Smt. Nerella Venkata Hyma Pujitha

Page 1 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GADWAL.

PRESENT: Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

Friday, Dated this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

C.C. No. 175 of 2021

Between:

The state through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Maldakal. … Complainant AND Kurva Rajagopal S/o Kurva Anantha, age: 30 years, occ: Farmer,

R/o Palwai Village, Maldakal Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

...Accused

This Calendar Case is coming before me on 17-02-2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state, and Sri. G. Sudhakar Counsel for the accused person and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Maldakal Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused the offence under section 324, 323 of Indian

Penal Code.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:

2.1 That on 02-02-2021 at 13:00 hours received a telugu written complaint from Sri. Pilli Venkatanna, in which he stated that previously his son-in-law/Kurva Rajagopal got married with complainant sister-in-law’s daughter without consent of her parents. In this regard they have conflicts.

On 30-01-2021 at about 11:30 hours complainant sister-in-law

Shakunthalamma, while doing agriculture work in her farm, mean time

Kurva Rajagopal came to her and quarreled and beaten with hands due to

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 2 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021 this received unseen injuries, entire incident observed by complainant from some distance. Later, he went there and try to rescued from him, but

Rajagopal told that as “NEEDI KUDA EEUVA AYYINDI RAA” and pushed, due to this complainant fallen on ground, mean time Rajagopal pelted with stone on his head, due to this received bleeding injury on left side of the head. Further he went to hospital for treatment on 02-02-2021 came to police station and lodged a petition to take necessary legal action. Hence, the report.

2.2As per the contents of the above complaint, LW-8 had registered a case in Cr. No. 23/2021 under section 324, 323 IPC and investigated into.

2.3During the course of investigation LW-8 has examined and recorded the statements of LW-1 at police station Maldakal under section 161(3)

Cr.P.C which incorporated in part-II CDs in detail. The LW-8 referred the injured person/LW-1 along with MC to the government Hospital Gadwal for treatment. After LW-7 visited Scene of offence, which was scene situated at

LW-1 land, palwai Village Shivar and secured the presence of two mediators

LW’s-5 and 6 conducted Scene of offence panchanama drew rough sketch of the scene by depicting all its surroundings seized one stone from scene, which was used in commission offence. Later, LW-8 secured the presence of

LW’s-2 to 4 examined and recorded their details statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, which incorporated in part-II CDs.

2.4On 08-02-2021, accused was served a 41- A Cr.P.C by LW-8 as the offence is bailable, with instructed to appear on the day of court adjournment.

2.5On 09-02-2021, the LW-8 deposited case property in hon’ble JMFC

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 3 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021 court, Gadwal and Hon’ble Magistrate given vide CPR No. 57/2021, dated:

09-02-2021. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. The court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 324, 323 IPC and issued summons to the accused person.

4. On service of summons, the accused person appeared before the court, after compliance of 207 Cr. P.C accused was examined under section 239

Cr.P.C for which he denied and the charges was framed for the offence under section 324, 323 IPC read over to him in vernacular for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence trial proceeded.

5. So as to bring home the guilt of the accused person, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-6 and Ex. P1 to Ex. P5 were marked. Ex. P1 is report,

Ex. P2 is Crime Detail Form, Ex. P3 is section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW- 4, Ex. P4 is First Information Report, Ex. P5 is wound Certificate of PW-1.

MO-1 is stone.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused person was brought to his knowledge under section 313 Cr.P.C examination for which he denied, however reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point arise for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of

accused person for the offence under section 324, 323 of Indian

Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

9. POINT:

9.1 PW-1 by name Venkatanna, who is de-facto complainant of the case deposed in his evidence that on 03-01-2021 at around 11:30 AM, LW-2 is

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 4 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021 his sister-in-law has cultivating the land and doing agricultural work at field. At that time, accused has criminally trespassed into the land and kicked her with leg. At that time, he went to the Scene of offence and stopped the ghalata and rescued LW-2. He was at his field which is adjacent to LW-2’s field. Further, there was ghalata has taken place in between him and accused and accused abused him in filthy language and also thrown a stone on his head. As such, he sustained injuries on left side of the head.

Later, he was shifted to hospital by LW-4 Govt. hospital Gadwal. After two days he has lodged the report. Ex. P1 is the report. The learned APP has confronted a stone, for which witness denied the same.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, he admitted that accused is son-in-law of LW-2. LW-2 has four daughters. Bharathi has filed partition suit before this court against her mother.

9.2 PW-2 by name Chandra Shekar, who is eye-witness of the case deposed in his evidence that about four years back at around 11:30 AM, there was ghalata taken place in between PW-1 and accused. Accused has bet PW-1 with stone and he sustained injuries on head. While, he was proceeding to village from my field, he has witnessed the incident.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-2, he admitted that he does not have any land in Scene of offence. PW-1, LW-2, accused were present at the Scene of offence by the time he reached there. It is true that he has stated to police that by the time he reached there he has heard from

LW-2 and LW-2 stated to him that accused has bet PW-1 with stone. LW-2’s daughter is Bharathi, who is the wife of accused. There is no share in the land in Scene of offence to daughter of LW-2 i.e., Bharathi. He does not know whether the accused and Bharathi have filed a civil suit in the court

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 5 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021 for partition. He knows PW-1 since child hood.

9.3 PW-3 by name Hazipasha, who is panch-witness of the case deposed in his evidence that Police has conducted scene of offence Panchanama in his presence and in the presence of LW-6. The signature on the scene of offence

Panchanama is belongs to him. Police has drawn rough sketch in his presence. The boundaries of Scene of offence are as follows: East: land of

Dharam Reddy, West: Land of Veeranna, North: Cheruvu, South: Land of

Govindamma. Ex. P2 is CDF got marked in his evidence.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-3, he admitted that he was at Scene of offence when police came to Scene of offence. Police has seized stone at the time of panchanama. The size of the stone is medium. He along with LW-6 was present at the time of panchanama along with police officials.

9.4 PW-4 by name Ratnam, who is eye-witness of the case deposed in his evidence that he does not know the facts of the case.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-4, he admitted that his section 161 Cr.P.C. statement i.e., Ex. P3 got marked in his evidence.

9.5 PW-5 by name Shakunthalamma, who is eye-witness of the case deposed in her evidence that about four years back at 11:30 AM, while she was at her agricultural land and doing agricultural works, at that time accused came to her land and abused her in filthy language and stated that she has not given enough dowry to him. Accused has bet her with hands. In mean time, PW-1 has interfered and rescued her, at that time accused has bet PW-1 with hands initially and again bet with stone on head and PW-1 has sustained stiches on head and head injury. She went to house and intimated to sons of PW-1. Sons of PW-1 has taken PW-1 to the hospital.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 6 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021

The learned APP has confronted material object which was used for commission of offence, for which witness identified and admitted the same.

MO-1 is stone got marked in her evidence.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-5, she admitted that she is having five children. Bharathi is daughter. Accused has eloped her daughter and married her. After marriage of accused with her daughter there are disputes among the families. She has not performed the marriage of accused and her daughter. The accused and her daughter reside backside of her house. MO-1 is available in general market.

9.6 PW-6 byname R. Shekar, who is the investigation officer deposed in his evidence that on 02-02-2021 at around 01:00 PM, he has received telugu written report from PW-1, basing on which, he has registered a case in

Cr.No.23/2021 U/s. section 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC. During the investigation he has recorded the statements of witnesses of PW-1 at police station. On same day, he has visited the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of PW-3 and LW-6. He has recorded the statements of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 at Scene of offence. He has served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused person. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused person. Ex. P4 is FIR, Ex. P5 is wound certificate of PW-1 got marked in his evidence.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-6, he admitted that he cannot say the survey number of the alleged incident in Scene of offence. He does not know about the land of wife of accused by name Bharathi which was present beside the Scene of offence. It is true that Ex. P1 along with section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1 does not specified the names of eye witnesses who are alleged to be present at the Scene of offence.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 7 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021

10. It is a duty of prosecution to establish the offences U/s 324 IPC, 323

IPC against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. Upon perusing the evidences on record and exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution, it is the case of prosecution that on 03-01-2021 at 11:30 AM, while LW-2/PW-5 has cultivating the agricultural land at their field, accused has trespassed and kicked her with leg. PW-1 has stopped the ghalata and rescued LW-2.

Then, accused has abused PW-1 in filthy language and thrown stone on his head and PW-1 has sustained injuries on left side of the head. On behalf of prosecution PW-1 to PW-6 were examined and supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution prays the court to convict the accused.

11. Per contra, it is the case of accused that complainant has filed a false case against the accused person due to previous disputes as the accused person has married to daughter of LW-2 by eloping her. Therefore, the learned defense counsel prays the court to acquit the accused.

12. The learned prosecution has to establish the following offences to prove the guilt of accused: -

Under section 324 IPC: - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous

weapons or means

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal,

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 8 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Under section 323 IPC: - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

13. Upon perusing the evidences on record and exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution, to prove the offence U/s 324 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused must voluntarily caused simple hurt with a dangerous weapon. On careful perusal of evidences of PW-1, PW-1 stated on 03-01-2021 at 11:30 AM, while LW-2/PW-5 has cultivating the agricultural land at their field, accused has trespassed and kicked her with leg. PW-1 has stopped the ghalata and rescued LW-2. Then, accused has abused PW-1 in filthy language and thrown stone on his head and PW-1 has sustained injuries on left side of the head. PW-1 has denied the material object confronted to him. During his cross examination, PW-1 stated that the accused is son in law of LW-2 and the daughter of LW-2 has filed the partition suit against her mother.

On careful perusal of evidence of PW-2, PW-2 was the sole eye witness of the case and he deposed that there was a ghalata is taken place in between PW-1 and accused. PW-1 has sustained head injury. During his cross examination, PW-2 admitted that he has stated in his section 161

Cr.P.C. statement that he has heard from LW-2 about the alleged incident but not mentioned that he is the eye witness in section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement. PW-2 admitted that there is no share in land in Scene of offence

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 9 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021 to daughter of LW-2. PW-2 stated that he knows PW-1 since his child hood.

On careful perusal of evidence of PW-3, PW-3 is the mediator for CDF and the contents of CDF were admitted by PW-3. Ex. P2 is CDF marked in his evidence. During his cross examination, nothing material was elicited from the evidence of PW-3.

On careful perusal of evidence of PW-4, PW-4, who is the eye witness of the case has turned hostile and did not supported the case of prosecution.

On careful perusal of evidence of PW-5, PW-5, who was another injured i.e., sister in law of PW-1 has deposed that while she was at agricultural land, the accused has trespassed into her land and abused her in filthy language as she is not given dowry to him and bet her with hands.

When PW-1 has interfered, the accused has bet PW-1 with hands initially and again bet him with the stone on his head and PW-1 has sustained head injury and stiches on the head. MO-1 is marked in her evidence. During her cross examination, PW-5 admitted that the accused has eloped her daughter and married her and she has not performed the marriage of accused and her daughter. PW-5 admitted that her daughter filed partition suit against her.

On careful perusal of evidence of PW-6, who is the investigating officer of the case admitted in his cross examination that he does not know the wife of accused is Bharathi and they both reside beside the Scene of offence. PW- 6 admitted that PW-1 has not specified the names of eye witnesses, who are present at the Scene of offence.

14. Upon careful perusal of evidences of prosecution, it is the utmost duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. To prove the case of prosecution, the available witnesses, who are

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 10 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021 examined on record are PW-1, who is the defacto complainant, PW-2 who is eye witness, PW-3, who is mediator for CDF, PW-5 is injured person, PW-6 is investigating officer. On perusal of the evidences, PW-1 and PW-5 are brother in law and sister in law and nearest relatives. Accused is also son in law to PW-5. Both the complainant and accused are relatives to each other as admitted by the parties. It is the case of PW-1 that the accused has criminally trespassed in to the land of PW-1 and kicked PW-5 with legs as such PW-1 has interfered into the Scene of offence and rescued PW-5.

Whereas, PW-5 stated that the accused has come to the Scene of offence and bet her with hands. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1, which is the motive of the alleged incident was not corroborated with evidence of PW-5.

More so ever, PW-1 has not corroborated the said aspect with his section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and Ex. P1. PW-1 stated in his Ex. P1 and section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the accused person has abused PW-5 in filthy language and bet her with hands, where as he stated in chief examination

before the court that the accused has kicked PW-5 with his legs. Therefore,

there is a clear inconsistency of evidence of PW-1 with that of PW-5 and with his section 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Furthermore, PW-1 has denied the stone which was confronted by learned APP in his evidence. Whereas, PW-5 has admitted the said stone as a material object and MO-1 is marked in her evidence. But, the actual injured person to whom the head injury was occurred as alleged by PW-1, the said person has not admitted the material object which was confronted to him. The actual injured person has denied the weapon which was used for commission of offence. But, the prosecution has not confronted the said stone with mediator for CDF, who was examined as PW-3 and not confronted to investigating officer. The actual persons who

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 11 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021 ought to admit the weapon is injured, mediator for CDF, investigating officer. But, here the injured has denied the weapon and the reasons best known to the prosecution, the prosecution has not confronted the material object to the mediator for CDF, in whose presence the said weapon was alleged to be seized and the investigating officer, who has seized the same.

The exact truth can be elicited only from the mouth of PW-3 and PW-6, apart from injured. But, the same was confronted to PW-5 and she has admitted the same, who is only eye witness cum interested witness.

Secondly, PW-5 in her evidence stated that PW-1 has sustained stiches on his head. Whereas, on careful perusal of Ex. P5, the doctor has mentioned that PW-1 has sustained abrasion on head but there was no whisper about stiches sustained by PW-1. Therefore, the ocular evidence is not corelated with evidence of PW-1 and PW-5. Apparently, PW-1 and PW-5 are interested witnesses to each other but not independent witnesses. The sole case was revolved upon an eye witness, who was examined by prosecution i.e., PW-2, whereas, he has not mentioned about any ghalata in between accused and

PW-5 and he admitted in his cross examination that he has mentioned

before the police that he was not eye witness of the case and he has heard

the ghalata from PW-5. This itself shows that PW-2 is the circumstantial witness or hearsay witness but not an eye witness as mentioned by prosecution. Therefore, there is no evidentiary value to the evidence of PW-2 as he has not properly corroborated the contents of PW-1. The investigating officer also admitted that PW-1 has not specified the names of eye witnesses who are present on the alleged date. Therefore, PW-2 is not the eye witness of the case. The mediator of CDF, who was examined as PW-3, though corroborated the contents of prosecution, there is no corroboration with

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 12 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021 respect to the seizure of the weapon i.e., material object with that of injured person, as such, the seizure of MO-1 cannot be taken into consideration.

The only available witnesses are PW-1 and PW-5 and both are interested witnesses and have not corroborated with the contents of prosecution with respect to the material object and injuries sustained by PW-5 and injury sustained by PW-1. Therefore, there is no cogent evidence available on record to prove the guilt of accused person. In the absence of direct and circumstantial witness, this court cannot conclude that the allegations against the accused has attracted beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court safely concludes that the prosecution failed to establish the offence U/s. 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15. In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s. 324, 323 IPC, accordingly he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused persons shall stand discharged subject to Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The material object which was marked as MO-1 that is stone marked vide CPR No. 57 of 2021, dated: 09-02-2021 shall be liable to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 13 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Venkatanna, -Nil-

PW-2: Chandra Shekar,

PW-3: Hazipasha,

PW-4: Ratnam,

PW-5: Shakunthalamma,

PW-6: R. Shekar/IO.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil - Ex. P1 is report,

Ex. P2 is Crime Detail Form,

Ex. P3 is section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4,

Ex. P4 is First Information Report,

Ex. P5 is Wound Certificate of PW-1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Judicial Magistrate of first Class,

Gadwal.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 14 of total 13 Pages C.C. No. 175 of 2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT:

GADWAL

C.C. No. 175 OF 2021

1. Complainant : State, SI of Police, P.S. Maldakal.

2. Cr. No.& Nature of Offence : Cr.No.23/2021, U/s. 324, 323 IPC

3. Name of the accused : Kurva Rajagopal S/o Kurva Anantha, age: 30 years, occ: Farmer, R/o Palwai Village, Maldakal Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. D A T E S:

4.OFFENCE30-01-2021

5.COMPLAINT02-02-2021

6.APPREHENSION OF 06-10-2020

ACCUSED

7.RELEASE ON BAILSec 41-A Cr.P.C notices served to the accused person

8.COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL04-07-2025

9.CLOSURE OF TRIAL06-04-2026

10.SENTENCE OR ORDERIn the result, the Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 324, 323 IPC accordingly he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused person shall stand discharged subject to Section 437-A Cr.P.C. MO-1 which is stone marked vide CPR No. 57 of 2021,

dated: 09-02-2021 shall be liable to

be destroyed.

11.EXPLANATION OF DELAY The prosecution failed to produce AND REMARKSthe witness on time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

To: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal Dis. No.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 1 of Total 13 Pages

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

GADWAL

PRESENT: - SMT. N.V.H. PUJITHA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GADWAL.

FRIDAY, DATED THIS THE 17 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026.

C.C. No. 44 OF 2019

BETWEEN: -

The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police, of P.S. Maldakal. … Complainant

AND

1.V. Babu Goud Uraf Makbul Pasha @ Babu Goud S/o Keshanna Goud, age: 45 years, occ: Agriculture,

2. V. Naresh Goud @ Narendra Goud S/o Keshanna Goud, age: 41 years, occ: Agriculture,

3. Banubai Raju S/o Narsimhulu, age: 21 years, occ: Driver/Agriculture,

4. K. Naresh S/o K. Narsimhulu, age: 19 years, occ: owner of Driv- er/Agriculture,

Accused No.1 to 4 are R/o Maddelabanda Village of Maldakal Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

… Accused no.1 to 4

This case is coming before me on 16-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and

Sri. S. Srikanth, Advocate for the Accused no’s. 1 to 4 and the matter hav- ing stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the follow- ing: -

J U D G M E N T

1. The State being represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Mal- dakal laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.104 of 2018for the offence punishable Under Section. 447, 427, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC.

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 2 of Total 13 Pages

The Case of The Prosecution in A Brief is as follows:

2. The case facts in a capsule are that on 02-08-2018 at 20:00 hours the complainant Sri. V. Sharath Babu came to police station Maldakal and lodged a telugu petition in which he stated that, he and his blood relatives have agriculture land in Sy. No. 176/Paiki and Sy. No. 177 of extent of Ac.

14-00 guntas, which is situated in Maddelabanda village Shivar. On 29-07- 2018 at 10:00 hours his villagers were without intimate and without know- ing of petitioner they trespassed criminally into above land and plowed Ac.

14-00 guntas land with Tractor bearing No. TS33 A 1097 along with tractor drivers Raju. Few years onwards the complainant Migrated for employment.

Basing on the complainant not presence in local area the alleged persons plowed the complainant. Land, and also the above persons went near com- plainant relatives house in drunken condition and abused them in filthy language. Hence, the report.

As per the contents of the above statement, he, LW-7 registered a case in

Cr. No. 104/2018, under section 447, 427, 504 r/w 34 IPC and sent the

FIR’s to all concerned officers.

During the course of investigation, he, LW-7 have examined and record- ed the statement of LW-1 to LW-2 under section 161(3) Cr.P.C at police sta- tion Maldakal collected land Xerox passbooks and incorporated in part-II

C.D. due to late hours he, LW-7 did not visited Scene of offence on same day.

On 03-08-2018, he , LW-7 visited Scene of offence, which is situated at the fields of LW-1 to LW-2 at Maddelabanda Village outskirts of Maldakal

Mandal towards west direction at a distance of 6 Kms to the police station

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 3 of Total 13 Pages

Maldakal, secured presence two mediators LW-5 and LW-6 conducted Scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene in crime and detail form by depicting its surroundings and also taken photographs of scene of crime further, he, LW-7 has examined and recorded the statement of LW’s-3 to LW-4 under section 161(3) Cr.P.C and incorporated in part-II

CD.

On 03-08-2018, 06-08-2018, he, LW-7 served notice under section 91 and 160 Cr.P.C to respondent persons accused No.1 to 4 for land docu- ments and owner ship particulars, but the respondent persons does not produce any supporting land documents to responds.

On 05-10-2018 collected revenue documents from Maldakal MRO office and the revenue documents finalized that the land belongs to LW-1 and LW- 2 and his blood relatives and accused persons does not have any land in that survey number.

On 08-10-2018, he, LW-7 served notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C to accused No.1 to 4 and directed them to appear before Hon’ble court as and when summoned. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence U/s.447, 427, 504 R/w 34 of

IPC against the Accused No.1 to 4. After appearance of the Accused persons, the copies of the documents were furnished to them as required U/s. 207

Cr.P.C. The Accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/s. 251 of Cr.P.C, the substance of accusations is leveled against accused persons are explained in

Telugu and the Accused No.1 to 4 are pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 4 of Total 13 Pages

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 4, the prosecution got examined i.e. PW-1 to PW-4 and Ex. P1 to P5 are marked.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused persons were exam- ined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused per- sons denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence on their side.

6. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned Counsel for the accused persons.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved its case by proving the substance

of accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 427, 504 r/w 34 of

IPC against the accused no’s. 1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt?

8. The learned APP argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e.,

PW-1 to PW-4 clearly proving the guilt of the accused as such she prayed the court to convict the Accused.

9. The case of the accused No.1 to 4 total denial. The learned Accused coun- sel argued that that the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 are not corroborative in material aspects, they turned hostile and hence prayed this court to acquit the accused persons.

10. In order to establish the offence u/s.447 IPC, the prosecution has to es- tablish the following ingredients: “Punishment for criminal trespass:Who- ever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of ei- ther description for a term which may extend to three months, with fine or which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 5 of Total 13 Pages

In order to establish the offence u/s.427 IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees. —

Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

In order to establish the offence u/s.504 IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients: Intentional insult with intent to pro- voke breach of the peace.

Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be pun- ished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

11. The prosecution has to establish the ingredients of the above sections against the accused beyond all the reasonable doubt. On behalf of prosecu- tion, PW-1 to PW-4 and Ex. P1 to Ex. P5 got marked.

12. PW-1 by name Sharath Babu, who is the de-facto complainant of the case deposed in his evidence that on 29-07-2018 at around 10:00 AM to 04:00 PM, the accused persons have criminally trespassed into his land in

Sy. No. 176, 177 to an extent of Ac. 13-00 guntas. Out of that he has Ac. 3- 00 guntas, his brother by name Srinivas Goud S/o Pedda Naganna Goud is having land to an extent of Ac. 03-00 guntas, Hanuman Goud S/o Pedda

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 6 of Total 13 Pages

Naganna Goud i.e., his brother is having land to an extent of Ac. 3-00 gun- tas and his father i.e., Pedda Naganna Goud is having Ac. 4-00 guntas. The accused persons have ploughed the land with Mahindra tractor bearing No.

TS 33 A 1097 and the driver of the tractor is one Raju S/o G. Narsimhulu,

Naresh S/o K. Narsimhulu i.e., accused No.3 and 4. He was at Gulbarga at the time of alleged incident. He was informed by LW-3 through phone and he came to Scene of offence on 30-07-2018. On the same day, he went to the police station but SI was not present as such he has not taken the com- plaint. On 02-08-2018, he has lodged the Telugu written report before SI.

Ex. P1 is report. The signature on report is belongs to him. Ex. P2 is CC of 1(B) Namuna got marked in his evidence.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, he admitted that he is living at Gulbarga and he will not stay at Maddelabanda Village. It is true that the mother of accused persons and accused persons have filed a parti- tion suit against him and his brothers vide OS. No. 90/2008 on the file

Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Gadwal and the court has decreed the

equal partition to all of us. He was not eye-witness of the case. He has not mentioned the boundaries in his section 161 Cr.P.C. statement as well as

Ex. P1. It is true that after the pronouncement of the said decree, they have not appointed any surveyor and laid boundaries and not demarcated their shares as per the decree. The learned defense counsel has confronted the certified copy of the decree, for which witness identified the same and he al- so stated that he was defendant No.5 in the said decree. Ex. D1 is CC of de- cree in OS No. 90/2008.

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 7 of Total 13 Pages

13. PW-2 by name Sridhar Goud, who is eye-witness of the case deposed in his evidence that in the month of July-2018, accused persons have plough- ing the land of PW-1, which is in Sy. No. 126, 127. He is the neighboring land owner of PW-1 and he has witnessed the same. He has informed PW-1 over phone on the same day. After two to three days, PW-1 has lodged the report.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-2, he admitted that it is true that mother of the accused persons and accused persons have filed a partition suit against him and PW-1. The court has decreed equal partition among us. Police examine him and recorded his statement after two or three days. Except PW-1, he has not informed to any persons in the village as well as police officials.

14. PW-3 by name Buddanna, who is panch witness of the case deposed in his evidence that police have not conducted Scene of offence panchanama in his presence and in the presence of LW-6. The signature on the Scene of of- fence panchanama is belongs to him. He has affixed his signature on white papers. He does not know the contents of Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.

P3 is signature of PW-3 on Scene of offence panchanama got marked in his evidence.

15. PW-4 by name S. Krishna Obula Reddy, who is investigating officer de- posed in his evidence that on 02-08-2018 at around 08:00 PM, he has re- ceived a complaint from PW-1 and basing on which he has registered the case in Crime No. 104/2018, U/s. 447, 427, 504 r/w 34 IPC. He has rec- orded the statements of PW-1, LW-2 at police station, Maldakal and on same day, he has visited the Scene of offence and conducted Scene of offence pan-

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 8 of Total 13 Pages chanama in the presence of panch witnesses i.e., PW-3 and LW-6 and rec- orded the statements of PW-2, LW-4 at Scene of offence. He has served 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to accused persons. After completion of the entire investigation he has filed charge sheet against the accused persons. Ex. P4 is FIR, Ex. P5 is CDF were marked in his evidence.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-4, he admitted that it is true that there is a three days delay for lodging the report. He does not know the properties/land in Scene of offence belongs to one Keshanna Goud, who is the father of the accused No.1 and 2. He does not know about any parti- tion decree. He has served 91 Cr.P.C notices to accused No.1 to 4 but, they have not given any documents. He has collected documents from MRO of- fice. He has not seized any tractors. He has taken photographs from the

Scene of offence and same was not filed before this court.

16. Upon perusing the evidence on record and exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution, it is germane to mention that the essential ingredients of the section 441 of IPC are the following:

1) Entry into or upon property in the possession of another.

2) If such entry is lawful, then unlawfully remaining upon such property.

3) Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with an intent -

a) to commit an offence: or

b) to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of the property.

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 9 of Total 13 Pages

17. Upon pondering to the above essential ingredients, it reflects that sec- tion 441 of IPC is aimed to protect possession. Further, the gravamen of the offence is the criminal intention.

18. It is the case of prosecution that PW-1 is the de-facto complainant has filed the present case stating that on 29-07-2018 at around 10:00 AM, the accused persons have criminally trespassed in to his land in Sy. No 176, 177 to an extent of Ac. 13-00 guntas and out of the same, PW-1 has Ac. 3- 00 guntas of land. The accused persons are ploughed the land with that tractor bearing No. TS33 A 1097 and the driver of the tractor is one Raju.

PW-2 to PW-4 have corroborated the contents of PW-1 and prosecution prays the court to convict the accused persons.

19. Per contra, it is the case of accused that the keeping on civil disputes and partition disputes in mind, PW-1 has lodged the false report. Therefore, the counsel of accused prays the court to acquit accused persons.

20. Upon perusal of entire evidences on record, PW-1 is the de-facto com- plainant has filed the present case stating that on 29-07-2018 at around 10:00 AM, the accused persons have criminally trespassed in to his land in

Sy. No 176, 177 to an extent of Ac. 13-00 guntas and out of the same, PW-1 has Ac. 3-00 guntas of land. The accused persons are ploughed the land with that tractor bearing No. TS33 A 1097 and the driver of the tractor is one Raju. PW-1 has came to know about the alleged incident through LW-3.

PW-1 has come to the Scene of offence on 30-07-2018 and lodged the report on 02-08-2018. During his cross examination, PW-1 admitted that he is not the eye witness of this case and he resides at Gulbarga but not at Mad- delabanda Village. PW-1 as admitted that the mother of the accused persons

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 10 of Total 13 Pages and accused persons have filed a partition suit against him and his brothers vide OS. No.90 of 2008 on the file of Hon’ble SCJ court and the said court has decreed the equal partition among parties. Ex. D1 is marked in his evi- dence. PW-1 also admitted that he has not appointed any surveyor and laid boundaries and not demarcated their shares as per the decree.

On careful perusal of evidence of PW-2, PW-2 is the only eye witness of this case who has informed to PW-1 about the incident. During his cross examination, PW-2 admitted that there was partition suit among the parties and PW-1 is his brother and court has decreed equal partition. PW-3, who is mediator for CDF has turned hostile and did not supported the case of pros- ecution.

On careful perusal of evidence of PW-4, during his cross examination, the investigating officer admitted that he does not know about any partition decree and he has obtained any photographs from the Scene of offence but same was not filed before this court.

21. Upon careful perusal evidence on record, to prove the ingredients under section 447 IPC, the prosecution has to established that the accused per- sons must have criminally trespassed the land in Scene of offence. To prove the same, the prosecution has relied on PW-1, PW-2, PW-4. As PW-3 was hostile, his evidence cannot be considered. Out of the available witnesses of the prosecution, PW-1 is the de-facto complainant who was not eye witness of this case, PW-2 is only eye witness of this case. PW-2 is an interested wit- ness as he is none other than cousin brother of PW-1. More so ever, it is an admitted fact by the parties that there was a civil suit decreed among the parties, which is the partition suit directing the accused persons as well as

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 11 of Total 13 Pages the mother of the accused persons and PW-1, PW-2 for equal partition per- taining to the said property. PW-1 also admitted that he has no preferred any appeal over the partition suit. PW-1 and father of PW-2 are parties to the said decree. When there was no appeal preferred till date, the decree passed by Hon’ble senior civil judge court, dated; 02-02-2015 is valid in eye of law till date and binding on the parties. When there is a clear decree in favor of accused persons and PW-1, it is clear and apparent that the ac- cused persons have legal right to enter into the property by virtue of Ex. D1 as they are having rights over the property. This itself shows that the ac- cused persons have not trespassed the land in Scene of offence but in deed entered into the property by virtue of a legal right as per Ex. D1. Therefore, the accused persons are having legal right to enter into the property. Except

PW-2, there are no circumstantial witnesses to corroborate the evidence of

PW-1. Moreover, considering the legal right of accused persons, this court concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients under section 447 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

22. Secondly, when the first ingredient has failed to establish by the prose- cution, there is no necessity for discussing the sections under 427, 504 IPC.

More so ever, either PW-1 or PW-2 have not mentioned what was the dam- age or mischief caused by accused persons in the land of PW-1 and there was no averment with respect to the insult caused by accused persons in both the respective evidences. Therefore, in the absence of evidence relating to above offences, the court safely concludes that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients under section 427, 504 IPC. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused No.1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt and

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 12 of Total 13 Pages the Accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, point is an- swered.

23. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon care- ful scrutiny and evaluation of evidence on record it could be seen that no ev- idence was brought on record by the prosecution to prove the act of the ac- cused persons falling in the arena of criminally trespassing in to the land of the PW-1 and thereby causing loss or damage to the PW-1. Therefore, upon cogitation of the surrounding circumstances, probabilities, intrinsic merit and the manner in which evidence was testified by the witnesses, this court is of the view that there is no persuasive evidence against the accused per- sons for securing his conviction. In the light of discussion made supra, I am inclined to extent benefit of doubt to the accused persons. Therefore, the ac- cused persons are entitled for acquittal.

24. In the result, the Accused No’s. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the of- fences punishable U/Sec’s. 447, 427, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and they were ac- quitted U/s. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be can- celled and the unmarked case property, if any shall be made absolute after appeal time is over. No property was deposited before this court as such there is no property order.

Typed to my dictation by copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 13 of Total 13 Pages

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

PW-1: Sharath Babu, -Nil-

PW-2: Sridhar Goud,

PW-3: Buddanna,

PW-4: S. Krishna Obula Reddy/IO.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE: Ex. P1 is report, Ex. D1 is CC of decree in OS. Ex. P2 is CC of 1(B) Namuna, No. 90/2008. Ex. P3 is signature of PW-3 on Scene of offence pan- chanama,

Ex. P4 is First Information Report,

Ex. P5 is Crime Details Form.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 14 of Total 13 Pages

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT GADWAL

C.C. No. 44 OF 2019

1. Complainant : State, SI of Police, P.S. Maldakal

2. Cr. No. & Nature of Offence : Cr. No. 104 of 2018, U/Sec’s. 447, 427, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC,

3. Name of the accused :

1. V. Babu Goud Uraf Makbul Pasha @ Babu Goud S/o Keshanna Goud, age: 45 years, occ: Agriculture,

2. V. Naresh Goud @ Narendra Goud S/o Keshanna Goud, age: 41 years, occ: Agriculture,

3. Banubai Raju S/o Narsimhulu, age: 21 years, occ: Driver/Agriculture,

4. K. Naresh S/o K. Narsimhulu, age: 19 years, occ: owner of Driv- er/Agriculture, Accused No.1 to 4 are R/o Maddelabanda Village of Maldakal Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. D A T E S:

4. OFFENCE 29-07-2018

5. COMPLAINT 02-08-2018

6. APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED Accused No.1 to 4 on 02-08-2018

7. RELEASE ON BAIL Served Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused persons.

8. COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL 04-12-2025

9. CLOSURE OF TRIAL 12-03-2026

10. SENTENCE OR ORDER In the result, the Accused No’s. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec’s. 447, 427, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and they were acquitted U/s. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled subjected to Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months. No property was deposited before this court as such there is no property order.

11. EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND The prosecution failed to produce the REMARKS witness on time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal. To: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal Dis. No.

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

C.C. No. 44 of 2019 Page 15 of Total 13 Pages

Smt. NVH. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 1 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 404 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GADWAL

Thursday, Dated this the 16 th day of April, 2026.

Present: Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

C.C. No. 404 of 2021

Between: State Police through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Maldakal.

...Complainant

And

1.Yerukali Hussain S/o Savaranna, age: 38 years, occ: Business,

2. Yerukali Veeresh S/o Ramudu, age: 21 years, occ: Farmer,

3. Yerukali Thimmappa S/o Ramudu, age: 30 years, occ: Business, Accused No.1 to 3 are R/o Maldakal Village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

...Accused No.1 to 3

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 10-04-2026 in the presence of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and

Sri. K. Chandra Mohan, Advocate for accused persons upon perusing the evidence the material on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Maldakal police station laid charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences under Section 420 of IPC and

Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

2. Brief facts of the Charge sheet: -

That on 21-12-2020 at 12:30 hours the complainant/Sri. K. Korra

Keshava stated that on 21-12-2020 at around 09:00 hours getting reliable information regarding illegal storage of PDS rice in Yeddulagudem village of

Maldakal Mandal, on that complainant informed to SIP, Maldakal. On receiving intimation SIP, Maldakal deputed one PC 3009, G. Yellappa, PC 3072 CS Kumar. Then complainant and PC 3009, 3072 went to beside of

Nagender Reddy House, Yeddulagudem village and found 40 bags PDS rice

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 2 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 404 of 2021 (15.20 quintals). After complainant enquiry known that, the accused persons were purchased PDS rice from Yeddulagudem villagers per KG Rs.

10/- rupees and after collected huge of PDS rice, same was transported to

Raichur, Karnataka State for getting more profit. After conducted seizure panchanama and above PDS rice shifted MLC Point, Ieeja. The above PDS rice by taking three samples of each (one for court and one for test, one for police station) in the presence said mediators by pasting the panch signature chits. Finally, he requested necessary legal action as per law against the above accused persons. Hence, the report.

Basing on the above contents LW-8 had registered a case in Cr. No.

234/2020, under section 420 r/w 34 IPC and section 7 of Essential

Commodities Act and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW-8 had examined and recorded the statement of complainant LW-1 to 3 under section 161(3) Cr.P.C at police station and incorporated in part-II CD.

On same day, LW-8 visited Scene of offence which is at beside of

Nagender Reddy House, Yeddulagudem village towards East direction at a distance of 2 KM to the police station Maldakal, secured presence of two mediators LW-6 and LW-7 conducted Scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene in crime details form by depicting its surroundings.

On same day LW-1 has handed over the PDS rice to the Stock point, civil supplies corporation Gadwal for safe custody and taken receipt.

Further, LW-8 served Notices under section 41-A Cr.P.C to accused No.1 to 3 and directed him to appear before investigation officer/SHO on 24-12- 2020 at police station Maldakal.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 3 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 404 of 2021

Resumed further investigation of this case, today LW-9 took up the investigation of this case verified the investigation done by the LW-8 found to be on proper lines.

On 19-03-2021, the LW-9 has served notice under section 41-A

Cr.P.C to the accused No.1 to 3 with instructions to appear before Hon’ble court as and when summoned.

On 22-12-2020, LW-1 send seized sample PDS rice to District civil supply officer Gadwal for test purpose and collected lab report, on 03-04- 2021 received report from district civil supply office and test report as “Sample is of suspected PDS rice in nature”. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. On appearance of the accused persons, they were served with copies U/s.

207 Cr.P.C. The accused persons were examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C wherein the charges leveled against them was explained in Telugu for which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW-1 to PW-6 were examined and Ex. P1 to Ex. P8 were marked, the learned APP has given up the evidences of LW-2, LW-8. After closure of prosecution evidence accused persons were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C wherein the incriminating material leveled against them explained in Telugu for which the accused persons pleaded not guilty.

5. Heard arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused persons.

6. Now the point for determination is

"Whether the prosecution has to establish the offences U/s. 420

of IPC and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act beyond all reasonable

doubt or not?"

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 4 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 404 of 2021

7. During the course of trial, PW-1 by name K. Korra Keshava, who is de- facto complainant of the case deposed in his evidence that he has received a phone call from SI that a reliable information of illegal storage of PDS rice at

Yeddulagudem village on 21-12-2020. Immediately, he went to station and taken two constables along with him and proceeded to Yeddulagudem

Village of Maldakal Mandal. On their enquiry, the PDS rice was present beside the house of one Nagendra Reddy. They found 40 pockets of PDS rice and total weight about 15 quintals of PDS rice. They have seized those PDS rice and placed for safe custody at MLS point at Ieeja in an auto. A2 and A3 has purchased those PDS rice from ration card holder for Rs. 10/- per kg and transporting to the Raichur for selling for higher prices. Later, they have seized the PDS rice and taken the accused person to police station. At police station he has conducted panchanama in presence of panch witnesses i.e.,

VRA’s (2). He has also lodged complaint in police station. Ex. P1 is

Confession cum seizure panchanama, dated: 21-12-2020, Ex. P2 is report got marked in their evidence.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, he admitted that

PDS rice was present at the outside of the house. He cannot say the house number. One Nagendra has not intimated to us about the presence of PDS rice. He is not the expert to determine the PDS rice. He has sent the samples to expert opinion. He has not examined any villagers. The panchanama was conducted at police station in presence of SI, panch witnesses, LW-2 and

LW-3. The accused were not present at the time of panchanama.

8. PW-2 by name Chinna Bichanna, PW-3 by name Chakali Narsimha, who are panch witnesses of the case deposed in their evidence that they did not know the accused persons. Police has not conducted seizure

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 5 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 404 of 2021 panchanama in their presence and in the presence of LW-6 and PW-2. The signature on the Confession cum seizure panchanama is belongs to them.

They have affixed their signatures on white papers. They did not know the contents of Confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex. P3 is signature of PW- 2 on Confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex. P4 is signature of PW-3 on

Confession cum seizure panchanama got marked in their evidence.

9. PW-4 by name C.S. Kumar, who is eye-witness of the case deposed in his evidence that on 21-12-2020 at around 09:00 AM, PW-1 came to the police station and reported that there was an illegal transportation of PDS rice at

Yeddulagudem village. As such, on instructions of SI, he along with LW-2 went to Yeddulagudem Village and they found PDS rice before the house of

Nagendra Reddy. There are about 40 bags of PDS rice which are about 15 quintals of rice. On enquiry they came to know that those rice belongs to accused persons. Those rice was present in Bolero vehicle. Accused persons are not present at Scene of offence. They have taken the seized PDS rice to the police station. The accused persons were called to police station and conducted panchanama.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-4, he admitted that he has not witnessed that the accused persons are dumping the PDS rice

before the house of one Nagendra Reddy. They have weighed the PDS rice.

PW-1 has determined that rice as PDS rice. They have not obtained any photographs. They have examined neighboring witnesses and one Nagendra

Reddy.

10. PW-5 by name B. Narsimhulu, who is panch witness of the case deposed in his evidence that Police has not conducted Scene of offence panchanama in his presence and in the presence of LW-6. The signature on

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 6 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 404 of 2021 the Scene of offence panchanama is belongs to him. He has affixed his signature on white papers. He does not know the contents of Scene of offence panchanama. Ex. P5 is signature on Scene of offence panchanama got marked in his evidence.

11. PW-6 by name R. Shekar, who is investigation officer deposed in his evidence that on 21-12-2020 at around 12:30 AM, LW-8 has received credible information about illegal transportation of PDS rice, as such, PW-4 along with LW-2, PW-4 went to Scene of offence and PW-1 has conducted

Confession cum seizure panchanama. Basing on the Confession cum seizure panchanama, LW-8 has registered a case in Cr.No.234/2020 U/s.

section 420 r/w 34 IPC, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. During the investigation LW-8 has recorded the statements of witnesses of PW-1 and

PW-4, LW-2 at police station. On same day, LW-8 has conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of PW-5 and LW-6. Later, entire case file was handed over to him. He can identify the signature of LW-8. Witness identified the signature of LW-8 on FIR. He has served 41-A Cr.P.C notices to accused persons. He has sent the seized sample PDS rice to district civil supplies office for the purpose of chemical analysis and received the report. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused persons. Ex. P6 is FIR, Ex. P7 is CDF,

Ex. P8 is receipts, dated: 21-12-2020 that the depositing of PDS rice before

MLS point got marked in his evidence.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-6, he admitted that

Accused No.1 and 2 are native of Maldakal Village. He does not know the number of the plot of the Scene of offence. He has not collected the ownership certificate of the plot. He has not examined the neighboring

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 7 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 404 of 2021 witnesses.

10. In order to establish the offence U/s. 420 of IPC, the following ingredients must be established by the prosecution that "It deals with the cases of cheating whereby the deceived person is dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy a) the whole or any part of a valuable security or b) anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.

11. In order to establish the offence U/s. 7 of Essential Commodities Act the prosecution must have proven that accused has contravened the order or

Gazette notification or any circular or proceedings the Central Government with respect to the Essential Commodities and further accused is having an intention of committing the act of selling, distributing or production of essential commodities in contravention or order or rules or regulations issued by the government or provided under the Act.

12. Upon perusing the entire evidences on record, as well as the depositions and Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses, apart from

PW-1, PW-4, PW-6 none were supported the case of prosecution. As per

Essential Commodities Act, Sec. 6A, wherein it authorized and contemplates that the District Collector or any person who is authorized by District

Collector (Civil Supplies) to conduct inspection, enquiry, seizure of any contraband i.e., essential commodities under the Act. Further if any person of the Civil Supplies Department or police officials seizes any contraband i.e., essential commodities have to report the same to the District Collector immediately and also obtain the authorization of the District Collector which is mandatory U/s. 6A of Essential Commodities Act. Further, as per the Act, the only person who has power to conduct the inspection, enquiry and

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 8 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 404 of 2021 seizure under the Act is District Collector or Civil Supplies Department or any person who was authorized by the District Collector which should be in written.

13. On perusing the entire evidence on record and hearing the arguments of both learned counsels. Apart from PW-1, PW-4, PW-6 none have supported the prosecution case and PW-1 is the Deputy Tahsildar Civil Supplies had conducted the confession panchanama which is marked as Ex. P1, PW-4 is constable, who had witnessed the incident and PW-6, investigating officer and on such panchanama and report, the SHO himself has registered a crime and conducted the investigation and issued FIR. To prove the alleged incident and panchanama, on behalf of prosecution, PW-2 and PW-3 are examined and both mediators for Confession cum seizure panchanama, to prove the seizure and confession of the accused persons, such confession shall be recorded by a person in presence of independent witnesses and then only such confession and seizure was admissible according to Indian

Evidence Act. Further, on perusal of record, PW-2 and PW-3 were turned hostile and did not support the contents of confession cum seizure panchanama and also the prosecution case. Further, the mediator for Scene of offence panchanama i.e., PW-5 has turned hostile and did not supported the case of prosecution to prove the contents of CDF. The learned APP has given up LW-2, LW-8, who are constable and head constable, as such, this court has closed the evidence of LW-2, LW-8. Hence to prove the Ex. P1 other than the PW-1, who is Deputy Tahsildar, PW-4 is constable, who had witnessed the incident and PW-6, investigating officer of this case, none were been corroborated with the evidence of PW-6. None of the official witnesses as well not deposed that from where this reliable information has

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 9 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 404 of 2021 come and who have called initially to whom to apprehend the accused basing on the reliable information and also not stated who had got first reliable information regarding the alleged incident. This itself shows that there was a clumsiness in the minds of witnesses before deposing the evidence and an inference can be drawn whether the alleged incident took place or not. PW-1 also states that the accused himself confessed the PDS rice. However, confession cum seizure panchanama was not proved and therefore, the confession of accused as well as seizure of PDS rice and Scene of offence panchanama could not be taken into consideration and not even admissible in the eye of law. Furthermore, as per the procedure of Sec.6A of

EC Act, whenever the incident has occurred the duty of the Deputy

Tahsildar is to intimate to District Civil Supplies and obtain written permission to give a report to the police station but there was no whisper of such information to the District Civil Supplies Officer in this case since there was no written undertaking marked in this case. PW-6 being a Sub-

Inspector has no authorization to file the present case and no authority to depose evidence in this case as well because there are no written proceedings from Tahsildar or District Collector or Civil Supplies

Department to register the present case which is mandatory U/s.6 A of E.C.

Act. Further PW-1, who is employee of Civil supply department was examined on behalf of prosecution has conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and also lodged the report before the police station, but he has no written instructions. Therefore, PW-6, who is an SI has no authorization to investigate in the present case as per procedure of EC Act.

14. Since the panchas for confession cum seizure panchanama has turned hostile the confession was in question that whether the seized PDS rice was

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 10 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 404 of 2021 seized by PW-1 in presence of this mediators and even from the possession of accused or not is nothing but implicating the accused in this case without following proper procedure and is only for statistical purpose, the present case was made by office of PW-1, PW-6 without following Sec.6A of E.C Act.

Further, here also there is no whisper that how much of weight except seized PDS rice since the weighed or not weighed by weighing machine which was not mentioned by PW-1, PW-6 and how much samples were taken from the seized PDS rice was not known to this court and even the

Investigating Officer not submitted before this court that he has not intending to send the samples to FSL and also not obtained any prior intimation from this court. Hence, Sec.6A of EC Act is not followed by the investigation officer i.e., PW-6 and also PW-4 i.e., constable, PW-1, who is

Deputy Tahsildar. Due to lack of procedure and lack of direct witnesses or circumstantial witnesses the prosecution could not be able to prove the case

U/s.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of E.C. Act.

15. In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences

U/s.420 of IPC and Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Hence the accused persons are entitled for acquittal U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C and the bail bonds if any are stands cancelled. Since no property was deposited as such there is no order with regard to the property.

Typed my dictation by Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of April, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 11 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 404 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: - Defense: -

PW-1: Keshava, -None- PW-2: Chinna Bichanna,

PW-3: Chakali Narsimha,

PW-4: C.S. Kumar,

PW-5: Bobli Narsimhulu, PW-6: R. Shekar.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: - Defense: -

-Nil-

Ex. P1 is Confession cum seizure panchanama, dated:21-12-2020,

Ex. P2 is report,

Ex. P3 is signature of PW-2 on Confession cum seizure panchanama,

Ex. P4 is signature of PW-3 on Confession cum seizure panchanama,

Ex. P5 is signature of PW-5 on Scene of offence panchanama,

Ex. P6 is first information report,

Ex. P7 is crime details form,

Ex. P8 is receipts, dated: 21-12-2020 that the depositing of PDS rice before

MLS point.

Material objects marked:

-Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 12 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 404 of 2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT GADWAL.

C.C. No. 404 OF 2021

1. Complainant : State, SI of Police, P.S, Maldakal.

2. Cr. No. & Nature of Offence : Cr.No.234 of 2020 U/Sec. 420 of IPC and Sec.7 of E.C Act.

3. Description of the accused : 1.Yerukali Hussain S/o Savaranna, age: 38 years, occ: Business,

2. Yerukali Veeresh S/o Ramudu, age: 21 years, occ: Farmer,

3. Yerukali Thimmappa S/o Ramudu, age: 30 years, occ: Business, Accused No.1 to 3 are R/o Maldakal Village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. D A T E S:

4.OFFENCE21-12-2020

5.COMPLAINT21-12-2020

6.APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED21-12-2020

7.RELEASE ON BAILSec 41-A Cr.P.C notice served to the accused No.1 to 3

8.COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL04-08-2025

9.CLOSURE OF TRIAL09-04-2026

10.SENTENCE OR ORDERIn the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.420 of IPC and Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Hence the accused persons are entitled for acquittal U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C and the bail bonds if any are stands cancelled. Since no property was deposited as such there is no order with regard to the property.

11.EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND The prosecution failed to produce the REMARKSwitness on time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal. To: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal Dis. No.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 1 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 419 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GADWAL

Thursday, Dated this the 16 th day of April, 2026.

Present: Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

C.C. No. 419 of 2022

Between: State Police through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Ieeja.

...Complainant

And

1.Boya Anjaneyulu S/o Boya Pedda Rangappa, age: 26 years,

2. Boya Veeresh S/o Late. Rangappa, age: 20 years, Accused No.1 and 2 are occ: Driver, R/o H. No. 1/81/C, K.T. Doddi Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District,

3. Boya Nagaraju S/o Gajjenna, age: 24 years, occ: Coolie R/o H. No. 3-3, K.T. Doddi village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District (Died).

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 09-04-2026 in the presence of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri.

M. Venkatesh, Advocate for Accused persons upon perusing the evidence the material on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ieeja police station laid charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences under Section 420 of IPC and Sec. 7 of

Essential Commodities Act.

2. Brief facts of the Charge sheet: -

That on 30-05-2022 at 14:00 hours on reliable information bout illegal transportation of PDS rice, LW-6 along with LW-1 to LW-3 conducting vehicles checking near "T" road Chowrastha, Ieeja stopped the vehicle and on inspect found it registration as TS33 T4469 and there were three persons in the vehicle with rice bags. On enquiry tri failed to show to transport rice.

On questioning they were in mood to confess something. As such LW-6

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 2 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 419 of 2022 secured the presence of mediators i.e., LW-4 and LW-5 and recorded confession statement of accused No.1 in which he confessed that about three months back he had purchased a bolero vehicle bearing No. TS33 T 4469. He started to earn money by transporting agriculture labors to other places on his vehicle. But he is getting less income. In order to earn money, he engaged Boya Veeresh. He collected Government distributed rice (Public

Distribution System) from Vemula and Shabad villagers on low price per 1

KG Rs. 8/- to sell higher price per 1KG Rs. 12 at Karnataka State. On 30- 05-2022 at 10:30 hours loaded 75 plastic bags each bag containing 40 KGs on his bolero vehicle and started to go to Raichur. At 14:00 hours while transporting to Raichur on the way Ieeja police apprehended. Seized 75 bags

PDS rice cover of panchanama and pasted panch chits in which collected 1

KG rice for sending to Food Security office and 1 KG rice to deposit in court.

Hence, the report.

Further recorded confession statement accused No.2 in which he stated the same version of accused No.1 and also confessed that he had a case in Madhavaram police of Andhra Pradesh state over PDS rice transport.

Thereafter recorded the statement of accused No.3, who also stated the same version of accused No.1, accused No.2 and also stated that he had a case in Pebbair police station.

On minutely examined scene situated on SH-49 leads Kurnool from

Raichur at “T” road towards East direction at a distance of 1 KM from Ieeja police station. In presence of above mediators drown its rough sketch rough sketch in crime detail form.

Returned to police station on 30-05-2022 at 15:00 hours basing on the above confession cum seizure panchanama. LW-6 registered a case in

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 3 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 419 of 2022

Cr. No. 96 of 2022 under section 420 IPC and section 7 of Essential

Commodities Act and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation LW-6 recorded the statements of

LW-1 to LW-3 under section 161(3) Cr.P.C incorporated in part-II CDs at police station.

On 30-05-2022, LW-6 served notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C accused No.1 to 3. In compliance to notice on 31-05-2022 accused No.1 to 3 submitted their address proofs, as such served notice under section 41-A (3)

Cr.P.C to them directing to appear before the Hon’ble court as and when receive summons from the court to face onwards trial.

The seized rice 30 quintals (75 bags) handed to MLS point of Civil supplies enforcement, Ieeja and obtained acknowledgement.

On the requisition of LW-6, Telangana State Civil supplies corporation limited Jogulamba Gadwal inspected seized rice and opined through letter Lr. No. QC/Analysis-11/2018-19, dated: 08-06-2022 that ‘Gr-

A (SANNA BIYYAM). Hence, the charge sheet.

3. On appearance of the accused persons, they were served with copies U/s.

207 Cr.P.C. The accused persons were examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C wherein the charges leveled against them was explained in Telugu for which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW-1 to PW-4 were examined and Ex. P1 to Ex. P9 were marked, the learned APP has given up the evidences of LW-1 and LW-3. After closure of prosecution evidence accused persons were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C wherein the incriminating material leveled against them explained in Telugu for which the accused persons pleaded not guilty.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 4 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 419 of 2022

5. Heard arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused persons.

6. Now the point for determination is

"Whether the prosecution has to establish the offences U/s. 420

of IPC and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act beyond all reasonable

doubt or not?"

7. During the course of trial, PW-1 by name Eeranna Goud, PW-2 by name

Thimmaraju Goud, who are panch witnesses of the case deposed in their evidences that Police has not conducted Confession cum seizure panchanama and Scene of offence panchanama in their presence and in the presence of LW-5. The signature on the Confession cum seizure panchanama and Scene of offence panchanama is belongs to them. They have affixed their signatures on white papers. They did not know the contents of Confession cum seizure panchanama and Scene of offence panchanama. Ex. P1 is signature on Confession cum seizure panchanama,

Ex. P2 is signature on Scene of offence panchanama got marked in their evidence.

8. PW-3 by name B. Ramanjaneyulu, who is eye-witness of the case deposed in his evidence that on 30-05-2022 at around 01:30 PM, on instructions of our SI, he along with LW-1, LW-3 went to vehicle checking at “T” Junction Ieeja. They found one bolero vehicle bearing No. TS33 T 4469 proceeding from Kurnool and they have stopped the vehicle and found three persons in the vehicle and also verified their details. They found 75 plastic bags of PDS rice each contains 40 Kgs i.e., total of 30 quintal of PDS rice.

The accused persons have confessed that they have purchased the PDS rice from Vemula, Shabad villages and selling the same for higher prices at

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 5 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 419 of 2022

Karnataka State. SI has conducted Confession cum seizure panchanama in presence of PW-1 and PW-2. Witness identified the accused persons.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-3, he admitted that the distance between police station and Scene of offence is 400 meters. After half an hour, the suspected vehicle was proceeding towards us. The Scene of offence is busy locality. The panchanama was conducted at around 01:30 to 01:45 PM. They have not taken any photographs and video graphs. He has not collected any RC of the vehicle. SI has weighed the bags at the Scene of offence.

9. PW-4 by name E. Naresh Kumar, who is investigation officer deposed in his evidence that on 30-05-2022 at around 02:00 PM, he has conducted

Confession cum seizure panchanama and the seized PDS rice from the possession of accused persons along with the bolero vehicle in the presence of PW-1 and PW-2. He has recorded the statements of PW-3, LW-1, LW-3 at police station. He has issued 41-A Cr.P.C. Notices to accused persons. He has conducted Scene of offence panchanama in presence of PW-1 and PW-2.

He has sent samples to FSL. He has registered the case basing on the

Confession cum seizure panchanama vide Cr. No. 96/2022 under section 420 r/w 34 IPC section 7 of EC Act. He has received the chemical analysis report, dated: 08-06-2022. After completion of the entire investigation he has filed charge sheet against accused person. Ex. P5 is Confession cum seizure panchanama, dated: 30-05-2022, Ex. P6 is FIR, Ex. P7 is CDF, Ex.

P8 is Chemical analysis report, dated: 08-06-2022, Ex. P9 is custodian receipt, dated: 31-05-2022 got marked in his evidence.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-4, he admitted that he has not examined the villagers of Vemula and Shabad. The Scene of offence

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 6 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 419 of 2022 is a busy locality. He has not examined any independent witnesses. He has not collected original RC of the vehicle. He has not weighed the PDS rice.

There are no signatures of panch witnesses on 2nd page of Ex. P5.

10. In order to establish the offence U/s. 420 of IPC, the following ingredients must be established by the prosecution that "It deals with the cases of cheating whereby the deceived person is dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy a) the whole or any part of a valuable security or b) anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.

11. In order to establish the offence U/s. 7 of Essential Commodities Act the prosecution must have proven that accused has contravened the order or

Gazette notification or any circular or proceedings the Central Government with respect to the Essential Commodities and further accused is having an intention of committing the act of selling, distributing or production of essential commodities in contravention or order or rules or regulations issued by the government or provided under the Act.

12. Upon perusing the entire evidences on record, as well as the depositions and Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses, apart from

PW-3 and PW-4, none were supported the case of prosecution. As per

Essential Commodities Act, Sec. 6A, wherein it authorized and contemplates that the District Collector or any person who is authorized by District

Collector (Civil Supplies) to conduct inspection, enquiry, seizure of any contraband i.e., essential commodities under the Act. Further if any person of the Civil Supplies Department or police officials seizes any contraband i.e., essential commodities have to report the same to the District Collector immediately and also obtain the authorization of the District Collector which

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 7 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 419 of 2022 is mandatory U/s. 6A of Essential Commodities Act. Further, as per the Act, the only person who has power to conduct the inspection, enquiry and seizure under the Act is District Collector or Civil Supplies Department or any person who was authorized by the District Collector which should be in written.

13. On perusing the entire evidence on record and hearing the arguments of both learned counsels. Apart from PW-3 and PW-4 none have supported the prosecution case and PW-3 is the constable, who had witnessed the incident and PW-4, investigating officer had conducted the confession panchanama which is marked as Ex. P5 and on such panchanama and report, the SHO himself has registered a crime and conducted the investigation and issued

FIR. To prove the alleged incident and panchanama, on behalf of prosecution, PW-1 and PW-2 are examined and both mediators for

Confession cum seizure panchanama, to prove the seizure and confession of the accused person, such confession shall be recorded by a person in presence of independent witnesses and then only such confession and seizure was admissible according to Indian Evidence Act. Further, on perusal of record, PW-1 and PW-2 were turned hostile and did not support the contents of confession cum seizure panchanama and also the prosecution case. The learned APP has given up LW-1 and LW-3, who are police constables, as such, this court has closed the evidence of LW-1 and

LW-3. Hence to prove the Ex. P5 other than the PW-3, who is constable and

PW-4, who is investigating officer of this case, none were been corroborated with the evidence of PW-4. None of the official witnesses as well not deposed that from where this reliable information has come and who have called initially to whom to apprehend the accused basing on the reliable

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 8 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 419 of 2022 information and also not stated who had got first reliable information regarding the alleged incident. This itself shows that there was a clumsiness in the minds of witnesses before deposing the evidence and an inference can be drawn whether the alleged incident took place or not. PW-3 also states that the accused himself confessed the PDS rice. However, confession cum seizure panchanama was not proved and therefore, the confession of accused as well as seizure of PDS rice and Scene of offence panchanama could not be taken into consideration and not even admissible in the eye of law. Furthermore, as per the procedure of Sec.6A of EC Act, whenever the incident has occurred the duty of the Deputy Tahsildar is to intimate to

District Civil Supplies and obtain written permission to give a report to the police station but there was no whisper of such information to the District

Civil Supplies Officer in this case since there was no written undertaking marked in this case. PW-4 being a Sub-Inspector has no authorization to file the present case and no authority to depose evidence in this case as well because there are no written proceedings from Tahsildar or District Collector or Civil Supplies Department to register the present case which is mandatory U/s.6 A of E.C. Act. Further no employee of Civil supply department was examined on behalf of prosecution has conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and also lodged the report before the police station. Therefore, PW-4, who is an SI has no authorization to investigate in the present case as per procedure of EC Act.

14. Since the panchas for confession cum seizure panchanama has turned hostile the confession was in question that whether the seized PDS rice was seized by PW-4 in presence of this mediators and even from the possession of accused or not is nothing but implicating the accused in this case without

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 9 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 419 of 2022 following proper procedure and is only for statistical purpose, the present case was made by office of PW-4 without following Sec.6A of E.C Act.

Further, here also there is no whisper that how much of weight except seized PDS rice since the weighed or not weighed by weighing machine which was not mentioned by PW-4 and how much samples were taken from the seized PDS rice was not known to this court and even the Investigating

Officer not submitted before this court that he has not intending to send the samples to FSL and also not obtained any prior intimation from this court.

Hence, Sec.6A of EC Act is not followed by the investigation officer i.e., PW-4 and also PW-3 i.e., constable. Due to lack of procedure and lack of direct witnesses or circumstantial witnesses the prosecution could not be able to prove the case U/s.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of E.C. Act.

15. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.420 of IPC and Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Hence the accused person is entitled for acquittal U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C and the bail bonds if any are stands cancelled. Since no property was deposited as such there is no order with regard to the property.

Typed my dictation by Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of April, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 10 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 419 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: - Defense: -

PW-1: Eeranna Goud, -None- PW-2: Thimmaraju Goud,

PW-3: B. Ramanjaneyulu,

PW-4: E. Naresh Kumar/IO.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: - Defense: -

-Nil-

Ex. P1 is signature of PW-1 on Confession cum seizure panchanama,

Ex. P2 is signature of PW-1 on Scene of offence panchanama,

Ex. P3 is signature of PW-2 on Confession cum seizure panchanama,

Ex. P4 is signature of PW-2 on Scene of offence panchanama,

Ex. P5 is Confession cum seizure panchanama, dated: 30-05-2022,

Ex. P6 is FIR,

Ex. P7 is CDF,

Ex. P8 is Chemical analysis report, dated: 08-06-2022,

Ex. P9 is custodian receipt, dated: 31-05-2022.

Material objects marked:

-Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 11 of total 10 pages C.C. No. 419 of 2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT GADWAL.

C.C. No. 419 OF 2022

1. Complainant : State, SI of Police, P.S, Ieeja.

2. Cr. No. & Nature of Offence : Cr.No.96 of 2022 U/Sec. 420 of IPC and Sec.7 of E.C Act.

3. Description of the accused : 1.Boya Anjaneyulu S/o Boya Pedda Rangappa, age: 26 years,

2. Boya Veeresh S/o Late Rangappa, age: 20 years, Accused No.1 and 2 are occ: Driver, R/o H. No. 1/81/C, K.T. Doddi Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District,

3. Boya Nagaraju S/o Gajjenna, age: 24 years, occ: Coolie R/o H. No. 3-3, K.T. Doddi village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District (Died). D A T E S:

4.OFFENCE30-05-2022

5.COMPLAINT30-05-2022

6.APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED30-05-2022

7.RELEASE ON BAILSec 41-A Cr.P.C notice served to the accused No.1 to 3

8.COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL21-01-2026

9.CLOSURE OF TRIAL09-04-2026

10.SENTENCE OR ORDERIn the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.420 of IPC and Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Hence the accused persons are entitled for acquittal U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C and the bail bonds if any are stands cancelled. Since no property was deposited as such there is no order with regard to the property.

11.EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND The prosecution failed to produce the REMARKSwitness on time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal. To: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal Dis. No.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 1 of total 9 pages C.C. No. 865 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST-CLASS AT GADWAL

Friday, dated this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Present: Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

C.C. No. 865 of 2022

Between:

The State represented though Sub-Inspector of police, Ieeja. .… Complainant

And

1.Muki Kurupanna S/o Chinna Peddaiah, age: 54 years, occ: Driver, R/o H. No. 25-3, SC Colony, Ieeja Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District, 2.Ediga Thirumalesh Goud @ Kumaraswamy S/o Ediga Narayana Goud, age: 31 years, occ: Agriculture and Business, R/o H. No. 117, Pedda Dhanwada Village of Rajoli Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

…Accused No.1 and 2

U/S. 34 (a) of T.S. Excise Section of law: Act,1968

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty Sentence or order: In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/S. 34 (a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968, consequently they are acquitted u/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., for preferring appeal to the Higher Court. The unmarked case property deposited vide CPR No.178/2022, dated: 24-09-2022 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 10-04-2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.

N. Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the accused persons and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered following:

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 2 of total 9 pages C.C. No. 865 of 2022

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Ieeja filed charge sheet against the accused persons in Cr. No. 94 of 2022 for the offences punishable U/S. 34 (a) of T.S. Excise Act-1968.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that on 25-05-2022 at around 00:30 hours. LW-5 along with LW-1 and LW-2 conducting vehicle checking at ‘T’ road Chowrastha, Ieeja stopped Toofan Force cruiser vehicle while vehicle two persons ran away leaving driver and vehicle. Immediately secured the presence of mediators i.e., LW-3 and LW-4 and recorded confession statement of vehicle driver. He has Toofan Force Cruiser vehicle its registration No. AP22 V 8298, its chassis No. T57044332J06, engine No.

D27012224. He used to transport public in his vehicle from Ieeja to Gadwal

Town but his earns not enough following he decided to earn money. On 24-05- 2022, night about 10:30 PM loaded Original Choice Deluxe Whisky 990 ml) 50 boxes each box contains 96 bottles each bottle cost Rs. 35/- total 50x96=4800 worth about Rs. 1,68,000/- and started to go to Pedda Dhanwada village of

Rajoli Mandal for unloading. On 25-05-2022 midnight about 00:30 hours on the way near ‘T’ road Chowrastha, Ieeja police apprehended his vehicle. On seeing police two persons ran away descending the vehicle. Saying so, he ahs shown his Toofan Force Cruiser vehicle. On minutely examined the vehicle having ash color, its registration No. AP22V8298 its Chassis No.

T57044332J06, engine No. D27012224 belongs to Bajaj company, the vehicle loaded with 50 cartons of Original choice Deluxe whisky. Seized Toofan Force

Cruiser vehicle and 50 cartons of original Choice Deluxe whisky from them 4 bottles separately seized for sending 2 bottles to court and 2 bottles forwarding

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 3 of total 9 pages C.C. No. 865 of 2022 to FSL duly affixing panch chits under cover of panchanama. Hence, the report.

On 25-05-2022 at 01:45 hours returned to police station, basing on the above seizure panchanama, LW-5 registered a case in Cr. No. 94/2022, under section 34(a) of Telangana State act and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW-5 examined and recorded the statements of LW-1 and LW-2 under section 161(3) Cr.P.C in part-II CDs in detail at police station. Later, LW-6 accompanied LW-1 and LW-3 and LW-4 visited scene situated at “T” road Chowrastha in opposite Thirmal Reddy’s tea hotel towards East direction at a distance of 1KM from police station, Ieeja. In presence of above mediators conducted Scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in crime Detail Form.

On 26-05-2022 LW-6 took up the investigation and verified the investigation done by LW-5 found on correct lines. Served notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused No.1 and 2 to comply. On 27-05-2022 in compliance to notice accused No.1 and 2 came to police station and submitted their address proofs.

On 29-05-2022 forwarded samples to government chemical Examiner

Regional prohibition and Excise laboratory, Hyderabad.

As per Chemical Examiner Report furnished by government chemical

Examiner Regional Prohibition and Excise laboratory, Hyderabad vide CE report No. 3915/2022, dated: 09-06-2022 in which opined that ‘It is Indian

Liquor’.

On 22-06-2022 deposited Original Choice Deluxe (90 ml) whisky 4796 bottles, Toofan Force Cruiser vehicle No. AP22 V 8298 at Deputy

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 4 of total 9 pages C.C. No. 865 of 2022

Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahbubnagar Division through form 60.

As per orders of High court of Telangana State, Hyderabad vide W.P. No.

26930/2022, dated: 27-06-2022 and Deputy commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise Mahbubnagar Division vide letter No. C4/270/2022, dated: 11-08-2022 summoned vehicle owner Pedda Mukkaranna S/o Kadamidde Pedda Eedanna

R/o SC colony, Ieeja to police station and handed over seized Toofan Force cruiser vehicle its registration number AP22 V 8298 under proper acknowledgement. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. On perusal of material on record the court has taken cognizance for the offence U/s. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act-1968 against the accused persons and on appearance of the accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them as per U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused persons were examined U/S. 239

Cr.P.C for which they denied and a charge as per Sec. 240(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/s. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act-1968 was framed, explained them in Telugu. Having understood the charges framed, they denied the charge. On question of plea of guilt, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, proceeded for trial against the accused persons.

4.In order to prove this case, prosecution examined PW-1 is eye-witness, PW-2 and PW-3 are panch witnesses, PW-4 is investigation officer, Exhibits P1 to P8.

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which they denied the incriminating material against them and reported no defense evidence.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 5 of total 9 pages C.C. No. 865 of 2022

5.Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused persons.

6. The point for determination: -

Whether the prosecution proved its case by proving the charge for

the offences punishable U/S. 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act-1968 against the

accused persons beyond reasonable doubt?

7. PW-1 by name K. Nagesh, who is eye-witness of the case deposed in his evidence that on 25-05-2022 at around 12:30 AM, on instructions of our SI, he along with Lw-2 are conducting vehicle checking at Ieeja “T” Junction.

They found one vehicle i.e., Toofan bearing No. AP22 V 8298. They searched the vehicle and found Karnataka State liquor in the said vehicle. The accused persons have confessed that they used to sell the said liquor for higher prices.

They found original choice deluxe whiskey of 90 ml of 50 cartons, each carton contains 96 bottles. The total amount of the bottles is Rs. 1,68,000/-. SI has conducted Confession cum seizure panchanama in presence of LW-3 and LW-

4. Later, they have seized the bottles along with the vehicle and taken the accused persons to the police station.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, he admitted that they have received a reliable information in the night hours. The color of the vehicle is ash. He has not stated the color of the vehicle. SI has intimated to

Excise Department. The accused have purchased the Karnataka State liquor at Raichur. He has not verified Raichur public.

8. PW-2 by name Venkatesh, PW-3 by name Shiva, who are panch witnesses of the case deposed in their evidence that police have not conducted

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 6 of total 9 pages C.C. No. 865 of 2022

Confession cum seizure panchanama and Scene of offence panchanama in their presence and in the presence of LW-4. The signature on Confession cum seizure panchanama and Scene of offence panchanama is belongs to them.

They have affixed their signatures on white papers. They did not know the contents of Confession cum seizure panchanama and Scene of offence panchanama. Ex. P1 is signature of PW-2 on Confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex. P2 is signature of PW-2 on Scene of offence panchanama,

Ex. P3 is signature of PW-3 on Confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex. P4 is signature of PW-3 on Scene of offence panchanama got marked in their evidence.

9. PW-4 by name E. Naresh Kumar, who is investigating officer deposed in his evidence that on 25-05-2022 at around 12:30 AM, he has conducted Confession cum seizure panchanama and the seized

Karnataka State liquor from the possession of accused persons along with the Toofan vehicle in the presence of PW-2 and PW-3. He has recorded the statements of PW-1, LW-2 at police station. He has issued 41-A Cr.P.C. Notices to accused persons. He has registered the case basing on the Confession cum seizure panchanama vide Cr. No.

94/2022 under section 34(a) of TS Excise Act. He has conducted

Scene of offence panchanama in presence of PW-2 and PW-3. He has received the chemical analysis report, dated: 09-06-2022. After completion of the entire investigation he has filed charge sheet against the accused person. Ex. P5 is Confession cum seizure panchanama, dated: 25-05-2022, Ex. P6 is FIR, Ex. P7 is CDF, Ex. P8

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 7 of total 9 pages C.C. No. 865 of 2022 is Chemical analysis report, dated: 09-06-2022 were marked on behalf of his evidence.

During the course of cross examination of PW-4, he admitted that the

Scene of offence is a busy locality. He has not examined any independent witnesses. He has not collected original RC of the vehicle. He has authority to register the crime. He has not examined any persons at Raichur.

10. To prove the offence U/s 34 (a) of T.S. Excise Act- 1968, the panch witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 are plays a vital role. It is well settled law that as per

Section 25 in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 “No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence”. Therefore, in view of the explicit bar by the law, as such confession statement cannot be attributed to the accused persons to prove the crime against them. As PW-2 and PW-3 have turned hostile, there is no relevancy for Confession cum seizure panchanama and there is no evidentiary value to CDF as PW-2 and PW-3 are mediators for CDF and Confession cum seizure panchanama have not supported the case of prosecution.

11.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of evidence on record this Court is of opinion that it is not proper to convict the accused persons basing on the evidence of PW-1 who is constable and PW-4, who is Investigating Officer, in the absence of corroborative evidence with the independent witnesses. There is no cogent and convincing evidence to connect the accused Persons with the crime. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused persons are entitled for acquittal.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 8 of total 9 pages C.C. No. 865 of 2022

12.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offences punishable U/S. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act-1968 and consequently they are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., for preferring appeal to the Higher Court. The unmarked case property deposited vide CPR No.178/2022, dated: 24-09-2022 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 17th day of April, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 9 of total 9 pages C.C. No. 865 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

- None - PW-1: Nagesh,

PW-2: Venkatesh,

PW-3: Shiva,

PW-4: E. Naresh Kumar.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex. P1 is signature of PW-2 on Confession cum seizure -Nil- panchanama,

Ex. P2 is signature of PW-2 on Scene of offence panchanama,

Ex. P3 is signature of PW-3 on Confession cum seizure panchanama,

Ex. P4 is signature of PW-3 on Scene of offence panchanama,

Ex. P5 is Confession cum seizure panchanama, dated: 25-05- 2022,

Ex. P6 is First Information Report,

Ex. P7 is Crime Details form,

Ex. P8 is Chemical analysis Report, dated: 09-06-2022.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).

Page 10 of total 9 pages C.C. No. 865 of 2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT GADWAL.

C.C. No. 865 OF 2022

1. Complainant : Sub-Inspector of police Ieeja.

2. Cr. No. & Nature of Offence : Cr. No. 94/2022, U/S. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968

3. Description of the accused : 1.Muki Kurupanna S/o Chinna Peddaiah, age: 54 years, occ: Driver, R/o H. No. 25-3, SC Colony, Ieeja Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District, 2.Ediga Thirumalesh Goud @ Kumaraswamy S/o Ediga Narayana Goud, age: 31 years, occ: Agriculture and Business, R/o H. No. 117, Pedda Dhanwada Village of Rajoli Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. D A T E S:

4. OFFENCE 25-05-2022

5. COMPLAINT 25-05-2022

6. APPREHENSION OF 25-05-2022

ACCUSED

7. RELEASE ON BAIL Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notice served to the accused persons

8. COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL 09-04-2026

9. CLOSURE OF TRIAL 09-04-2026

10. SENTENCE OR ORDER In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/S. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act-1968and consequently they are acquitted u/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., for preferring appeal to the Higher Court. The unmarked case property deposited vide CPR No.178/2022,

dated: 24-09-2022 shall be destroyed

after lapse of appeal time.

11. EXPLANATION OF DELAY The prosecution failed to produce AND REMARKS the witness on time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal. To: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal, Dis. No.

Smt. N.V.H. Pujitha, (JMFC, Gadwal).