NAVYASHRI

IV A DDL . C IVIL J UDGE (J.D.), G UNTUR

Monday, the 07 th day of April, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.1557 OF 2020. CALENDAR CASE NO.1557 OF 2020.

Between :

State : Sub Inspector of Police,

Lalapet Police Station. ... Complainant

Vs

Kota Venkata Tirupathi Rao S/o Venkatappaiah, 30 years,

Telaga, D.No.2-103, Vellaluru village, Ponnur Rural Mandal,

Guntur Rural District. ... Accused

This case came before this Court on 01-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V.V. Sudhakara Rao, Counsel for accused and upon perusing the record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban has filed charge sheet against the accused in crime number 395 of 2020 for the offence punishable under sections 363 of Indian Penal code (brevity for ‘IPC).

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

i.The marriage of the accused was performed with one Sireesha, sister of

LW.1 / Chunduru Indu in the year 2011 and they were blessed with one son. For some days, the accused and his Sireesha resided in their village. Due to disputes in between accused and his wife Sireesha, since 10 months his wife Sireehsa came to the house of LW.1 / Ch. Indu and LW.2 / Ch. Ramaiah. Then accused came and asked LW.1 / Ch. Indu and LW.2 / Ch. Ramaiah about address of his wife Sireesha and they told that they does not know the address of Sireesha.

Keeping this in mind on 23-07-2020 at about 10.00 a.m, while LW.1 / Ch. Indu was purchasing vegetables in front of her house on cart, the victim boy and his younger brother were standing in front of their house, at that time, accused came there on motor cycle and talked with victim boy and kidnapped him on his motor cycle and went away.

2 ii.On 23-07-2020 at 3.00 P.M LW.1 / Ch. Indu came to the police station and presented a report to LW.9 / S. Jethya Naik, Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet

Police Station who in turn registered report as a case in Crime Number 395/2020 under section 363 of IPC on 23-07-2020 at 3.00 P.M submitted copies of FIRs to all the concerned officers and investigated into the case.

iii.During the course of investigation, LW.9 / S. Jethya Naik had examined as many as 6 witnesses, recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. LW.9 / S. Jethya Naik arrested accused on 28-07-2020 at 5.00 P.M in the presence of mediators i.e.,

LW.7 / Syed Adamsa and LW.8 / Sk.Vali, seized Hero Honda Splendor bearing

No.AP 07 AK 1843 from the possession of accused which was used for the commission of offence, prepared mahazar to that effect and duly attested by the mediators. After completion of investigation, LW.9 / S. Jethya Naik filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.363 of IPC.

3.On satisfying the material placed before this Court and also taking into consideration the report and contents of the charge-sheet, this Court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/S.363 of IPC against the accused and issued summons to him.

4.On appearance of the accused, this court furnished the necessary copies of relevant case records to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.This court examined under the accused under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and framed charges for the accusation leveled against him for the offence U/s. 363 of

IPC, and explained the same to him in Telugu, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

PW.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P9, MO.1. Police filed special report that the whereabouts of Sk.Vali / LW.8 is not known and based on the special report, this court closed the evidence of LW.8. Accordingly the Prosecution side evidence is closed.

7.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, this Court examined accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appearing against him in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, for which he denied 3 the same and reported no defence evidence. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

8.Heard both the side arguments and perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC

beyond reasonable doubt ?”

10. POINT i.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the state has argued that the victim boy is the son of PW.1 and he was kidnapped by the accused by keeping the family disputes between the accused and his wife who is the relative of the father of victim boy. He further contended that the evidence of PW.1 is sufficient to prove that case and she categorically deposed in her evidence that accused kidnapped her son. He further contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are consistent, trustworthy and reliable and that the prosecution proved the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence he prayed the court to convict the CCL for the offence under section 363 of IPC.

ii.On the other hand the Learned counsel for accused has contended that the victim boy did not support the case and in the absence of corroboration from the evidence of victim boy, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be considered to determine the guilt of the accused. He further contended that the mediators for arrest of the accused also did not support the case of the prosecution. He further contended that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that there is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and prayed this court to acquit the accused.

iii.To constitute the offence punishable under section 363 of IPC against the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P9 and MO.1.

iv.The first informant by name Ch. Indu / LW.1 who is the mother of the kidnapped victim boy was examined as PW.1 and she deposed in her evidence that since eight months there are disputes in between accused and his wife. Due to disputes accused wife residing in Chilakaluripet in her relatives house. She 4 further deposed that her husband being a maternal uncle, he brought accused wife to her parents house, on that accused grew wild against her husband and threatened for bringing his wife to her parents house. She further deposed that on 23-7-2020 at about 10-00 a.m, she was purchasing vegetables in front of her house on cart, accused came on his motorcycle and kidnapped her elder son.

She further deposed that immediately she gave report to Lalapet Police and police examined her and recorded her statement. She further deposed that on 28-7-2020 police handed over her son to her. She further deposed that motive for this incident is due to family disputes in between accused and his wife as her husband is maternal uncle of accused wife, he tried to pacify the disputes between them, as such, accused developed grudge against her family and kidnapped her son.

During the cross examination of PW.1, she admitted that she did not mention in the report that who witnessed the incident. Further admitted that the main road is very nearer to her house. On the main road CC.T.V. footages are available. PW.1 denied suggestion that if any alleged incident took place public will gather and witness the incident. Further PW.1 denied suggestion that she did not witness the incident and no incident was took place she will mention the motor cycle bearing number in her report.

v.The sister in law of PW.1 by name E. Easwari (LW.2) was examined as

PW.2, during her evidence she deposed that on 23-7-2020 at about 10-30 a.m,

P.W.1 made a phone call to her and informed that accused took away LW.6 / victim boy on his motorcycle. She further deposed that she advised her to wait some time and he would take back LW.6. They waited for some time, but he did not return and in meanwhile accused threatened LW.2 over phone. She further deposed that due to fear they gave report to the police. She further deposed that she accompanied PW.1 to the police station and police examined her and recorded her statement. She further deposed that next day evening LW.6 / victim boy came to the house in an auto since accused left him at cross road. The reason for this incident is to know the address particulars of her and her husband and that accused roaming to kill her and her daughter. She further deposed that one occasion accused try to kill her, by that time she gave report to the police.

During the cross examination of PW.2, she admitted that prior to this case, she lodged a report against the accused in Nagarampalem police station in the month of February, 2020. Further admitted that her daughter field a case against 5 the accused u/s.498A of IPC in the year 2019. She is also one of the witness in that case. It is further admitted that she stated before police that accused threatened her younger brother over phone. She stated before the police that accused threatened her brother over phone to inform her address particulars and PW.1 stated the same to her. Further admitted that police searched for

LW.6 in their jeep. PW.2 denied suggestion that PW.1 is her younger brother’s wife, she managed them and got foisted this false case against the accused.

PW.2 denied suggestion that no incident took place and accused has no necessity to take the LW.6 on his motor cycle.

vi.The husband of PW.1 by name C. Ramaiah (LW.2) was examined as

PW.3, the neighbor by name K. Seetamma (LW.5) as PW.4, and A. Dhamayanthi (LW.4) as PW.6 they deposed in their examination-in-chief that they does not know anything about this case and nobody kidnapped LW.6. The victim boy by name Ch. Veera Manikanta (LW.6) was examined as PW.5, and he deposed that he does not know anything about this case and nobody kidnapped him. The victim boy did not support the case and turned hostile.

vii.To prove the arrest of the accused, the prosecution examined the mediators for confessional statement and arrest of the accused by name Syed

Adamsha (LW.7) as PW.7, during his evidence, he deposed that he does not know anything about this case. He further deposed that nobody was arrested in his presence and police never recorded confessional statement of the said person. He further deposed that at about four years back, on one day, he went to the police station on his personal work and at the request of police, he put his signature on some written papers. He further deposed that he does not know its contents.

viii.As PWs.3 to 7 resiled from their earlier statements, the Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor cross examined its own witness under section 154 of Indian

Evidence Act after obtaining permission from the Court. In the cross examination of PW3 to 6, they denied the suggestion put forth by the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor that only to help the accused, they are deposing false due to compromise with the accused and nothing worth material is culled out from their cross examinations.

ix. The Investigating Officer by name S. Jethya Naik (LW.9) was examined as

PW.8. During his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 23-07-2020 at about 6 3.00 PM while he was present in the police station, PW.1 and PW.3 came to police station and PW.1 presented Ex.P1 report. On basis of Ex.P1 report, he registered a case in Cr.No.395/2020 u/sec.363 of IPC and submitted FIR to all concerned officers. Then he examined PWs.1 and 3 and recorded their statements. Then, he visited scene of offence which is situated at Dalwarivari

Street opposite to Darga, R-Agraharam and he observed the same and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. The rough sketch is marked as Ex.P8. At scene of offence he secured the presence of PW.2, PW.4 and PW.6 and examined and recorded their statements.

x.PW.8 further deposed that on 29-07-2020 on credible information, he secured the mediators and proceeded Anjaneya Swamy temple, Ethu road along with his staff and mediators at 4.00 P.M. He also took the father of kidnapped child to that place. There, they found one male person along with child. He further deposed that on seeing police, he tried to skulk away along with child, but immediately, he caught hold him with the assistance of his staff. Then, he enquired the said person and he revealed his name as Kota Venkata Thirupathi

Rao, R/o of Vellaluru village. On further enquiry, he voluntarily confessed and admitted the offence that he kidnapped the said child. The father of said child identified his son. The accused further confessed that due to family disputes he kidnapped his son. He also showed the Hero Honda Splender vehicle bearing

No.AP 07 AK 1843. He further deposed that he arrested the accused and seized the above vehicle and handed over the child to his father and prepared mahazarnama in the presence of mediators attested by them. The owner of the crime vehicle by name Jeetham Venkateswarlu produced Hero Honda Splender vehicle and it is marked as MO.1. He further deposed that he brought arrested the accused and seized property to the police station and after observing all formalities, he send the accused to court for judicial custody, then he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of victim boy and recorded his statement. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

xi.on perusal of entire evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, PW.3 to 7 did not support the case. The evidence available before the court to determine the culpability of accused are the evidence of PW.1, 2 and 8. Coming to the evidence of PW.1, she deposed that police handed over her son on 28-07-2020 whereas PW.2 she stated that on the next day evening LW.6 came to the house in an auto since the accused left LW.6 at the cross roads. Here the evidence of 7

PWs.1 and 2 are not corroborating on the aspect of police handing over LW.6 to

PW.1 or LW.6 returning to the home in an auto.

xii.Further, PW.2 has stated that they waited for some time, but LW.6 did not return and in the mean while, accused threatened LW.2 over phone and due to fear they gave report to the police, whereas the entire evidence of PW.1 is silent on the aspect of accused threatening her over phone. Coming to the evidence of

PW.2, she stated that on 23-07-2020 at 10.30 a.m, PW.1 made a phone call to her and informed her that the accused took away PW.5 on his motor cycle and on that she advised PW.1 wait for some time. It shows that the evidence of

PW.2 is only a hearsay evidence. Here the evidence of PW.1 and 2 are not corroborating.

xiii.During the cross examination of PW.2, she stated that on the same day of giving report, police examined her in between 7.30 a.m and 12.00 p.m and on that day, LW.2 was not present. Further PW.1 has stated that herself, her co- sister and sister in law went to the police station at 11.00 a.m. But on perusal of the evidence fo PW.8, he stated that on 23-07-2020 at about 3.00 p.m, when he was present in the police station, PW.1 and PW.3 came to the police station and

PW.1 presented a report. As per the evidence of PW.8, PW.3 accompanied

PW.1 to the police station, whereas as per the cross examination of PW.2, LW.2 / PW.3 was not present on that day. This creates a doubt about the presence of

PW.3 on the date of the incident and accompaning PW.1 to the police station.

This also creates a doubt as to when PW.3 was examined by the Investigating

Officer.

xiv.Though, PW.1 deposed that the accused kidnapped LW.6, the victim /

PW.5 stated that nobody kidnapped him and he does not know anything about the case. So the victim himself stated that he was not kidnapped and in the absence of corroboration from the evidence of PW.5, the evidence of PW.1 does not come in aid to the prosecution to prove case beyond all reasonable doubt.

xv.PW.8 deposed that on 29-07-2020 on receipt of credible information, he secured mediators and proceeded to Ethu road along with his staff and father of

PW.5 at 4.00 p.m and there they caught hold of the accused and also rescued

PW.5 from the accused. He further stated that he arrested the accused, seized the Hero Honda Splender vehicle bearing No.AP 07 AK 1843 and also handed 8 over the child to his father by preparing a mediatornama to that effect. Whereas

PW.2 has stated that PW.5 came to the house in an auto on the next day evening as the accused left PW.5 at the cross roads. Here the evidence of PW.8 is not corroborating with PW.2 and creates a doubt on the arrest of the accused and rescue of PW.5 from the hands of the accused. As such, this creates a doubt on the case of the prosecution.

xvi.During the cross examination of PW.1, he stated that he is an illiterate and police scribed her report in the police station and she went to the police station at about 11.00 a.m. But during the cross examination of PW.8, he denied the suggestion that Ex.P1 was scribed by the police. PW.8 also admitted that he did not obtain the signature of PW.1 in the column no.14 of FIR. When PW.1 visited the police station and gave report about the incident, why PW.8 has not obtained her signature in the column no.14 of FIR. Further PW.8 has offer no explanation as to why he did not obtain the signature of PW.1. During the cross examination of PW.1, she stated that she went to the police station at 11.00 a.m and PW.2 stated in the cross examination that police examined her in between 11.30 a.m and 12.00 p.m. Whereas PW.8 has stated that PW.1 came to the police station on 23-07-2020 at 3.00 p.m and presented a report. Here the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 8 does not corroborate with the time of giving report at the police station.

This creates a doubt on the aspect of time of giving report.

xvii.In view of above discussion, there is inconsistency in the evidence PW.1, 2 and 8 and no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hence it can be undoubtedly held that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is answered in favor of the defence and against the state.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sec.363 of IPC , and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties if any shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 is the

Hero Honda Splender vehicle bearing No.AP 07 AK 1843 already returned to its owner shall hold good after expiry of the appeal time. The Superintendent,

District Jail, Guntur is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

9

Directly Typed to dictation to the Stenographer Grade – III, corrected and pronounce by me in the open court on this 07th day of April, 2025.

IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (J.D),

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1 : Ch. Indu, PW.2 : E. Eswari PW.3 : C. Ramaiah PW.4 : K. Seetamma PW.5 : Ch. Veera Manikanta PW.6 : A. Dhamayanthi PW.7 : Syed Adamsha PW.8 : S. Jethya Naik

FOR DEFENCE: --NIL--

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Report given by PW.1, Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3, Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4, Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5, Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6, Ex.P6 : Signature portion of PW.7 on the mahazarnama. Ex.P7 : FIR, Ex.P8 : Rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 is the Hero Honda Splender vehicle bearing No.AP 07 AK 1843.

IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (J.D),

GUNTUR 10

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.1557 of 2020.

Date of Offence: 23-07-2020 Date of giving report: 23-07-2020 Date of arrest of the accused: 23-07-2020 Date of released on bail: 07-10-2020 Date of Commencement of trial: 19-10-2020 Date of Closure of trial: 19-02-2025 Date of sentence or Judgment : 07-04-2025 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Between :

State : Sub Inspector of Police,

Lalapet Police Station. ... Complainant

Vs

Kota Venkata Tirupathi Rao S/o Venkatappaiah, 30 years,

Telaga, D.No.2-103, Vellaluru village, Ponnur Rural Mandal,

Guntur Rural District. ... Accused

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explanation for delay: This case is taken on file on 07-09-2020. On 07-10-2020 copies of case documents were furnished to the accused and on the same day, he was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C., pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to to P8 and Mo.1 were marked, hence prosecution evidence was closed. On 04-03-2025, the accused was examined under sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried the accused reported no defence evidence, hence defence evidence is closed and heard arguments on 01-04-2025 and posted for judgment to 07-04-2025. Judgment is pronounced on 07-04-2025.

Section of Law :- under section 363 of IPC Plea of the accused :- pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court :- found not guilty Sentence or Order :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sec.363 of IPC , and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties if any shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 is the Hero Honda Splender vehicle bearing No.AP 07 AK 1843 already returned to its owner shall hold good after expiry of the appeal time. The Superintendent, District Jail, Guntur is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (J.D), GUNTUR

Present: Kum. V. JOSHMA SRI,

III A DDL . C IVIL J UDGE (JD), G UNTUR

FAC IV A DDL . C IVIL J UDGE (JD), G UNTUR

Thursday, the 26 th day of December, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO. 5491 of 2022. CALENDAR CASE NO. 5491 of 2022.

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban.

... Complainant

Vs

Boddeti Srinivas S/o Brahmaiah, 48 years, Mala, Perecherla Donka, Perecharla, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

... Accused

This case came before this Court on 23-12-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Smt., M. Srivani, Counsel for the accused and upon perusing the record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban has filed charge sheet against the accused in crime number 403 of 2021 for the offence punishable under sections 420 of Indian penal code (brevity for “IPC”) and

Sec.21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Act.

02.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

i.On 26-07-2021 the accused loaded the sand at Perecherla dumping yard and started for selling of sand in Guntur town for higher price to get profit. As per the instructions of Addl. Superintendent of Police, Guntur Special Enforcement

Bureau and Superintendent of Guntur Enforcement bureau on 26-07-2021 LW.1 /

M. Ramesh, Inspector of Police Special Enforcement Bureau station, Guntur while conduct vehicle check along with Lws.2 / N. Srinivasa rao, SI of police,

Special Enforcement Bureau station, Guntur and Lw.3 / Y. Edukondalu, PC,

Special Bureau station, Guntur about illegal transport of sand and when reached

Nallacheruvu, the accused drove his tractor bearing No.AP 26 AC 7640, truck 2

No.AP 26 AC 7641 with sand load while proceeds to Nallacheruvu 9th lane, from market, LW.1 stopped the accused with tractor and prepared a special report as the accused transport sand illegally and get profits, and the accused cheated the

Government and transporting the sand illegally and get profits.

ii.On 26-07-2021 on receipt of credible information, Lw.1 conducted vehicle check along with Lws.2 and 3 and caught hold accused and seizing of tractor with sand load under special report and handed over to LW.5, who inturn registered it as a case in Cr.No.403/2021 u/s.420 of IPC and Sec.21 (4) of

MMDAR Act of Lalapet PS on 26-07-2021 at 4.15 p.m submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and investigated into the case.

Iii. During the course of investigation, LW.5 had examined Lws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements, visited scene of offence prepared rough sketch of scene. On 26-07-2021 Lw.5 served notice on accused u/s.41 (A) of Cr.P.C.

iv. Lw.5 forwarded the seized tractor bearing No.AP 26 AC 7641 with sand load to the Assistant Director, Mines Department, Pandaripuram, Chilakaluripet with a request to receive 3 tones of seized sand with vehicle. Accordingly, the

Asst. Director, Guntur returned the seized vehicle with letter vide LR

No.1008/Vg/2013 dt. 28-07-2021 stating that FIR has already filed and there is no provision for taking over the vehicle along with mineral; and keeping it for safe custody with this depart and without any orders from the Hon’ble court on FIR.

v.Lw.5 obtained letter from M. Vishnuvardhana Rao, MSC, Asst. Director of

Mines and Geology dt. 19-08-2021 requested that the Hon’ble High Court directed to the Director of Mines and Geology that to release the vehicle by duly imposing penalty in terms of clause 16 of GOMS No.71 dt. 04-09-2019.

Accordingly, the department of Miens and Geology requested that to release the seized tractor bearing No.AP 26 AC 7640 , truck No.AP 26 AC 7641.

v. Accordingly LW.5 released the tractor bearing No.AP 26 AC 7640, truck

AP 26 AC 7641 along with sand to the owner of vehicle namely

P. Satyanarayana under proper acknowledgment and instructed him to produce the tractor and trailer. After completion of investigation, LW.5 filed charge sheet against the accused u/secs.420 of IPC, and 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Act.

03.On satisfying the material placed before this Court and also taking into 3 consideration of the report and the contents of the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, and 21 (4) of

Mines and Minerals Act against accused and issued summons to him.

04.On appearance of accused, this Court furnished copies of case documents to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.This Court examined accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and a charge under Sections 420 of IPC, and 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Act was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

PW.1 to PW.4 and Ex.P1 to P6 and MO1 are marked. The Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.2 / N. Srinivasa Rao. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

07. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, this Court examined the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appearing against him in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard both the side arguments.

09.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the

offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, and 21 (4) of Mines and

Minerals Act beyond reasonable doubt”?

10. POINT i.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has contended that on credible information, PW.1 reached 9th lane, Nallacheruvu, Guntur, there on seeing the

Police, the accused tried to sulk away and observing the same PW1 caught hold of the accused and on enquiry, the accused confessed the commission of the offence and with an intent to sell the sand in black market for higher rates and gain profit. He has further contended that as per the evidence of PW1, 2 and

PW4, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under sec.420 of IPC, and 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Act beyond reasonable 4 doubt. Hence, prayed the Court to convict the accused for the offence under section 420 of IPC, and 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Act .

ii.On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is falsely implicated in this case and he is innocent person and that he never committed any offence. He further contended that this case is based on

Police proceedings and no public were acted as mediators in this case and PW.3 is the mediator for arrest of the accused and seizure of Mo.1 from his possession, but he completely turned hostile. He has further contended that the scene of offence is a busy locality, but the Police has not secured any public to act as mediators. He has further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed this Court to acquit the accused.

iii. To constitute the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC, and 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Act against the accused, the prosecution examined the complainant cum Inspector, SEB, Guntur who conducted raid along with PW.2.

PW.2 is the constable in SEB, Guntur. PW.3 is the mediator for arrest of the accused in his presence. PW.4 is the Investigating officer in this case and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 and MO1.

iv. To prove the case of the prosecution, M. Ramesh (LW.1), Inspector in

SEB, Guntur as PW1. During the examination-in-chief of PW1, he deposed that on 26.7.2021 as per the instructions SEB, Addl. superintendent of police, Guntur, himself and LW2/N.Srinvasarao and LW3/Y.Edukondalu went to Paradise bar,

Nallacheruvu, Guntur at about 1.00 p.m. There they observed one tractor loaded coming from Guntur market to Nallacheruvu side. On suspicion, he stopped the tractor with the help of his staff. On verification of he tractor, he found sand and questioned the tractor driver about the bills regarding the loaded sand. He further deposed that he questioned the said driver about his name and address particulars. The said driver revealed his name as Bodeti Srinivasarao/Accused.

He questioned him about the sand, and he confessed that he transported the sand from Perecherla to Guntur town and selling the same at higher rates. He verified the trolley bearing Reg.No. AP 26 AC 7641 and Tractor bearing No.AP 26 AC 7640 belonging to Mahindra 265D1 company. The weight of total sand is 3 tonnes and the accused had no bills regarding the sand. He informed him that the illegal tranaportation of sand is an offence and he prepared special report to 5 that effect as there were no mediators available. Then he shifted accused along with the tractor to Lalapet P.S. Witness identified accused who was present in the open court. Then he handed over the accused and seized tractor along with sand to the SI of police, Lalapet P.S. He further deposed that police examined him and recorded his statement. Mo.1 is the tractor bearing No.AP 26 AC 7640 with trolley bearing No.AP 26 AC 7641.

v.During the cross examination of PW.1, it was elicited that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality. He did not receive any written report about the illegal transportation of sand by the accused. Further elicited that he did not serve any written summons to the public to act as mediator int his case and he did not mention the same in Ex.P1. Further elicited that he did not make any inquriy at Perecherla village. He did not enqiry any person to whom the accused was selling the sand. Further elicit that he is the complainant int his case. Lw.3 is one constable is his subordinate. PW.1 denied suggestion that he foisted this false case only for statistical purpose and accused did not commit any offence.

vi. The prosecution examined K. Edukonalu (LW.3), who is working as constable in SEB, Guntur -1. During his evidence, he deposed the similar version as deposed by PW.1. PW.2 further deposed that PW.1 stopped the tractor and verified the tractor and found sand int eh tractor and questioned the driver regarding the loaded sand. He further deposed that the said driver stated to

PW.1 that he is transposition sand from Perecherla to Guntur, on that PW.1 questioned the driver about the bills of loaded and, but the driver stated that he has no bills, then PW.1 informed him that illegal the transportation of and is an offence. PW.2 further deposed that identified the accused who was present in the open court and stated that he was driver of the tractor, then himself, PW.1 handed over the accused and tractor to the SI of Police, Lalapet Police. He further deposed that police examined him and recorded his statement.

Vii.During the cross examination of Pw.2, it was elicited that the scene of offence is a busy locality. Further elicited that he did not submit any documentary proof to show that he was on duty on the date of incident. PW.2 denied suggestion that he never participated int her aid and he is deposing false the instance of Pw.1 and that the accused is now connected with this case.

Viii.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined one of the mediator 6 for arrest of the accused and seizure of tractor by name K. Koteswara Rao (LW.4) as PW.3. During the chief examination, he deposed that he do not know anything about this case. He further deposed that police did not arrest any person and did not seize any case property in his presence. He further deposed that police never examined him. As PW3 resiled from his earlier statement, the

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared him as hostile and cross examined him after obtaining permission from the court under section 154 of Indian

Evidence Act. In the cross examination of PW.3, nothing worth material was culled out to establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt except putting suggestion.

ix. To further prove the case of the prosecution, V. Babu Rao (LW.5), Sub-

Inspector of Police, Lalapet PS is examined as PW.4. During the examination-in- chief of PW.4, he deposed on same lines as of PW.1 and he got exhibited Ex.P3 to P6 is marked on behalf of prosecution. Chief examination of PW.4 is nothing but replica of Chief examination of PW.1. PW.4 further deposed the chronological events of registering the case, investigating the case and preparing rough sketch of the scene of offence.

x. On perusal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and coming to the evidences of PW.1 and PW.4, it is evident that though the testimony of PW.1 is corroborated with the evidence of PW.3 as to the detection of the offence, seizure of sand in the tractor, this Court cannot jump to the conclusion with regard to the guilt of the accused merely because they happened to be Police officials as they were bestowed with duty of maintaining law and order. Firstly, it is to be established that whether the testimony of PW.1 and PW.4 are sufficient to prove the nexus between the accused and seizure of the sand for illegal transport from sand reach in the tractor and the same was seized from the possession of the accused.

xi. The main contention of the accused is that the entire case is based on

Special report and that no local inhabitants nearby the scene of offence acted as mediators. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, 2 and PW.4, it is elicited from their cross examination that the scene of offence is a busy locality. It is further elicited from the cross examination of PW.1 that he did not receive any written report about the illegal transportation of sand by the accused. It is further elicited that he did not serve any written summons to the public to act as mediators in this case and he did not mention the same in Ex.P1. It is further elicited that he 7 did not make any enquriy at Perecherla village It is further elicited from the cross examination of PW.4 there are no other reports against the accused prior to registering of this case. It is further elicited from cross examination of PW.4 that the scene of ofence is a busy locality. When the scene of offence is a busy locality, then what prevented PW.4 to secure the presence of public to act as mediators in this case. PW.4 never deposed that he has served any written notices to nearby public to act as mediators. This shows that PW4 has not tried to secure the presence of Mediators. It is relevant to note the decision in Botcha

Raju Vs State Rep by Inspector of Police, Vizainagaram Rural circle, 1994(2)

ALT (crl) P.69(AP), the Hon’ble High Court of AP held that conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the Police officers witout corrobotation by the disinterested witnesses. In this case, prosecution has not given sufficient reasons for not securing the local inhabitants nearby the scene of offence as mediators when the scene of offence is a busy locality. This creates a doubt on the case of the prosecution.

xii. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, he admitted in his cross examination that he is the complainant and the investigating officer in this case. PW.4 also admitted in his cross examination that from registering the FIR till filing of the charge sheet, he is the investigating officer in this case. On further perusal of

Ex.P3, PW.1 is the complainant and PW.4 is the investigating officer in this case.

It is relevant to note the decision of Gurajala Ramesh Vs State of AP reported in 2003 (2) ALD (crl) 13 where in the Hon’ble High Court relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Bhagawan Vs State of

Rajasthan(AIR 1976 SC 985), as per the purport of the said decision, practice of conducting investigation by the person who conducted raid and on whose complaint, First information report was lodged shall not be resorted to do investigation, so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. It further goes to show that PW.4 has alleged in Ex.P3 and in the charge sheet contents that the accused confessed before them that they were illegally transporting the sand from sand reaches and selling the same to the public at higher rate. It is relevant to note Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act.

Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act stipulated that “no confession before police

officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence”. Hence as per Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act, the confessional statement of the accused

before police officer in Ex.P1 is inadmissible and the same is not relevant for

consideration. Furthermore in this case, PW.4 is the investigating officer who 8 went to the scene of offence, arrested the accused, and also initiated criminal action against the accused, registered the case and investigated into the case.

There are no independent witnesses to prove the seizure of sand from the possession of accused. Thus, in the light of the above cited decision, this Court opines that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PW.4 to impose conviction against the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove that they have seized the sand from the possession of accuised through disinterested witnesses.

Xiii.On perusal of evidence of PW.3, he did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Hence his evidence can be discarded in toto.

Even though the scene of offence is a busy locality, PW1 failed to secure local inhabitants as mediators to prove the contents of Ex.P1 and seizure of sand from the possession of accused which makes the case of the prosecution disbelievable. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has left so many lacunae and the same appears to be fatal to the case of the prosecution.

xivHence in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence benefit of doubt is accorded to the accused. Thus, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered against the State and in favor of the defence.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.420 of IPC, and 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Actand accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties if any shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. the marked case property I.e. MO.1 is tractor bearing number AP 26 Ac 7640 with trolley bearing No.AP 26 AC 7641 which was given to owner of the property, towards interim custody is made absolute after the appeal time is over.

Directly Typed to dictation to the Stenographer Grade – III, corrected and pronounce by me in the open court on this 26 th day of December, 2024.

III Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Guntur.

FAC IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD),

GUNTUR.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: --NIL--

PW.1 : M. Ramesh

PW.2 : K. Edukondalu

Pw.3 : K. Koteswara Rao

PW.4 : V. Babu Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:--NIL--

Ex.P1 is the Special report.

Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3.

Ex.P3 is the FIR,

Ex.P4 is the rough sketch

Ex.P5 is the letter from Asst. Director of Miens and Minerals Department,

Ex.P6 is the acknowledgment receipt regarding release of vehicle.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION:

MO.1 is tractor bearing number AP 26 Ac 7640 with trolley bearing No.AP 26 AC 7641

III Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Guntur.

FAC IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD),

GUNTUR.

10

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.5491 of 2022.

Date of Offence: 26-07-2021 Date of giving report: 26-07-2021 Date of arrest of the accused: 26-07-2021 Date of released on bail: 41-A of Cr.P.C notice Date of Commencement of trial: 14-11-2023 Date of Closure of trial: 27-11-2024 Date of sentence or Judgment : 26-12-2024 Explanation for delay:

This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences u/sec.420 of IPC and sec.21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Act. On 20-03-2023 copies of case documents were furnished to the accused. On 20-03-2023, accused was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C., and charges were framed for the offence under sec.420 of IPC and Sec.21 (4) of Mines and Mineral Act, read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and Ex.P1 to P6 and Mo.1 marked. On 04-12-2024, the accused was examined under sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence, hence defence evidence is closed and heard arguments on 11-12-2024 and posted for judgment to 26-12-2024. Judgment is pronounced on 26-12-2024. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Between : State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station,

Guntur Urban. ... Complainant

Vs

Boddeti Srinivas S/o Brahmaiah, 48 years, Mala, Perecherla Donka, Perecharla, Medikonduru Mandal,

Guntur District. ... Accused

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section of Law :- under section 420 of IPC, and 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Act Plea of the accused :- Not committed Finding of the Court :- found not guilty Sentence or Order :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.420 of IPC, and 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Actand accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties if any shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. the marked case property I.e. MO.1 is tractor bearing number AP 26 Ac 7640 with trolley bearing No.AP 26 AC 7641 which was given to owner of the property, towards interim custody is made absolute after the appeal time is over.

IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD),

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur.