Nokku Mary

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-I ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF 1 ST CLASS, NIDADAVOLE

Present: Smt. N.Mary,

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavole

Tuesday, the 16th day of October, 2018

Calendar Case No.185 / 2017

Between:

The State- Represented by its, Sub-Inspector of Police, Chagallu P.S. … Complainant.

Vs.

1.Palakurthi Matha Vara Prasad, S/o.Satyanarayana, 38 years, Kamma, K.ambarpeta village of Bhimadole.

2.Palakurthi Satyanarayana, 60 years, Kamma, K.Ambarpeta, Bhimadole.

3.Palakurthi Seetharavamma, W/o.Satyanarayana, 55 years, Kamma, K.Ambarpeta, Bhimadole.

4.Mullapudi Rupa, W/o.Srinivasu, 43 years, Kamma, Muddapuram, Tanuku Mandal.

5.Mullapudi Srinivasu, S/o.Venkata Rao, 46 years, Kamma, Muddapuram, Tanuku Mandal.

6.Reddy Nagaprasanna, W/o.Rama Rao, 37 years, Kamma, Muddapuram, Tanuku Mandal.

7.Reddy Rama Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 41 years, H Lingapuram, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.

8.Chinta Ananda Rao, S/o.Gopalam, 50 years, Kamma, Umamaheswaram, Pentapadu Mandal.

9.Chinta Rakumari, W/o.Ananda Rao, 45 years, Kamma, Umamaheswaram, Pentapadu Mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming before me on 10-10-2018 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned A.P.P., for complainant/State and of Sri. B.Srinivasa Raju, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material on record, the court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police, Chagallu P.S., filed charge sheet against accused in

Cr.No.27/2017 for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC., and Sec.4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The main case of prosecution, in brief, is that:

(i) The marriage of PW.1 Palakurthi Nagasushma with A1 of K.Ambapeta village of

Bhimadole Mandal was performed on 24-8-2013 as per Hindu caste customs in

Katragaddavari Kalyana mandapam at Bhimadole. At the time of marriage, on the demand of A2 to A4, parents of PW.1 gave Rs.5 lakhs at the house of Sattiraju on account of marriage expenses, in the presence of PW.3/Kantipudi Gangadhara Rao, besides an amount of Rs.2 laksh towards adpaduchu lanchanam and 15 sovgn of gold, I kg silver and sare samans worth of RS.1 lakh. She went to her in-laws house immediately after the marriage and A1 and PW.1 put up their family at Hyderabad where A1 is working in NTV in Hyderabad and they stayed at for 6 months. Since, A1 was terminated from his job, he came to Eluru and joined in Express TV. After coming Eluru, A1 started to harass PW.1 by demanding Addl.dowry and to sell away the land. Her father PW.2 had purchased Ac.1.60 cents of land from mother- in-law of PW.1 and got registered in favour of PW.1 on 1-7- 2014. Since then, the earnings of the land was at A1 and A3, subsequently A1 started beating PW.1 demanding to sell away Ac.2.00 of Chikkala village which was agreed to give her by her father. At the instigation of A3, A1 used to beat PW.1.

(ii) On 18-8-2015 A3 and her husband/A7 came to her house threatened her that they would another marriage to A1 if she failed to bring addl.dowry. On 29-8-2015, all the accused came to her house quarreled with her and necked her out as there is no other to she came to her parental home. She waited for A1 for one month but he did not turn up. On 1-10-2015, all the accused came to her house at Eluru forcibly dragged her out, later, she put the matter before elders but the accused did not heed their words and threatened her to bring the sale proceedings by selling away Ac.2.00 of land, otherwise, 3 they will not take her to matrimonial house to lead conjugal life. Later, A1 filed a divorce petition against PW.1. Subsequently, PW.1 gave report against A1 and his family members in Chagallu P.S.

(iii) PW.7 registered a case in Cr.No.27/17 under Sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC and

Sec.4 of D.P. during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence examined the witnesses and also prepared rough sketch. On 25-5-2017, A1 surrendered before police station and after due identification he issued notice under Sec.41 (A) to A1 and on receipt of reply from A1, he got released him. According to the investigation and in view of the statements of witnesses, prima facie allegations found against A1 only, hence, he filed a memo deleting the other accused 2 to 9 and on completion of investigation, he filed charge against A1.

3. This case was taken on file U/sec.498-A of IPC and issued summons against the

Accused 1 to 9.

4. On appearance of A1 to A9, copies of documents were furnished to them

U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. A1 to A9 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and contents of charge sheet was read over in Telugu, for which, accused denied. Charge U/Sec.498-A of IPC has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has been examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

7. After closer of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported no defence. However, A1 filed Memo along with certified copies of documents ie., original petition, order and 4 decree in O.P.215/2014, Original Petition, Chief affidavits, depositions of 3rd parties as

RW.3 and RW.4 and Judgment in HMOP.93/15 on the file of the Hon’ble VII Addl. District

Judge, Family Court, Eluru, to substantiate his contentions.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of accused

U/Sec.498-A of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?

P O I N T:

10. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of PW.1 with A1 was performed on 24-8-2013 by giving Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry and marriage expenses and that immediately after the marriage they put up their family at Hyderabad and after 6 months they came down to Eluru where A1 started harassing PW.1 by demanding addl.dowry and to sell away the land of Ac.2.00 of Chikkala village which was agreed to give her by her father . It is further contended that all the accused came to her house at

Eluru threatened her to bring the sale proceedings by selling away Ac.2.00 of land.

11. First and the foremost, it is to be decided whether the allegations against A2 to A9 are proved beyond reasonable doubt ?

In the instant case, immediately after the marriage PW.1 and A1 went to

Hyderabad and later they put up their family at Eluru. As per charge sheet, A2 & A3 are residents of Amberpet, Bheemadole, A4 & A5 are residents of Muddapuram, Tanuku, A6 &

A7 are residents of Lingapuram, Dwaraka Thirumala and A8 & A9 are residents of

Umamaheswaram, Pentapadu Mandal. Admittedly, she did not lead her marital life in the above said places. Itself clearly show that there is no occasion to A4 to A9 to have acquaintance with the affairs of marital life of PW.1. Her in-laws A2 and A3 also not lived along with them even at Hyderabad or Eluru. More particularly, PW.1 has not describe specific nature of ill treatment meted out by her in the hands of A2 to A9 and not a single cogent allegation nor any specific role attributed to A2 to A9 by PWs.2 to 4, in respect of 5 said harassment alleged to have been made by them. As per the charge sheet, no prima facie made out against A2 to A9. The Investigating officers deposed that A2 to A9 are nothing to do with the case of PW.1.

12. It is well settled Law that mere allegation is not enough to prove the guilt in a criminal case. Prosecution has to establish its case independently by way of adducing proper evidence with necessary proof. In the instant case, no any specific role attributed to A4 to A9 by PW.1, in respect of said harassment by demanding of additional dowry and properties. More so, the fact remains that A2 to A9 are living separately with their respective families. If there is any harassment meted out by the 1st accused, PW.1 is not supposed to make all his relatives accused in the complaint by alleging in general terms that they committed offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Such a course shall not be encouraged which is nothing but abuse of process of law.

13. Now, turning to the allegations against A1, the material witnesses PW.1, her father PW2, stated in one voice in their evidence before the court in respect of the marriage of PW.1 with A1, giving of dowry and other lanchanas, the conjugal life of PW.1 and A1 at Hyderabad and Eluru and the alleged harassment made by A1 for additional dowry and for sale proceeds. They also categorically stated that the marriage of PW.1 with A1 was performed at the house of A1 at Bhimadole, to which, 15 members of the family PW.1 were present since the earlier marriage of PW.1 with one K.Nagaraju should not be public as the said marriage of PW.1 with said K.Nagaraju was not yet annulled.

14. It is the main contention of PW.1 that A1 along with his family members started harassing her to bring the sale proceeds by selling away the land property said to have been promised to give her by her parents. PW1. also stated that her father PW.2 had purchased Ac.1.60 cents of land from the mother- in-law of PW.1 and got registered in favour of PW.1 on 1-7-2014. Since then, the earnings of the land was at A1 and A3, subsequently, A1 started beating PW.1 demanding to sell away Ac.2.00 of Chikkala village which was agreed to give her by her father.

6

15. PW.1 further deposed that on 18-8-2015, A3 and her husband/A7 came to her house threatened her that they would do another marriage to A1, if she failed to bring

Addl.dowry and that on 29-8-2015, all the accused came to her house, quarreled with her and necked her out, as there is no other go, she came to her parental home and she waited for A1 for one month but he did not turn up. On 1-10-2015, all the accused came to her house at Eluru forcibly dragged her out, later she put the matter before elders but he did not heed their words and threatened to her to bring the sale proceedings by selling away Ac.2.00 of land, otherwise, they will not take her to matrimonial house to conjugal life. Though she put the matter before elders, but in vain. But A1 filed a divorce case against PW.1.

16. Coming to the evidence of independent witnesses ie., PW.3 , PW.4 who reiterated about the marriage of PW.1 with A1 and giving of dowry and other lanchanas by the parents of PW.1 her joining with A1 at Hyderabad subsequent shifting their family to Eluru and subsequent harassment of A1 and his family members towards PW.1 by demanding addl. dowry and for sale proceeds and mediations conducted by the parents of PW.1 etc.

In cross examination, PW.3 categorically admitted that he did not attend the marriage of

PW.1 and the lanchanam and other terms of marriage were not settled in his presence and also admitted that he deposed as a witness in OP filed by A1 wherein he admitted about the prior marriage of PW.1 with said Nagaraju and the said marriage is in existence by the time the marriage of PW.1 with A1. He also admitted that PW.1 filed this case after filing of criminal case by A1 so also before the pronouncement of judgment in divorce OP.

17. PW.4 admitted that he acted as mediator to reconcile the matter between PW.1 and A1 and also present at the time of giving of dowry and other lanchanas and also at the time of marriage talks. PW.3 and PW.4 confirmed that except 15 members who are relatives of PW.1 and 2, none were present for the marriage of PW.1 at Bhimadole. PW.3 categorically stated that he gave evidence as a witness in the OP filed by A1 that as the earlier marriage of PW.1 should not be public and the said marriage of PW.1 was not 7 annulled, hence, the marriage of PW.1 with A1 was performed at Bhimadole and 15 members of the family PW.1 were present.

18. PW.5 and PW.6 who are residence of Eluru categorically sated about their acquittance with PW.1 and accused and their marital life for some period at Eluru, but they expressed their ignorance about the disputes between them. PW.6 stated that he was informed that PW.1 was already married earlier with some one. The evidence of investigation of officer ie., PW.7 is formal in nature who spoke about his registration of

FIR/Ex.P3 and further investigation. He admitted in his cross examination that there is no signature and date on Ex.P1, and that Ex.P1 was given after two years of the incident and that PW.1 did not specifically mentioned about the quantum of addl.dowry demanded by the accused. Admittedly, PWs.2 to 4 are not eye witnesses to the alleged incidents stated by PW.1. Therefore, except PW.1, the other witness are not an eyewitness about the nature of alleged problems between them.

19. Though the defense counsel mainly concentrated that the marriage of PW.1 was performed with A1 secretly at Bheemadole as the earlier marriage of PW.1 with Naragarju was in existence and that except 15 members on behalf of complainant, none were present at the time of her marriage. The said fact was admitted by the material witnesses, PW.1, PW.2, father of PW.1, PW.3 cousin of PW.1 and the independent witness

PW.4.

20. During 313 Cr.Pc examination, A1 filed Memo along with certified copies of documents ie., original petition, order and decree in OP.215/2014, Original Petition, Chief affidavits, depositions of 3rd parties as RW.3 and RW.4 and Judgment in HMOP.93/15 on the file of the Hon’ble VII Addl. District Judge, Family Court, Eluru, to substantiate his contentions.

21. The admissions of PW.1 in her cross examination as under:

She filed this case after the criminal case filed by A1 so also before the pronouncement of order in OP. 93/15. Her name is Palakurthi Nagasushma but in SSC 8 marks list her name was mentioned as Undavalli Sushama. She filed a case against said

Nagaraju in CCS P.S., Rajahmundry alleging that he kidnapped her, but she doesn't know whether the said case referred as false. A1 filed OP.93/2015 and same was decreed in his favour. A1 also filed a case under Sec.494 and 420 against her, her family members and other elders on the file of I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of Ist Class, Bhimadole and she attended the court proceedings. Later, A3 filed a suit for cancellation of settlement deed executed in her favour.

22. She expressed her ignorance that whether her father filed a suit showing her as minor seeking divorce from the said Nagaraju as she is minor. She expressed her ignorance where the A1 filed photographs and receipts issued by Devasthanam at

Gudiwada conforming her marriage with said Nagaraju. She denied that she used to misrepresent others by saying her name as Sushma, Nagasushma and Sri Nagasushma.

She denied the suggestion that on 24-6-2005 she and one Kotichukkala Nagaraju married at Gudiwada and they lived as wife and husband at the house of Nagaraju at Pasivedala; that she filed a report before Kovvur P.S. alleging that her parents are not allowing her to live with said Nagaraju; that by the date of her marriage with A1, the alleged marriage between her self and Nagaraju is subsisting and that after her marriage with A1 she continued to talk with said Nagaraju and that she lived with Nagaraju at Pasivedala and

Visakhapatnam, later she deserted him as such the said Nagaraju filed divorce OP,.

against her and that by suppressing first marriage with Nagaraju she married A1 herein.

She denied that she voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 29-8-15 and did not turn up.

PW.2 also admitted and corroborated the version of prosecution as well as evidence of

PW.1.

23. Copy of Order and decree in HMOP.215/14 filed by K.Nagaraju against PW.1 u/s.13(1)(ib) of HM Act, which was allowed on 03.02.2015. Copy of Order in

HMOP.93/2015 and the depositions therein. On perusal of copy of petition U/S.5 of H.M

Act, filed by K.Nagaraju against PW.1 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's court, Kovvur, 9 wherein it was mentioned in column No.7 that the respondent therein ie Naga Sushma filed OP.137/05 and it was dismissed for default on 20.03.2012. As per PW.1, she was called as Naga Susma, whereas her father PW.2 stated that PW.1 was called as

Nagasushma and Sri Naga Shushma and in the wedding card they mentioned as Sri Naga

Sushma.

24. It is the main contention of the accused that the parents of PW.1 performed her marriage with him by suppressing her earlier marriage with K.Nagaraju. Whereas, the prosecution witnesses deposed that they informed about the earlier marriage of PW.1 to

A1 and his family members and they agreed for the marriage of PW.1. In Original

Petition.93/2015, wherein the respondent ie the defacto complainant admitted that while she was minor, she was forcibly married by one K.Nagaraju and police report was given and she filed petition for divorce. It is also an admitted fact that the father of defacto complainant herein being guardian therein filed OP seeking annulment of the marriage of

PW.1 and said K.Nagaraju and he filed photos and marriage receipt dt.24.06.2005 wherein the Hon'ble court observed and held that as per 10th class Marks list of Naga Sushma discloses her Date of birth as 16.08.1986, hence, she was not minor by the time of her marriage with K.Nagaraju in the year 2005 and it is a valid marriage. The order in

OP.215/14 on the file of Prl.Jr.Civil Judge's court, Kovvur passed on 03.02.2015. Whereas,

the marriage of the defacto complaint and A1 took place on 24.08.2013, therefore it can be held that the marriage of PW.1 is in existence with the said K.Nagaraju, by the date of marriage of PW.1 with A1. Therefore, it shall be presumed that the decree passed in the above OP.215/14 is in force. On perusal of Order in OP.93/2015 filed by the accused herein and petitioner therein for divorce was decreed on 20.04.2017 with a finding that the marriage of PW.1 and A1(Petitioner and respondent therein) was null and void. PW.1 herein has not produced any material before this Court showing that whether the said decree was allowed or dismissed the Hon'ble Appellate Court or not.

10

25. At this juncture, this court would like to refer the citations placed by the learned counsel for complainant reported in (2004) CRL.L.J., 892 para 18 in a case between

Reema Agarwal Vs.Anupam and Ors., wherein their Lordship held that the expression 'husband' to cover a person who enter into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the women concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions u/Sec.304-B and 498-A IPC. The absence of a definition of 'husband' to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabitate with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as 'husband ' is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Sec.304-B and 498-A IPC, views in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing those provisions. It was further held that the concept of dowry' is intermittently linked with a marriage and the provisions of the Dowry Act apply in relation to marriage. If the legality of the marriage itself is an issue further legislation problems do arise. If the validity of the marriage of an invalid marriage would be legally not recognizable.

26. However, in the present case, the marriage is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that they lived as wife and husband and accepted by the society. Therefore, it is

to be establish that if there is any harassment towards PW.1 in the hands of

accused.

27. PW.1 and PW.2, PW.2 promised to give Ac.2.00 land & 15 sovn of gold towards dowry, on that, A1 and his family members used to harass PW.1 to sell away the said land agreed to give by PW.2 and when PW.1 and PW.2 refused to sell away the said land, all the accused harassed and beat PW.1 and necked her out from their house. The evidence of PW.1 and her father PW.2 that A3 offered to sell her Ac.1.60 of land for Rs.30 lakhs and on the instigation A1 to A3, PW.2 purchased the said land in the name of PW.1 by paying consideration of Rs.30 lakhs but A1 to A3 executed gift settlement deed in favour of PW.1 to avoid stamp duty.

11

28. PW.1 and PW.2 categorically stated that A3 executed gift deed in favor of PW.1 out of love and affection. On the other hand, PW.2 deposed that he paid consideration of the said land and purchased the same. Whereas, it is the contention of A1 that his mother executed settlement deed Ac.1.60 cents with an intention to create security as expected by the parents of PW.1. As per PW.1, A1 and his family members harassed her to bring sale proceeds by selling away the land given to her by her parents. However, to substantiate the same, no documentary evidence as well as cogent, corroborated and independent evidence is available before the court to come to arrive at a conclusion whether if there is any harassment arose in respect of the said land transaction.

29. As per PW.1, her father PW.2 gave Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry as well as marriage expenses. Whereas PW.2 categorically deposed that he gave Rs.5 lakhs towards marriage expenses. Their evidence is inconsistent in respect of giving of dowry. PW1 and

PW.3/independent witnesses deposed that the parents of PW.1 settled the landed property in favour of PW.1 at the time of marriage and that A1 and his family members started harassing her to bring sale proceeds by selling away the land which was given by her parents at the time of marriage. Per contra, PW.2 deposed that he agreed to give land in favour of PW.1 at the time of marriage, for which, the accused used to harass

PW.1 to bring sale proceeds by selling away the alleged land which was agreed to give her by him. PW.2 categorically stated that he declined to sell away the said land as he has to perform marriage of his another daughter and the said daughter is also having share in it. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is quite contradicting and non-specific whether

PW.2 settled the said land at the time of marriage or agreed to give the alleged land to

PW1. Thus, it is clear that PW.2 did not give any land in favour of PW.1. Hence, the allegations that all the accused harassed her for Addl. Dowry or for the sale proceeds, has no force.

30. PW.1 further deposed that on 18-8-2015, A3 and her husband/A7 came to her house threatened her that they would do another marriage to A1, if she failed to bring

Addl.dowry and that on 29-8-2015, all the accused came to her house, quarreled with her 12 and necked her out, as there is no other go, she came to her parental home and she waited for A1 for one month but he did not turn up. On 1-10-2015, all the accused came to her house at Eluru forcibly dragged her out, later she put the matter before elders but he did not heed their words and threatened to her to bring the sale proceedings by selling away Ac.2.00 of land, otherwise, they will not take her to matrimonial house to conjugal life. Though she put the matter before elders, but in vain. But A1 filed a divorce case against PW.1.

31. As per the prosecution, the incidents happened on 18.08.2015 and 29.08.2015 and on 01.10.2015 respectively. Except PW.1, no eye witnesses evidence is available

before this court to substantiate the alleged incidents on the above said dates. The

report filed before the police on 11.03.2017, which was registered under Ex.P3- FIR.

PW.1 and PW.2 admitted that they lodged complaint after two years of the incidents.

PW.8-Investigating officer confirmed the same and he admitted that entire things happened at Eluru but not either in Bhimadolu or Chagallu. Moreover, there is no evidence as to why and what purpose A5 to A9 harassed and involved in the commission of offence.

However, as already held above that A2 to A4 never lived with PW.1 and A1 either at

Hyderabad or Eluru during their marital life. Therefore, it cannot be said that she is being ill-treated or subjected to harassment by the parents and relatives of A1.

32. In the instant case, except bald allegation, there is no corroborative evidence and

PW.1 did not state specific nature of harassment meted out by her in the hands of the accused and she did not attribute specific overt acts. None of the witnesses stated that they have personal knowledge about harassment meted out by PW.1 in the hands of the accused. PWs.2 to 4 stated that they came to know through PW.1 about the harassment meted out by her. Thus, no reliance can be placed on hearsay evidence. Therefore, we can easily infer that the instances attributed by the prosecution witnesses are only meant for cause of action for this case. Eventually, there is no explanation given by PW.1 for the enormous delay of two years in giving report to police.

13

33. The fact remains that, after filing divorce OP by A1, PW.1 filed this case, which was admitted by PW.1 and PW.2. Therefore, after careful scrutiny of evidence, the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not found trust worthy on the allegations made by them. When the allegations are shown to be non-specific and not of the degree of seriousness contemplated in law, the allegations cannot be believable. Moreso, PW.1 has gone to the extent of implicating A2 to A9 who are family members and distant relatives also. When she made such an allegations, she should have placed all the particulars in that regard. It is well settled principle of Law that the requirements of alleging specific role for each of the members becomes necessary to rope in all the family members. Though the contents of the complaint made out a prima facie case against A1 and some other family member, but if evidence collected in course of enquiry is appreciated and scrutinized in its entirety, it would appear that there is no specific allegation against A5 to A9, except casual reference.

34. Therefore, after consolidating the entire evidence, it appears to the court that after receiving divorce notice and before pronouncement of Order in divorce OP, PW.1 gave the above false complaint against all the accused by creating the incidents at Eluru, which is a creature an afterthought. But, the fact remains that by the time, A1 left

Eluru and PW.1 has been residing at her parental home. Thus, the allegations made by PW.1 that the accused harassed her both mentally and physically, appears to be vague and omnibus allegations. Admittedly and evidently, PW.1 filed this case, after two years of the alleged incidents.

35. The Settled position of Law being that inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging FIR or complaint may throttle the case of the prosecution. Object and essence of prompt lodging of FIR had been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M.Madhusudhan Rao (2008)15 SCC 582) as under That delay in lodging the FIR , more often than not, result in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature an afterthought.

14 That a delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity , the danger or the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations , also creeps in , casting a serious doubt on its veracity.

36. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by PW.1 with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding its true version. Otherwise, an adverse inference can be drawn that PW1 might have initiated criminal proceedings just to harass the accused with malafide intention or with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, which amounts to an abuse of process of law. In the present case on hand, the prosecution failed to give a fair picture with regard to genesis of the crime. There is no explanation offered by PW.1 for the enormous delay of two years in giving report to police. Thus, it can be said that it was a sort of counter blast to the divorce petition filed by A1.In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances and above fore going discussion, this court of the firm opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilty of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

37. In the result, A1 to A9 are not found guilty for the offence U/Secs.498-A of IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in the terms of U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C. Since no property produced and marked before the court, no order passed in that regard.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of October, 2018.

Sd/-Smt.N.Mary,

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole.

Appendix of evidence //Witnesses examined //

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1 : P.Naga Sushma None

PW.2 : U.Veera Raghavulu 15

PW.3 : L.Gangadhara Rao

PW.4 : M.Venkata Krishna

PW.5: Ch.Narisimha Murthy

PW.6: I.Ranji

PW.7: M.Dhanaraju

PW.8: M.Jaya Babu.

// EXHIBITS MARKED FOR //

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1/06-06-18 : Report given by PW.1

Ex.P.2/21-08-18 : 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.6

Ex.P.3/28-08-18 : FIR by PW.7

Ex.P4/14-09-18 : Deletion memo by Pw.8

Ex.P5/14-09-18 : Rough sketch by PW.8.

Defence: NIL.

//Material Objects Marked//

Nil.

Id/-Smt.N.M. I.A.J.M.F.C., Nidadavole.

16

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NIDADAVOLE

C.C.No.185 / 2017 Date of

Offence Filing Appre- Released Commen- Closure of Sentence

hension cement of the trial or

on bail

trial Order.

01-10-15 11-03-17 U/Sec.41 (A) -- 06-6-18 14-09-18 16.10.2018 (1) Cr.P.C-A1 EXPLANATION FOR DELAY--: On 29-8-2017 copies of documents were furnished to

Accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.PC and they were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.Pc. In this case, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 marked. On 17-09-2018, Accused were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. to which, they reported no defence evidence. Since the complainant PW.1 and the other material witnesses ie PWs.2 to 5, have not supported the case of prosecution. Heard arguments on both sides. On 16-10-2018 Judgment

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Name of the complainant: The State- Represented by its, Sub-Inspector of Police, Chagallu P.S., Cr.No.27/2017.

Name of the father’s name age Religion calling Village. accused

1.Palakurthi Matha Vara Prasad, S/o.Satyanarayana, 38 years, Kamma, K.ambarpeta village of Bhimadole.

2.Palakurthi Satyanarayana, 60 years, Kamma, K.Ambarpeta, Bhimadole.

3.Palakurthi Seetharavamma, W/o.Satyanarayana, 55 years, Kamma, K.Ambarpeta, Bhimadole.

4.Mullapudi Rupa, W/o.Srinivasu, 43 years, Kamma, Muddapuram, Tanuku Mandal.

5.Mullapudi Srinivasu, S/o.Venkata Rao, 46 years, Kamma, Muddapuram, Tanuku Mandal.

6.Reddy Nagaprasanna, W/o.Rama Rao, 37 years, Kamma, Muddapuram, Tanuku Mandal.

7.Reddy Rama Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 41 years, H Lingapuram, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.

8.Chinta Ananda Rao, S/o.Gopalam, 50 years, Kamma, Umamaheswaram, Pentapadu Mandal.

9.Chinta Rakumari, W/o.Ananda Rao, 45 years, Kamma, Umamaheswaram, Pentapadu Mandal.

17

Offence: U/Sec.498-A of IPC.

Finding : Not Guilty.

Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 to A9 are not found guilty for the offence U/Sec.498-

A of IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in the terms of U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C. Since no property produced and marked before the court, no order passed in that regard.

Sd/-Smt.N.Mary,

I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NIDADAVOLE.

1 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRAE OF I CLASS::

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU

Present:- Smt N.Mary,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

Monday, this the 06th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.602 of 20 22

(Cr.No.237/2022 of Pedapadu Police Station)

Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Pedapadu Police Station. ….. Complainant

-Vs -

1. Dondapati Baburao, S/o. Subbayya, age 59 years, SC Madiga, Andhreyapuram. Epuru Panchayanthi, Pedapadu Mandal.

2. Dondapati Yesubabu, S/o. Baburao, age 27 years , SC Madiga, Andhreyapuram, Epuru Panchayanthi, Pedapadu Mandal.

3. Dondapati Mariyamma, W/o. Baburao, age 55 years, SC Madiga, Andhreyapuram, Epuru Panchayanthi, Pedapadu Mandal.

4. Dondapati Prabhu Jyothi, D/o. Baburao, age 29 years, SC Madiga, Andhreyapuram, Epuru Panchayanthi, Pedapadu Mandal. .…. Accused

This case is coming on 02.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. P. Hemalatha, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri G.H.V. Prabhakar, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Basing on the complaint given by Sri Ch.V. Shivayya,

Panchayat Secretary, Epuru, this case was registered in crime 2 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

No.237/2022, for the offence, under Sections 431, 434, 506 r/w 34

IPC registered by Pedapadu Police Station .

2.Case of the prosecution, in short is that:

(i)LW1/Ch.V.Shivayya has been working as Panchayat

Secretary, Epuru Panchayathi, Pedapadu Mandal. The Accused Nos.1 to 4 are residents of Andhreyapuram village, Epuru Panchayat,

Pedapadu Mandal, A2 to A4 are wife, son and daughter of the A1.

There is a site admeasuring 114.00sq.yards in RS.No.45/4 in 1st ward in Andhreyapuram area, Epuru Panchayathi, Pedapadu Mandal and it belongs to the Grama Panchayathi. The A1 to A4 occupied the panchayath road and erected cement poles and transported soil into that site. On 13.05.2022, notices have been issued to them as per panchayathi Raj Act and on 01.07.2022, LW1/Ch.V.Shivayya along with the Panchayath personnel and revenue personnel removed the cement poles which were erected by the accused in the panchayath road and got fixed boundaries to that site. On 02.07.2022, the A1 to

A4 again occupied the panchayathi road, removed the boundaries of the said panchayathi road, destroyed the road with tractor bearing no.

AP 39 TF 3199, and kept the above tractor wheels and wooden-logs across the road and caused much inconvenience to the public. On receipt of the information, LW1/Ch.V.Shivayya along with his 3 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

personnel went to the said road, the accused threatened the LW1 and his staff that they would get filed several cases against them by their ladies if they interfere in this issue. Thus, the accused committed mischief by injury to public road, mischief by destroying land-marks fixed by public authority and criminal intimidation.

Basing on the report given by LW1, LW9-B. Nagababu, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Pedapadu PS registered a case in crime,

No.237/2022, recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene and later, issued notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to all the accused. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

3. My Learned Predecessor, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 431, 434, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C against A1 to A4.

4. A1 to A4 are made their appearance before the Court, copies of all documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to them.

5. A1 to A4 were examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation leveled against them and charges for the offence 4 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

U/Secs.431, 434, 506 r/w 34 IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in order to prove the complicity of the accused, examined PW.1 toP.W.7 and got Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4 marked.

7.A1 to A4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. I have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

9.Now, the points for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved its case be-

yond reasonable doubt that, accused committed

the offences punishable under Sections 431, 434 ,

506 r/w 34 of I.P.C, as alleged by the prosecution?

P O I N T :

10. This case pertains to offences involving mischief causing damage to a public road, destruction of land demarcation marks fixed 5 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

by a public authority, and criminal intimidation. The incident occurred on 02.07.2022 at approximately 8:00 a.m. in R.S. No. No.45/4 at

Andhreyapuram, Epuru . The A1 to A4 initially encroached upon the

Panchayat road and installed cement poles at the site. Subsequently, the Panchayat authorities issued notices under the Panchayat Raj Act and demarcated the boundaries accordingly. Despite this, on 02.07.2022, A1 to A4 once again unlawfully occupied the Panchayat road, removed and damaged the boundary marks fixed by the authorities, and obstructed the road by placing tractor wheels and wooden poles and thereby caused inconvenience to the general public including PWs.4 to 6 and LW.4-Chodagiri Rama Krishna.

11.In order to prove the alleged offence, the prosecution has chosen to examined the Panchayat Secretary, VRO, Village Surveyor, as PWs.1 to 3 and the independent witnesses as PW4 to PW6 and that the Investigation Officer as PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :

12. PW.1/Chintala Veera Sivayya, Panchayat Secreatry,

Epuru, testified that, the site admeasuring 114 sq. yards in

RS.No.45/4, in 1st ward at Andhreyapuram area, Epuru Panchayat belongs to gram panchayat, and A1 to A4 occupied the said road and erected cement poles in the said site, on 13.05.2022, he along with 6 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

his staff went to the said site and served notices on them. He further deposed that, on 01.07.2022 along with panchayat personnel i.e., along with police went to the scene of offence, got removed the cement poles and fixed boundary stones in the said site, however, on 02.07.2022, they destroyed the road with tractor, removed the boundaries which were affixed in the land in dispute, they placed the tractor, tractor wheels and wooden logs across the road and caused inconvenience to the public movement, when they directed them to remove the tractor and wooden logs, all of them threatened that, they would file SC & ST cases against him and his staff.

13. In cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that he has not filed any documentary evidence to establish that the disputed property, i.e., 114 square yards of land in R.S. No.114 Sq yards of site in RS.No 45/4 is belongs to Epuru Panchayat, belongs to the complainant or is a public road. He further expressed his lack of awareness as to whether any civil disputes are pending between the complainant and the accused concerning the said property and that,

He further expressed his unawareness that L.W.6 Sanampudi Jhansi

Rani had obtained injunction orders in O.S. No. 88/2022 on the file of the Hon’ble III Additional Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru. He also stated that he was unaware of the fact that A1 to A4 have been residing at a site 7 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

in R.S. No. 45/4 for the past 30 years. On four occasions, the cement poles erected by the accused at the disputed site were destroyed. He denied the suggestion that the disputed site does not belong to the Panchayat and that the present case has been falsely foisted against the accused due to village politics.

14.PW2/Kistavarapu Venkateswararao, VRO,

Appannaveedu village, Pedapadu mandal,has testified that,Based on the complaint lodged by PW.1, the Panchayat

Secretary, against A1 to A4 alleging that they had obstructed L.Ws.

4 to 8, encroached upon the Panchayat road, and erected cement poles and a paradha to prevent public movement, the police summoned the accused and conducted an enquiry in the presence of L.W.3, namely P. Durga Sai Ram. He further stated that the

Panchayat Secretary, along with police personnel, visited the disputed land and found that the accused had erected cement poles and constructed a paradha. Thereafter, the Panchayat Secretary caused the removal of all such poles and paradha, and subsequently conducted a survey of the land. He further deposed that on 02.07.2022 at about 4:00 p.m., the accused once again removed the boundary stones fixed by PW.1 and damaged the

Panchayat road using a tractor bearing No. AP 39 TF 3199, when 8 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

PW.1, himself, and L.W.3 visited the scene of offence and questioned the accused regarding their illegal acts, the accused gave evasive replies and criminally intimidated them by stating that they would file SC/ST cases against them, thereafter, PW.1 lodged a complaint with the police on 02.07.2022. In cross-examination,

PW.2 denied the suggestion that he was never examined by the police and that he is falsely deposing, at the instance of PW.1, to strengthen the complaint by claiming that he was present during the enquiry with the accused on 02.07.2022 regarding the

Panchayat road.

15.PW3/ /Palli Durga Sairam, the then Village Surveyor

Epuru of Pedapadu mandal, had deposed that, A1 to A4 have been residing in a site an extent of 350 sq. yards in RS.No.45/4

Andhreyapuram area, Epuru , and the panchayat got 114 sq. yards in the same RS.No.45/4 panchayat and that, 114 sq. yards of site in Rs.No.45/4 is belongs to Andhreyapuram panchayat but the accused occupied the said site. He also stated that, on the requisition of PW1 in writing, he along with mandal surveyor by name Satyanarayana Murthy together got surveyed the said land on 01.07.2022 and got fixed boundary stones, PW1 told him that, they destroyed the road with tractor, on the next day he also went there along with authorities. PW.3 denied the suggestion that the 9 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

disputed land does not belong to the Panchayat and that, during the pendency of a civil suit between the accused and L.W.6 Sanampudi

Jhansi Rani , a false criminal case was foisted against the accused at the instigation of L.W.6 and others.

16. PW.4/Bandlapudi Jaganmohanarao, testified that a

Panchayat road exists in front of his house and that disputes have been prevailing between himself, L.Ws. 6 to 8, and the accused with regard to the said passage. He stated that the accused have been claiming the said passage as their own, and on that pretext, they used to quarrel with and abuse the authorities as well as the neighbouring residents, thereby depriving the public and surrounding landholders from using the said passage. PW.4 further deposed that on 01.07.2022, the Panchayat authorities laid a road; however, on 02.07.2022, the accused encroached upon the

Panchayat road, damaged it with the help of tractor wheels, and obstructed it by placing wooden logs across the road. He added that they also dumped garbage on the road, thereby preventing public movement and causing inconvenience to the public. He further stated that the accused used to threaten him and others that they would foist false cases under the SC/ST Act.

10 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

17. In cross-examination, PW.4 admitted that the accused have a house situated behind his house at Andreyapuram and that a suit in O.S. No. 88/2022, filed by A1 and A2, was pending with respect to the land in dispute. He further admitted that an injunction was in force as of the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 02.07.2022, against him, PW.5, and PW.6, although the suit was later dismissed. He denied the suggestion that on 02.07.2022 he attempted to assault A4 and her sister with a crowbar and intentinally suppressed the said quarrel.

18.The crucial witness, Sanampudi Jhansi Rani, who allegedly donated the land to the Panchayat, was examined as

PW.5. She testified that, she and her family originally purchased land measuring 114 sq. yards in R.S. No. 45/4, located in front of her house, for the purpose of providing a passage. Subsequently, on 04.03.2022, they donated the said land to the Panchayat for the construction of a Panchayat road for public use. She further deposed that on 01.07.2022, the Panchayat authorities laid the road; however, since then, the accused used to dispute with the authorities and neighbouring residents. She added that the accused and others obstructed the public and surrounding landholders and householders from using the passage and that, 02.07.2022, they occupied the panchayat road and destroyed the road with the help 11 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

of tractor wheels and kept logs across the road, still they placed the garbage across the road preventing the public movement and causing inconvenience to the public. They used to threaten him and others that, they would foist false cases under SC & ST Act.

PW5, in cross examination admitted that, she did not file any document to show that she donated an extent of 114 sq. yards in

RS.No.45/4 situated in front of her house, to the panchayat for public purpose. She denied the suggestion that, in her document, it was recited that the A1 got 9 sq. feet of site for passage on southern side.

19. PW6/K. Anantha Lakshmi, testified that the land on which the Panchayat road was laid had originally been donated by

PW.5 to the Panchayat authorities for public purposes. On 01.07.2022, the Panchayat authorities laid the road. However, the accused claimed that the said passage belonged to them and frequently quarrelled and abused the authorities and neighbouring residents. As a result, disputes have been ongoing between the accused and the public, including PW.6, with regard to the said passage/Panchayat road situated in front of their house. He further testified that, the accused occupied the panchayat road and destroyed the road with the help of tractor wheels and kept logs across the road, still they placed the garbage across the road 12 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

preventing the public movement and causing inconvenienced to the public. They used to threaten him and others that, they would foist false cases under SC & ST Act.

20. The investigating officer B. Nagababu, then SI of Police,

Pedapadu PS, examined as PW.8 who testified that, based on printed report given by PW1, he registered a case in Cr.No.237/2022 u/sec.431, 434, 506 r/w 34 of IPC vide Ex.P2/FIR, examined PW1 to

PW3 and LW4 , recorded their statements, visited scene of offence in the presence of mediators PWs.2 to 6 and LW8/K. Srinivasarao, covered by Ex.P4 scene observation report and rough sketch/ Ex.P3, and also seized a tractor allegedly used in the commission of offence in removing the boundaries of the panchayat road, and on 06.09.2022, he served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice on A1 to A3.

21. In cross-examination, PW.7 admitted that PW.5/Jhansi Rani did not produce any unregistered settlement deed allegedly executed in favour of the Panchayat. He further stated that the encumbrance certificate dated 04.02.2026, which was confronted to him, shows that the alleged 114 sq. yards of land in R.S. No. 45/4A, situated at

Epuru Panchayat, still stands in the name of PW.5 /Jhansi Rani. PW.7 fairly admitted that he did not verify whether the land in dispute 13 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

originally belongs to the Panchayat, nor did he secure any documents to support the Panchayat’s version that the said land was donated by

PW.5/Jhansi Rani. He also admitted that he did not ascertain from the prosecution witnesses whether any civil suits are pending with respect to the land in dispute. He expressed unawareness of the fact that a civil suit, O.S. No. 88/2022, concerning the 114 sq. yards in

R.S.No.45/4, was pending and that injunction orders were still in force. PW.7 further admitted that he was not aware that if the

Panchayat authorities intended to lay the road and pipeline, land measuring approximately 700 sq. yards would be required from the house of A1 to the Machilipatnam-Kalluru road. He did not examine the land documents pertaining to either PW.5 or A1 to verify ownership of land adjacent to or within the survey number in question.

He also expressed ignorance regarding the fact that, in the presence of

Panchayat officials and police personnel, the Panchayat authorities had demolished the wall constructed by A1 on the northern side of his house to lay a passage to the Machilipatnam road on multiple occasions ie four times. PW.7 admitted that, he did not notice any sign board stating that the land belongs to panchayat. He denied the suggestions that, the land originally belongs to A1, in which, the panchayat authorities proposed to lay a road and that, the panchayat authorities are no way concerned with the said land in dispute.

14 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

22. The Ld. counsel for accused would contend that, the neighbourhood of the property in dispute categorically admitted that,

Civil Suit in O.S.No.88/2022 was pending with injunction order in force at the time of the alleged incident, which creat the doubt of

Panchayat's ownership. He would maintained that PW.1 to PW.5, and PW.7 admitted absence of documentary proof establishing

Panchayat ownership of the disputed 114 sq. yards in R.S. No. 45/4 of

Epuru Panchayat,hence, the ingredients of S.431 and 434 IPC do not arise.

23.Sec.431 IPC defines that: Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any public road, bridge, navigable river or navigable channel, natural or artificial, impassable or less safe for travelling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

Sec. 434 IPC says : Whoever commits mischief by  destroying or moving any land-mark fixed by the authority of a public servant, or by any act which renders such land-mark less useful as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

15 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

24. Though both Sections 431 and 434 of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC) deal with the offence of mischief (as defined under

Section 425), but they differ significantly the type of property damaged, the gravity of the offense, and the punishment prescribed.

Thus, to establish an offence under Section 431 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the road in question was a public road (for instance, laid by the Panchayat) and that the accused committed mischief, as defined under Section 425 IPC, by causing damage to such road, thereby obstructing its use for public movement. Further, to prove an offence under Section 434 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused committed mischief by destroying, moving, or altering boundary marks or landmarks that were fixed by or under the authority of a public authority.

25. In the present case, at the outset, the prosecution version is that A1 to A4 encroached upon the alleged Panchayat road in R.S.

No. 45/4, removed boundary stones, erected cement poles and a paradha, and thereby obstructed public movement. It is further alleged that the incident primarily occurred on 02.07.2022, and that there were repeated prior attempts by the accused to interfere with the passage, arising out of long-standing disputes between the accused, the Panchayat, and local residents.

16 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

26. The primary case of PW.1, the Panchayat Secretary, is that the land in R.S. No. 45/4 belongs to the Panchayat. PW.1 has categorically admitted that the Panchayat authorities themselves removed the cement poles allegedly erected by the accused on two occasions. PW2/VRO and PW.3, the Village Surveyor, deposed that the

Panchayat was in possession of 114 sq. yards of land in R.S. No. 45/4 and that he was informed that PW.5 had donated the said land. He further stated that, on the requisition of PW.1, he conducted a survey on 01.07.2022 and fixed boundary stones. PW.3 also confirmed that a civil suit in O.S. No. 88/2022, relating to the said 114 sq. yards in R.S.

No. 45/4, was pending, and that orders of injunction were in force at the relevant time. PW.5, Smt. Sanampudi Jhansi Rani, who is said to have donated the land, affirmed that she and her family had originally purchased an extent of 114 sq. yards in R.S. No. 45/4, situated in front of her house, for the purpose of providing a passage, and that they subsequently donated the said land to the Panchayat on 04.03.2022 for laying a road for public use. Thus, the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses consistently suggests that the Panchayat claims title over the disputed land by virtue of the alleged donation made by

PW.5. It is pertinent to note that PW.1, the Panchayat Secretary, is not a party to the civil suit. Thus, the material witnesses examined as

PWs.1 to 3, namely the Panchayat Secretary, the VRO, and the Village 17 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

Surveyor, being public servants have no apparent personal dispute with the accused so as to falsely implicate them.

Now, the crucial question that arises for consideration is  whether the Panchayat had, in fact, laid a public road on the said land, and whether the accused caused damage thereto so as to attract the ingredients of Section 431 IPC.

27. Nowhere in the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 , stated that the

Panchayat had actually laid a road on the disputed land in R.S. No.

45/4. However, the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 indicates that the

Panchayat had merely fixed boundary stones in the said land, which were allegedly removed or destroyed by the accused, resulting in obstruction. The prosecution has failed to produce any photographic or videographic evidence to show that a road was being laid by the

Panchayat on the disputed land. Further, PW.1 has not placed any documentary material to substantiate that the Panchayat had, in fact, constructed or laid a road over the said land and when it was laid.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish that the road on the land in question was, in fact, a public road and laid by the Panchayat, or that the accused committed mischief, as defined under Section 425

IPC, by causing damage to such a road so as to attract the ingredients of Section 431 IPC.

18 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

28. However, it is the very case of the prosecution that, on the requisition of PW.1, the Village Surveyor conducted a survey and fixed boundary stones in the said land. PW.1, the Panchayat Secretary, deposed that upon receiving information that A1 to A4 had encroached upon the site and erected cement poles, he, along with his staff, visited the location on 13.05.2022 and served notices on the accused under the Panchayat Act. He further stated that on 01.07.2022, he, along with Panchayat personnel and police, again visited the scene, removed the cement poles erected by the accused, and got the land surveyed and boundary stones fixed. However, on 02.07.2022, the accused allegedly destroyed the road using a tractor, removed the boundary stones fixed in the disputed land, and placed a tractor, its wheels, and wooden logs across the passage, thereby causing obstruction and inconvenience to public movement.

29. PW.2, the VRO, corroborated this version by stating that upon receiving information that the accused had once again removed the boundary stones and damaged the Panchayat road using a tractor bearing No. AP 39 TF 3199, he, along with PW.1 and L.W.3, visited the scene on 02.07.2022 at about 4:00 p.m. and questioned the accused, who gave evasive replies. PW.3, the then Village Surveyor, deposed that he, along with the Mandal Surveyor, surveyed the land on 01.07.2022 and got the boundary stones fixed.

19 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

30. The independent neighbourhood witnesses, namely PWs.4 to 6, have also consistently stated that the accused encroached upon the Panchayat land, removed the boundary stones, and placed wooden logs and garbage across the passage, thereby obstructing public movement and causing inconvenience.

31. Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is consistent and mutually corroborative on material particulars. By virtue of such evidence, the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused committed mischief by destroying or removing boundary marks fixed by a public authority, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 434 IPC.

32. Coming to the offence under Sec. 506 of IPC which says "

Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

33. So far as the allegations U/Sec.506 of IPC that, as per prosecution, on information that the accused destroyed the road with tractor, removed the boundaries which were affixed by the surveyor in the land in dispute, they placed the tractor, tractor wheels and wooden logs across the road and caused inconvenience to the public 20 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

movement, PW1 and PW2 went there and when they directed the accused to remove the tractor and wooden logs, all of them threatened that, they would file SC & ST cases against them. PWs.4 to 6 also corroborated the said version of PW.1 regarding intimidation by the accused.

34. In the present case, the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the accused threatened the complainant with intent to cause alarm or to compel him to act or omit an act against his legal right. The mere utterance that a false case under the SC/ST

Act might be foisted does not, by itself, constitute criminal intimidation. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 506 IPC are not made out against the accused, and the offence under this section is not established.

35. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and on proper appreciation of the evidence let-in by the prosecution, I believe that, the evidence placed on record sufficiently indicates that, all the accused with an intention, they renewed and damaged landmarks/boundary stones, with the help of a tractor, attracting the ingredients of Sections 434 IPC. Therefore, I hold that,

A.1 to A4 are guilty of the offence under section 434 of IPC.

21 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

However, I find that, the evidence brought on record is not sufficient to bring home their guilt for the offence under Section 431 and 506 r/w 34 IPC.

36. In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found guilty of the offence under sections 434 of IPC. Hence, they are convicted u/sec.248(2) of

Cr.PC. However, A1 to A4 are found not guilt for the offence under

Sections 431, 506, r/w 34 of IPC and thereby they are acquitted u/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and pronounced in open court on this the 06th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

37. A.1 to A.4 are heard about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them. They stated that, they did not commit any offence and no other offences are pending against them. A1 sustained fracture injury on spinal card and was bed ridden. A2 is the sole bread winner of entire family. A3 is the wife of A2 and looking after the entire family. A4 is unmarried girl with this submission all the accused request to show mercy on them. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that instead of sentencing them 22 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

to jail at once, imposing appropriate fine would appears to be adequate and could meet the ends of justice in this case.

38. Accordingly, A.1 to A.4 are sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/- each (i.e. total Rs.8,000/-) for the offence

punishable under section 434 r/w 34 IPC in default of payment of fine, A.1 to A.4 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months.

The accused are informed about their right to carry the matter in appeal. The fine amount shall confiscate to the state after appeal time is over.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and pronounced in open court on this the 06th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1: Chintala Veera Sivayya, - NIL –

Panchayat Secretary, Epuru.

PW.2: Kistavarapu Venkateswrarao,

VRO of Appannaveedu village of Pedapadu Mandal.

PW.3: Palli Durga Sairam, Village Surveyor at

Madepalli.

PW.4:Bandlapudi Jaganmohanarao 23 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

PW.5:Sanamudi Jhansi Rani

PW.6:K. Anantha Lakhsmi

PW.7:B. Nagababu, the Sub – Inspector of Police of Pedapadu P.S .

EXHBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: NIL

Ex.P1: Report given by PW.1 to police

Ex.P2: First information report.

Ex.P3: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P4: Scene observation report.

MOs marked: NIL

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

. //True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

24 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No:602/2022

ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SPECIAL

MOBILE COURT:: ELURU Date of

OffenceComplaintApprehensioReleaseCommence-Close ofSentence or reportn of accusedon bailment oftrialof Order trial 02.07.202204.07.2022---41-A Cr.P.C12.11.202502.03.202606.04.2026 notice

Explanation for delay: This case is taken on file dt.22.09.2022. Copies furnished to accused on 10.01.2023. The accused was examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C on 05.02.2024. Trial commenced on 12.11.2025 and concluded on 02.03.2026. Accused examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C on 11.03.2026. Heard for arguments on 02.04.2026. Judgment pronounced on 06.04.2026.

Cr.No. : 237/2022 of Pedapadu Police Station

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu P.S.

Offence : Under sections 431, 434, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

Name of the accused:

1. Dondapati Baburao, S/o. Subbayya, age 59 years, SC Madiga, Andhreyapuram. Epuru Panchayanthi, Pedapadu Mandal.

2. Dondapati Yesubabu, S/o. Baburao, age 27 years , SC Madiga, Andhreyapuram, Epuru Panchayanthi, Pedapadu Mandal.

3. Dondapati Mariyamma, W/o. Baburao, age 55 years, SC Madiga, Andhreyapuram, Epuru Panchayanthi, Pedapadu Mandal.

4. Dondapati Prabhu Jyothi, D/o. Baburao, age 29 years, SC Madiga, Andhreyapuram, Epuru Panchayanthi, Pedapadu Mandal.

Finding: Found guilty.

25 CC.602/2022

Dt:06.04.2026

SJFC (Mobile),Court, Eluru.

Result: In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found guilty of the offence under sections 434 of IPC. Hence, they are convicted u/sec.248(2) of

Cr.PC. However, A1 to A4 are found not guilt for the offence under

Sections 431, 506, r/w 34 of IPC and thereby they are acquitted u/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, A.1 to A.4 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each (i.e. total Rs.8,000/-) for the offence punishable under section 434 r/w 34 IPC in default of payment of fine, A.1 to A.4 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months.

The accused are informed about their right to carry the matter in appeal. The fine amount shall confiscate to the state after appeal time is over.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

2. The Superintendent of Police, Eluru.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

1

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: SPECIAL MOBILE COURT:: ELURU.

Present:- Smt N.Mary,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2026

Calendar Case No.786 of 2022

Between:

Keyura Aqua Solutions, Rep. by its Proprietor Smt. Paturi Sri Priya, W/o. Peddi Ravindra, Hindu, Female, age 39 years, O/o. Gurakalapeta, near Sriparru village,

Eluru, W.G.District. ... Complainant

Vs.

Bale Sri Lakshmi, W/o Sita Ramaraju, Hindu, Female, age 34 years, R/o.D.No.3-134, Gurakalapeta, Sriparru village, Eluru Mandal, W.G.District. … Accused

This case coming on 19.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Kamatam Subbarao (BALA) learned counsel

for complainant and of Sri M. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for

accused and the matter having stood over till this day, for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The instant complaint filed against the accused is in respect of an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881.

2

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

2. Briefly stated, the case of complainant is like this :

[a] Keyura Aqua Solutions, is a sole proprietorship owned by the complainant. The accused and her husband namely Bale Sita

Rama Raju are customers of the complainant, and in the course of this business relationship, the accused obtained prawn feed from the complainant’s proprietorship on a credit basis. As per the terms and conditions with the complainant’s firm, the accused has fell due an amount of Rs.2,79,025/-. As per the norms of the complainant, the credit purchase amount has to be repaid within one month from the date of purchase. The accuses has fell due an amount of Rs.2,79,025/- as on 30.06.2021. The complainant demanded for repayment of the credit amount due from the accused.

[b] The complainant further submit that, the accused has approached the complainant and issued a cheque bearing No.244691 for Rs.2,50,000/- in the name of the complainants firm on 05.07.2022 drawn on State Bank of India, Madepalli branch, towards part payment of the credit purchase due, the complainant presented the said cheque in their bank i.e., State Bank of India, Sir CRR Campus,

Santhi nagar branch, Eluru for collection on 06.07.2022. The said cheque was returned on 06.07.2022 with an endorsement " insufficient funds" and immediately after receiving the same, the complainant approached the accused demanded to clear of the said debt but the 3

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru accused did not repay single pie due under the credit purchase or cheque amount. The accused intentionally cheated the complainant and dishonestly induced the complainant to pay the said khata debt by promising that the accused will repay the same. But the accused has not come forward to discharge the above debt. Thereupon, he got issued a Regd. Legal notice dt.25.07.2022 to the accused by demanding her to repay the said cheque amount, but it was returned on 27.07.2022 unserved as the accused refused to receive the said notice. Hence, the complaint filed U/Sec.138 of NI Act.

3.This case was taken on file under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act 1881, against the accused and summons given.

4. On appearance, copies of documents have been supplied to the accused as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., explaining the substance of accusation made against them. Her plea is one of total denial. She pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

6. During the course of enquiry, the complainant himself is examined as PW.1 and in support of his case and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5 and one Peddi Ravindra is examined as PW2.

7. After closure of the evidence, on behalf of the complainant’s side, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against her, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused herself examined as DW1 and got examined her acquainted as DW.2. No documents marked on her behalf.

8.I have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

9.The points for consideration are :

 (i) Whether the complainant had

succeeded in establishing his case that,

there is legally enforceable debt, and if so

;  (ii) whether the accused have dispelled

the presumption, as envisaged under

section 139 of N.I.Act with preponderance

of probabilities ?

 (iii) To what relief ?

P O I N Ts No.1 and 2 : -

10. The factual matrix of the case is that, Keyura Aqua Solutions, is a sole proprietorship owned by the complainant. The accused and 5

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru her husband namely Bale Sita Rama Raju are customers of the complainant, and in the course of this business relationship, the accused obtained prawn feed from the complainant’s proprietorship on a credit basis. In connection with this transaction , the accused had issued a cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- dated 05.07.2022. When the said cheque was presented, it was dishonoured with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Hence, legal notice was issued on 25.07.2022.

Inspite of service of notice, the accused did not comply the demand and hence the complainant was forced to file complaint against the accused.

11. In order to prove that, there is a legally enforceable debt,

P.W.1/Complainant, filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated by and large all the averments made in the complaint and relied on Ex.P1 is the original Account ledger book of the complainant; Ex.P2-the original cheque bearing No.244691 said to have issued by accused to the complainant dt.05.07.2022; Ex.P3 is the original cheque return memo issued by the bank dt.06.07.2022;

Ex.P4 is the Office copy of registered legal notice got issued by the complainant to the accused dated 25.07.2022 and Ex.P5- the un- served postal cover contain the legal notice, from the accused.

6

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

12. PW.1, during cross-examination, admitted that the firm “Keyur Acqua Solutions” is a registered entity and that, she has been regularly filing income tax returns on its behalf and that, her husband is a tax consultant. She further stated that, the subject transaction has been duly reflected in the income tax returns for the year 2021.

PW.1 also fairly admitted that, she did not produce the original

ledgers, day book, or account books pertaining to the alleged

transaction under Ex.P.1 involving the accused and the accused’s husband. Additionally, PW.1 conceded that it is her usual practice to

issue credit receipts to customers who purchase stock from her

firm on a credit basis. PW.1 further stated that the original bill is retained in the custody of her firm, while the carbon copy of the said bill is handed over to the customer. She also admitted that, as a general practice, the signature of the customer is obtained on the original bill. PW.1 admitted that her firm did not obtain the

signature of the accused on the ledger folio, day book, account

books, or on any receipts pertaining to the alleged

transactions. She further stated that the present case has been filed against the accused on the ground that the accused had taken stock from her firm. PW.1 also added that both the accused and the accused’s husband had purchased stock from her firm, and that, the case has been filed in respect of the transactions involving both of them. She admitted that one Vemuri Ravindra and her brother by 7

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru name Pathuri Srikanth are close friends as such on the request of said

Vemuri Ravindra and her brother Srikanth scribed a pronote in favour of her pertaining to her firm.

12.1. It is further elicited that, in Ex.P.1/Ledger Account bears

PW1’s signature and the stamp of her firm, and it is a computer generated and self-certified document. As on 30.06.2021, the accused was indebted to her firm in a sum of Rs.3,70,600/- towards credit purchases of stock and the accused paid an amount of

Rs.90,000/- in cash to the firm. Whereas, per Ex.P.1, the outstanding balance due from the accused as on 30.06.2021 was Rs.2,79,025/-.

PW.1 further admitted that she noted that in the last column of Ex.P.1,

dated 04.07.2021, the entry is described as a “Credit Note.” The

accused issued Ex.P.2 cheque to her on 05.07.2022 for part payment and it was dishonored for want of insufficient funds. PW.1 expressed her unawareness of the fact that the address of the accused mentioned in the complaint, Ex.P.4 legal notice, and her affidavit are different. PW.1 categorically asserted that, the accused personally came to her firm, signed Ex.P.2 in her presence. She also clarified that the handwriting appearing on Ex.P.2 does not belong to her, her husband, her brother, or her accountant. PW.1 stated that, she has never personally visited the fish ponds of the accused at any point of time and that, she is unaware whether the accused owns any fish 8

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru ponds in her name. However, she affirmed that her firm supplied R2,

R3, and R4 grade prawn feed. She further stated that her firm does not obtain blank cheques from customers at the time of supplying stock on a credit basis.

12.2. According to PW.1, Ex.P.2 cheque was handed over to her by the accused in a duly filled manner, including the account number.

She denied the suggestion that the signature appearing on Ex.P.2 does not belong to the accused. PW.1 denied the suggestion that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that her firm has not produced documentary evidence to establish prior transactions between her firm and the accused, before the issuance of Ex.P.2 cheque. PW.1 denied the suggestion that, due to disputes between the said V.Ravindra. and her brother Srikanth, she has foisted a false case against the accused for wrongful gain. She also denied the further suggestion that, at the instance of her husband and her brother,

Srikanth, she has instituted this false case against the accused for wrongful gain.

13. PW.2/Peddi Ravindra reiterated the averments made in the complaint, stating that the accused and her husband Bale Sita Rama

Raju were customers of PW.1’s firm namely Sri Keyura Aqua Solutions and had obtained prawn feed on a credit basis. He further stated that 9

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru the dues became outstanding, following which Ex.P.2 cheque was issued. PW.2 also stated that the cheque was dishonoured, and despite the service of a legal notice, the accused failed to pay the outstanding amount. He further testified that, the complainant is his wife and has been running a business related to aqua/prawn feed under the name and style of “Sri Keyura Aqua Solutions at

Gurukulapeta Community Hall, Sriparru Road, Madepalli Panchayat,

Eluru”. He stated that he lookafter the affairs of the complainant’s firm, maintains its accounts by attending the office daily, prepares the firm’s accounts, and represents the firm before the Income Tax

Department.

13.1. PW.2, in cross-examination, stated that he works as a Tax

Consultant and oversees the accounts of the complainant’s firm, Sri

Keyura Aqua solutions, Gurukula Peta, Eluru. He conceded that, to the best of his knowledge, the accused had taken stock (aqua feed) worth

Rs. 3,70,000/-, and that PW.1 affixed the company’s seal on the ledger extract generated from her office and filed before this Court. He further admitted that, as a usual practice, customers receives stock on a credit basis would sign the relevant register, indent book, or firm register; however, no original registers or documents pertaining

to the credit transactions between PW.1 and the accused have

been filed. He also stated that he never obtained the signature of the 10

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru accused on any document of the firm. PW.2 further introduced a new assertion that one Gantasala Ram Prasad transferred Rs.90,000/- to the firm’s account on behalf of the accused towards the material supplied. PW.2 asserted that the ledger copy contains the word “cash”. He explained that, when an amount is received from a third party on behalf of the accused, the firm does not reflect the third party’s name in the account transactions. In such cases, the firm records the transaction in the ledger as received “by way of cash.”

He asserted that, two to three years prior to filing complaint, the accused fell due the aforesaid amount. A person on behalf of accused had paid Rs.90,000/- towards part payment of credit bill through phone-pay to his mobile number and in turn , he deposited the said amount in firm account in the name of accused, however, he did not get mention the said fact of payment of Rs.90,000/- either in complaint or in legal notice or in his chief affidavit.

13.2. PW.2 admitted that, his wife PW.1 had also filed a complaint against one Ravindra vide C.C.No.156/2020. He denied that, the hand writings present on subject cheque and the cheque filed in C.C.No.

156/2020, might have written either by PW2 or his brother-in-law

Srikanth. He denied the suggestion that only to industrialize a transaction between PW.1 and accused, Ex.P.1 was brought into existence and that the said Gantasala Rama Prasad is nothing to do 11

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru with the affairs of PW.1 and accused. He admitted that the transaction under Ex.R1 (promissory note dated 23.11.2018), which was confronted to him (served copy in CC.156/2020), was held between

M/s.Keyura Aqua Solutions and one Vemuri Ravindra for Rs.

9,00,000/-. He further admitted that Ex.R2 (cheque dated 17.12.2019, served copy in CC.156/2020) for Rs.9,50,000/- was issued in respect of the transaction under the promissory note dated 23.11.2018. He clarified that the handwriting in Ex.R2 and the handwriting in the subject cheque, Ex.P2, are not the same. He stated that, the first transaction with the accused took place on 02.01.2021, and the last transaction was on 30.06.2021. He denied the suggestion that no credit transactions occurred between the accused and the firm, and that no legally enforceable debt exists between the accused and the firm. He also denied the suggestion that, the accused was working as a labourer under the fish tanks of

Vemuri Ravindra and that, due to disputes between Ravindra and his brother-in-law Srikanth, the accused was falsely implicated. He further denied the suggestion that the handwriting in Ex.R2 and Ex.P2 belongs to his brother-in-law Srikanth, and that the Rs.90,000/- transaction was fabricated to avoid limitation in filing the complaint.

12

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

DEFENCE SIDE EVIDENCE :

14. The independent witness examined on behalf of the accused as DW.1, has stated that he is well acquainted with both the complainant and the accused Bale Sri Lakshmi and her husband Sita

Rama Raju, as they previously resided in Madepalli Village and Sriparu

Village, which is his native place. He asserted that the accused and her husband never purchased aqua products from the complainant on a credit basis, nor did they issue any cheque to the complainant at any time. DW.1 further stated that the complainant does not own any landed property or fish tanks in either Madepalli or Sriparu, and has never carried on any aquaculture business at those locations. He added that one Vemuri Ravindra is a close associate of the complainant, and due to certain misunderstandings with the complainant’s brother, Ravindra implicated the wife of Sita Rama Raju in the complaint, allegedly taking the name of one Madepalli or

Sriparu. DW.1 concluded that there were no business transactions with the accused and that no fish tanks are owned by the accused or her husband. DW.1, in cross-examination, admitted that the accused and her husband used to work as watchmen for the fish tanks belonging to one Vemuri Ravindra. He candidly acknowledged that he himself used to purchase pesticides from the complainant’s shop.

However, he conceded that he does not know the specific dates on 13

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru which the accused and her husband purchased any products from the complainant on a credit basis.

15. Another witness examined on behalf of the accused, DW.2, testified that the respondent/accused has never carried on any business and that the accused and her husband Sita Rima Raju never purchased aqua products from the complainant on a credit basis, nor did they issue any cheque to the complainant at any time. He further stated that, due to certain misunderstandings with the complainant’s brother, Vemuri Ravindra implicated the accused in the matter.

DW.2, in cross-examination, fairly admitted that he was never present at the time of the alleged transactions.He stated that he does not know when the accused purchased aqua feed or when she issued the subject cheque to the complainant.

16. The learned counsel for the complainant would submit that , the accused not denied his signature on cheque but attempting to suggest due to personal disputes with the complainant’s brother

Srikanth and one V.Ravindra, employer of accused, may have falsely implicated the accused cannot be accepted unless the accused makes out the preponderance of probabilities in his favour.

14

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

17. The learned counsel for the accused would contend that, except filing a self-styled Ledger extract, the complainant failed to show the actual quantity of material/Fish feed obtained by the accused on credit basis, invoice in favour of the complainant. He also contended that the particulars on the cheque were filled by the brother of complainant and that the addresses in the complaint, legal notice, and affidavit are inconsistent. With this submission he maintained that, the complaint against the accused is without merit and should be dismissed with costs.

18.Before dealing with contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions.

(i) To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must show that there is legally enforceable debt or liability between himself and the accused and that only to discharge that debt or liability, the cheque in question was issued in his favour.

(ii) Under Section 139 of NI Act the Court has to presume, unless the contrary was proved, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of a debt or liability.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly laid down in catena of decisions that the standard of proof in discharge of the burden in terms of Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act being the preponderance of a probability. The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption by cogent and convincing 15

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru evidence, either through direct evidence or through the probabilities elicited from the cross-examination.

(iii) It is also well settled in Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar1 , that the said presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the NI

Act, is a rebuttable presumption and the initial onus of proving that the cheque is not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused/drawer of the cheque. The Hon'ble Apex court has further held that " If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily handed over to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer.

(iv) In Rangappa v. Sri Mohan2 the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that, " When an accused has to rebut the presumption under

Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of “preponderance of probabilities”. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his own .

1. (2019) 4 SCC 197 2(2010) 11 SCC 441 16

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

Keeping the abovesaid principles in mind, the evidence brought on record in the case at hand is to be evaluated.

19. In the given case, PW.1 and PW.2 testified that, the accused and her husband were customers of the firm and received stock on credit. However, no document has been filed to substantiate that she is the proprietor of the said Aqua firm. Particularly, though the complainant claims that, she supplied prawn feed to the accused from her proprietorship on a credit basis, and that as per the terms and conditions of the complainant’s firm, the accused became liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,79,025/- as on 30.06.2021, whereas Ex.P1 (ledger account) discloses that the outstanding due as on 30.06.2021 is Rs.3,70,600/-. In view of the above discrepancies regarding outstanding due amount and in the absence of supporting primary documents, the claim of the complainant regarding the exact outstanding amount lacks reliable evidentiary support.

20. In addition, the documents relied upon by the complainant, namely Ex.P.1 (self styled ledger extract) and is self-certified and not independently verified. Further, the ledger account, purportedly maintained by PW.1, does not reflect the true and correct state of the business transactions between the parties. Admittedly no original ledgers, day books, account books, or receipts pertaining to the 17

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru alleged credit transactions between the complainant’s firm and the accused have been filed before this Court. Significantly, PW.1 admitted that she never obtained the signature of the accused on any ledger folio, day book, or receipt. Even PW.2, who alleged to have lookafter the affairs of her wife’s firm, admitted that he never obtained the signature of the accused on any the invoices , credit bills. PW.1 further conceded that no original ledgers, day books, receipts, or signed documents exist linking the accused to the alleged credit transactions. PW.2 confirmed that normal business practice requires a customer’s signature for credit transactions, yet no such signed documents exist for the accused. DW.1 and DW.2 testified that the accused does not own any fish tanks or carry on aquaculture business.

Therefore, in the absence of original transactional documents or signatures, the existence of a legally enforceable debt between PW1 and accused is highly questionable.

21. Pertinent to note that, as per PW.1, on 30.06.2021, the accused disbursed Rs.90,000/- through phone-pay. PW.2, husband of complainant, asserted that a third-party payment of Rs.90,000/- by Gantasala Ram Prasad, which is a new fact not previously disclosed by PW.1, thereby affecting the credibility of the firm’s account. PW.2 further conceded that the ledger records include “cash” entries when a third party paid on behalf of the accused, indicating 18

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru that the records themselves are not clear or directly linked to the accused. The complainant, in her complaint, legal notice or in evidence, has nowhere stated that the accused made a part payment of Rs.90,000/-. PW.1 claimed that the accused personally visited the firm and handed over the cheque, duly signed, and that she herself mentioned the account number. However, the cheque appears to be a pre-printed instrument containing the account holder’s name and account details.

22. Even assuming, for a moment, that the accused had paid

Rs.90,000/- through a third party, the outstanding amount would come to approximately Rs.2,86,000/-, and not Rs.2,79,025/- as alleged. The complainant’s own records are inconsistent and self- serving, undermining the reliability of the alleged debt. Moreover, while the complainant asserts that the accused is liable to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.2,79,025/-, the ledger account produced reflects a closing balance of Rs.3,70,600/- as on 30.06.2021, which is inconsistent with the claim. Further, both PW.1 and PW.2 have failed to explain the credit entry of Rs.1,575/- reflected in the ledger account as on 30.06.2021. In view of these material inconsistencies, contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, and unexplained entries in the ledger account, the version of the complainant appears unreliable and unworthy of acceptance.

19

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

23.Further PW2 asserted that the accused became liable to pay the aforesaid amount two to three years prior to the filing of the complaint, he contradicting himself in cross examination by stating that the first transaction with the accused took place on 02.01.2021 and the last transaction on 30.06.2021. Yet, PW1 did not specify the duration of the transaction between the accused and the firm. In view of these in consistencies and the absence of clear evidence regarding the period of transactions, the complainant has failed to establish the claim with sufficient clarity and certainity.

24.In the present case, although the accused examined independent witnesses and relied upon Exs. D1 and D2, the oral and documentary evidence adduced is not wholly convincing. Nevertheless, the complainant has primarily failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt between her firm and the accused. Therefore, the remaining contentions, such as, the non-mention of the accused’s complete address in notice, its service and fillingup the cheque by others, do not require consideration.

25.Significantly, the complainant has neither stated in

the complaint nor in the statutory notice as to when the

accused allegedly obtained prawn feed on credit, the number of

such transactions, the quantity of feed supplied, or its

20

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru corresponding price. PW.1 has also fairly admitted that, except for a self-styled ledger copy generated from a computer, no primary records such as ledger books, day books, account books, or contemporaneousreceiptswereproduced.Further,no acknowledgment or signature of the accused was obtained on any document evidencing such alleged credit transactions. In addition, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is full with material inconsistencies, contradictions, and unexplained entries in the so-called ledger account/Ex.P1, thereby rendering their testimony unreliable and untrustworthy. Thus, the points 1 and 2 are answered against the complainant and in favour of the accused.

POINT NO.3:

To what order?

26In the light of the above discussion and in the absence of corroborative documentary evidence and in view of the inherent infirmities in the oral and documentary evidence adduced, this court of the considered opinion that there is no credible evidence to establish a legally enforceable debt against the accused.

27. In the result, I find that accused is not guilty of the offence under sec. 138 of N.I Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 21

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT; ELURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT :

PW1 : Paturi Sri Priya

PW2: Peddi Ravindra

FOR DEFENCE: DW1: Mandala Gangaraju DW2: Ghantasala Gopinath

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1: Original Account ledger extract of the complainant firm.

Ex.P2: Original cheque bearing No.244691 issued by accused to the complainant dt.05.07.2022.

Ex.P3: Original cheque return memo issued by the bank dt.06.07.2022.

Ex.P4: Office copy of registered legal notice got issued by the complainant to the accused dated 25.07.2022.

22

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

Ex.P5: Original unserved returned cover from the accused.

FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.D1: Served copy of pronote dt.23.11.2018 in CC.156/2020.

Ex.D2: Served copy of cheque dt.17.12.2019 for Rs.9,50,0000/- in

CC.156/2020.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. //True copy//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT;ELURU 23

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU

C.C.No. 786/2022

01.Date of Offence: 06.07.2022

02.Date of Filing: 01.09.2022

03.Date of Apprehension of : -- accused

04.Date of Released on Bail: --

05.Date of Commencement of : 30.05.2023 Trial

06.Date of Closure of Trial: 03.02.2026

07.Date of sentence or order: 16.04.2026

08.Name of the Complainant: Keyura Aqua Solutions, Rep. by its Proprietor Smt. Paturi Sri Priya, W/o. Peddi Ravindra, Hindu, Female, age 39 years, O/o. Gurakalapeta, near Sriparru village, Eluru, W.G.District.

09.Name of the Accused: Bale Sri Lakshmi, W/o Sita Ramaraju, Hindu, Female, age 34 years, R/o.D.No.3-134, Gurakalapeta, Sriparru village, Eluru Mandal, W.G.District.

10.Nature of Offence: U/s.138 r/w 142 of N.I.Act

11.Plea of Accused: Pleaded not guilty

12.Finding of Court: Found not guilty 24

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

13. Explanation for the delay: The case is taken on file on 25.09.2022. Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C on 02.11.2022.

Trial commenced on 30.05.2023 and concluded on 03.02.2026.

Accused examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C on 03.10.2025. Arguments heard on 01.04.2026. Judgment pronounced 16.04.2026.

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, I find that accused is not guilty of the offence under sec. 138 of N.I Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancelled.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT;ELURU

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Eluru.

//True copy//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT;ELURU 25

CC No.786 of 2022

Dt.:16.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

1

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: SPECIAL MOBILE COURT:: ELURU.

Present:- Smt N.Mary,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

Tuesday, this the 07thday of April, 2026

Calendar Case No.115 of 2023

Between:

Alapati Venkat Subbarao, S/o. Ramanna, Hindu, Male, age 55 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.NO.28-1-53/172, 7th road, Santhinagar, Eluru, W.G.District.

(Eluru III Town PS Limits). ... Complainant

Vs.

China Sita Mahalakshmi, W/o. Sesha Sai, Hindu, Female, age 45 years, Record Assistant, DA Office, District Educational Office, N.R.Pet, Eluru, W.G.District. (Eluru III Town PS Limits). … Accused

This case coming on 31.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of SriKamatam Subbarao (BALA), learned counsel

for complainant and of Sri. B.R.K. Chowdary, learned counsel for

accused and the matter having stood over till this day, for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The instant complaint filed against the accused is in respect of an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 .

2

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

2. Briefly stated, the case of complainant is like this; a. On 28.06.2021, the accused borrowed an amount

Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) on executing a promissory note in favor of the complainant on the even date for hrt family expenses to discharge sundry debts agreeing to repay the same along with a stipulated interest @ Rs.24% per annum either to complainant or any other person on her order on demand and entire transaction took place at the residence of complainant and in the presence of scribe and attester of the promissory note.

b. The complainant further submit that, he demanded the accused to discharge the prontoe debt taken by her personally and through mediators on a number of occasion and the accused failed to do so. Subsequently the accused approached the complainant, on 08.07.2022 and issued a cheque bearing No.000008, drawn on Kotak

Mahindra Bank, DCMS compound, near Fire station centre, Eluru, for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards part payment of the above mentioned promissory note debt.

c. The complainant further submit that, the said cheque at his banker i.e., Indian Bank, N.R.Pet branch, Eluru, for collection on 08.07.2022, the said cheque was returned on 11.07.2022 as unpaid 3

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru for the reason of “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” and issued a memo with

Col.No.1 by the complainant bank. He got issued a legal notice through his advocate on 19.07.2022 to th accused and demanded the accused to arrange the amount covered under the cheque bearing No.

000008 dt.08.07.2022 and the accused received the said legal notice on 20.07.2022 and kept quiet.

d. The complainant further submit that, the accused issued the spurious and worthless cheque knowing fully well that her account is not having sufficient funds to honour the cheque amount and the same will be dishnoured soon after its presentation. The accused with a cheating intention issued the cheque and thus committed the offence u/sec.138 of NI Act. The accused is a Government employee. She is an educated person and she is aware of the legal consequences of a bounced cheque. The complainant submit that, a valid and legally enforceable debt is existing in between the complainant and the accused and in pursuant of the said debt, the accused issued the above mentioned cheque towards part satisfaction of the said debt an the same was dishonoured. Hence, the complaint filed U/Sec.138 of NI

Act.

3.This case was taken on file under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act 1881, against the accused and summons given.

4

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

4. On appearance, copies of documents have been supplied to the accused as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., explaining the substance of accusation made against her. Her plea is one of total denial. She pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6. During the course of enquiry, the complainant himself is examined as PW.1 and in support of his case and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5.

7. After closure of the evidence, on behalf of the complainant’s side, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against her, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Her plea is one of total denial, however, she did not choose to examine any person on her behalf and marked no documents.

8.I have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

9.The points for consideration are :

 (i) Whether the complainant had

succeeded in establishing his case that,

5

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

there is legally enforceable debt, and if so

;

ii) whether the accused has dispelled the

presumption, as envisaged under section

139 of N.I.Act with preponderance of

probabilities ?

 iii) To what relief ?

P O I N T : -

10. In order to prove that, there is a legally enforceable debt,

P.W.1/Complainant/Alapati Venkat Subbarao, filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated by and large all the averments made in the complaint and relied on Ex.P1 promissory note alleged to have been executed by the accused for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- dt.28.06.2021, Ex.P2/cheque bearing No.000008 drawn for

Rs.1,50,000/- dt.08.07.2022, drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, DCMS

Compound, near Fire station center branch, Eluru towards part satisfaction of the debt, due under the promissory note. Ex.P3 is cheque return memo dt.11.07.2022 , with an endorsement of “Funds insufficient” , Ex.P4 is legal notice dt. 19.07.2022 got issued by the complainant to the accused, Ex.P5/track consignment issued by the postal authorities dt.30.08.2022 with regard to service of Ex.P4 legal notice. This complaint filed on 01.09.2022( vide SR.No.6418).

6

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

11. In cross-examination, PW1 reaffirmed that, on 28.06.2021 he lent Rs.1,50,000/- around 9.00a.m at his house and one

B.V.Seshagiri, B.V.Ramana acted as attestors and one Andnda

Kumara Krishna scribed pronote covered by Ex.P1 and they were brought by accused. He asserted that, on 08.07.2022, the accused brought filled in cheque and gave it to him. He claimed that through his deceased friend Kumar, he had acquaintance with the accused.

He candidly admitted that, he sent legal notice to the office address of accused. PW1 asserted that the accused was suspended from her service and that, during her suspension period, she borrowed amounts from him. PW.1 categorically stated that he has been doing cultivation of palm trees, coco and coconut in admeasuring 20 acres of land and would receive liquid cash from the buyers and out of the earnings on cultivation, he lent amount to the accused. PW.1 though stated that, he got issued notice to her office address where she worked, however fairly admitted that the date of issuance of legal notice was corrected as "19" and that the figure "1" was corrected/altered in Ex.P1 pronote. PW.1 denied that the track consignment cover by Ex.P5 does not pertaining to Ex.P4/legal notice.

PW.1 denied the suggestion that, he has no capacity to lend

Rs.1,50,000/-. PW.1 asserted that he was possessed Rs.1,50,000/- as on the date of transaction. PW.1 denied the suggestion that, the 7

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru cheque in dispute given towards collateral security was subsequently, fabricated.

12. The debt or other liability referred to under Section 138 of

N.I.Act means a "legally enforceable debt or other liability". To constitute the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act , the complainant has to fulfill the requirements, which are as follows:

(1) A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person out of that account.

(2) The cheque should have been issued for the discharge in whole or in part of debt or other liability.

(3) That cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (4) That the cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from the account by an agreement made with the bank.

(5) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.

(6) The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or to the holder in due 8

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

(7). The complaint must be filed within one month from the date of accrual of cause of action.

13. Section 118 of the Act inter alia directs that it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. As per Section 139 of the Act, burden lies upon the drawer of the cheque to rule out the existence of the debtor-creditor relationship. Therefore, the burden lies on the accused to rebut the said presumption either by adducing independent evidence or by eliciting material in the cross- examination of PW.1.

14. Here in the instant case, we have already seen that the accused not adduced any defence evidence either oral or documentary, except a bare suggestion that the cheque given towards collateral security has been fabricated and figure "1" in pronote was altered. His further defence that the notice was sent to incorrect address and Ex.P5 track consignment was not pertaining to Ex.P4/legal notice. PW.1 denied the said suggestions. It is settled law that, mere claim of cheque being given towards security was fabricated is not enough. The accused must borne in 9

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru mind that bare denial of existence of debt under pronote and issued cheque towards security, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused to seek dismissal of the complaint. Something which is probable has to be brought satisfactorily on record for getting the burden of proof shifted back to the complainant.

 In the case of M.ABBAS HAJI VS. T.N.CHANNAKESHAVA reported in (2019) 9 SCC 606, it was observed that, in the

absence of offering any explanation how the cheque leaves

entered into the hands of complainant, plea of the accused

cannot be taken into consideration.

 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hiten P.Dalal Vs. Bratindranath

Banerjee 1 , has held that where there is factual basis to show the execution of cheque, the Court is bound to raise the presumptions

U/Secs.118 (a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Actin favour of the complainant.

15. In the given case, except taking the stand that, except contending that the cheque given towards security was fabricated, no explanation whatsoever offered under which transaction and to whom, he had given the cheque for security and how the pronote contained his signature came into the hands of complainant. The accused has not adduced any contra 1. 2001 (6) SCC 16 10

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru evidence in rebuttal to explain how Ex.P1 – the promissory note and Ex.P2 – the cheque, came into the hands of the complainant. The accused has utterly failed to offer any plausible or convincing explanation as to how the complainant and others came to have knowledge of the nature, manner, and style of her signature. No plausible explanation has been offered as to what prompted to attestors and scribe who were allegedly brought by accused herself to speak against her. However, it is pertinent to note that the suggestions mentioned above were denied by the complainant. Accordingly, the said defence does not inspire confidence and is liable to be rejected.

16. Under Ex.P.3 bank memo dt.22.09.2022 Ex.P.2/cheque was returned for the reason 'funds insufficient". Thus, complainant successfully brought into record the fact of dishonour of cheque.

Section 146 of the Act providing that the bank's slip or memo with the official mark showing that the cheque was dishonoured would by itself give raise to the presumption of dishonour of the cheque, unless and until that fact was disproved. Therefore, when it is satisfactorily brought into record that the Ex.P.2 cheque contains the signature of accused as executant which is admittedly issued from the account stands in the name of accused, the presumption under section 118A of the Act comes into play and it can be presumed that the said cheque was drawn or made for consideration on the date it bears. If the 11

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru facts in the case on hand are examined, accused except denying the transaction in question, nowhere, in the cross-examination of the complainant, accused has not suggested, anything denying his signatures on Ex.P1/pronote and Ex.P2/cheque.Therefore, the complainant is certainly entitled to the benefit of the presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presumes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Now turning to the other collateral issues :

17. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the statutory notice does contain the correct address of the accused and that notice was sent to her office address itself. According to PW.1, upon dishonour of the cheque, he caused issuance of the statutory notice under Ex.P4 to the office address of the accused. Thus, the notice was sent to the address available in pronote. As per PW.1, Ex.P4 was served on accused on 20.07.2022 .

18. Here it is pertinent to note that, the complainant addressed letter to postal office for clarification of service of notice, and the superintendent of post office has replied on 30.08.2022 appending proof of delivery, stating that the Regd. post

No.RN4404460187IN dt.20.07.2022 was delivered on 20.07.2022 and is attached therewith. It is not the case of the accused that the office 12

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru address to which the statutory notice was sent was incorrect or unconnected with her at the relevant point of time. In the absence of any such specific plea or evidence, it cannot be presumed that the notice was sent to a incorrect address. However, it is for her to substantiate that the address mentioned in the postal acknowledgment is not connected to her. However, she has not even summoned the postal authorities to establish that the notice was not served on her.

Therefore, when the notice was dispatched to the office address of the accused, which is not shown to be incorrect or unrelated to her, service of notice to the office address of the accused is deemed to be valid service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.

19. It is appropriate to refer the law laid down in the case of C. C.

ALAVI HAJI VS. PALAPETTY MUHAMMED & ANOTHER 2 decided by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein, it was observed that, "when once notice is

sent to the correct address by registered post, it is deemed to have been served and presumption under Section 27 of General Clauses Act will come into play and due service has to be presumed.

20. In the case at hand, the summons were also sent to the same address, pursuant to which the accused appeared before the Court and filed her vakalat. When the notice is sent by registered post by correctly 2(2007) 6 SCC 555.

13

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act stands complied with.

 The next contention of the accused is that PW.1 had no financial capacity to advance the loan in question as on the alleged date of transaction.

21. In this regard, it is relevant to reproduce the admissions made by PW.1 during his cross-examination. PW.1 asserted that he has been doing cultivation of palm trees, coco and coconut in admeasuring 20 acres of join family land and would receive liquid cash from the buyers and out of the earnings on cultivation, he lent amount to the accused.

The mere fact that PW.1 did not produce documentary proof of income cannot, by itself, be a ground to discard his testimony.

22. In the case of ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL VS. STATE OF

GUJARAT & ANR. 3 , decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it was observed that, unless the accused had discharged his onus by bringing on record, such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt, on the complainant case, could 3. 2019 (5) SCALE 138 14

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru not have been raised for want of evidence regarding sources of funds, for advancing loan to the accused.

23. Last but not least, the accused further contended that the figure "1" was altered in Ex.P1/Pronote and the date in Ex.P4/legal notice, was corrected. Upon perusal of Ex.P1 pronote, no such apparent alteration of digit/figure found in it. That apart, though it is apparent on the notice that the date of issuance of legal notice was corrected as "19" , but it does not change the case of complainant since it was given within stipulated period.

Therefore, the defence taken by the accused does not hold much water, and thereby rejected.

24. In the instant case as well, the accused though had taken a specific defence that, the cheque given towards security was subsequently fabricated, but she has not initiated any legal action against the complainant alleging misuse or taken any steps, for sending Ex.P.1/pronote and Ex.P2/cheque, for expert examination to prove her defence. Thus, the accused failed to discharge the onus by bringing on record, such facts and circumstances, as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in her favour, and consequently, this Court is of the considered view that, any doubt on the complainant’s case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding sources of funds. The ratio laid down in the case of 15

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL referred supra, is squarely applicable to the facts of the case at hand.

25. In the light of above discussion, basing on oral and documentary evidence brought on record, apart from the legal principles laid down which are referred to above, I am of the definite view that PW.1 has established the execution of the promissory note under Ex.P1, the issuance of the cheque under Ex.P2 by the accused, and its dishonour upon presentation before the bank with the endorsement “insufficient funds.”

Despite receipt of the legal notice under Ex.P4, evidenced by Ex.P5, the accused failed to discharge the debt due under Ex.P1. The complaint has also been filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act are clearly made out from the evidence brought on record by PW.1 , with the help of presumptions available under the Act, in his favor. However, accused failed to rebut those presumptions, by placing a probable defence, to disprove the case of P.W.1.

Consequently, it can be said that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the accused within the meaning of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As such, the accused is liable for appropriate punishment in accordance with law. Accordingly, Points No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of complainant.

16

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

26. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and he is convicted U/Sec.255(2)

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to personal Assistant directly on the Computer, corrected by me and

then pronounced in the open court this the 07th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT; ELURU

27. Accused is heard about the quantum of sentence, he denied the offence alleged against him. On enquiry, she stated that, she is having two children and her husband is no more. She further submitted that she is working in Government sector and if she is imprisoned, her job would be at peril. She further submitted that her daughter is pregnant and she has look after her welfare at this moment with this submission, she sought to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence upon her. Heard both counsel in respect of the quantum of sentence to be imposed on the accused. Since it is an economical offence and amount is involved, this court is of the opinion that, this court feels that it is not a fit case to take lenient view and accused is not entitled for any benefits of P.O.Act.

28. In the result, I find that, accused is guilty of the offence under section 138 of N.I Act. Accordingly, she is convicted under 17

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru section 255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for six months and also directed the accused to pay compensation amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- being cheque amount to the complainant, within one month from the date of this order, in default of payment of compensation amount, the accused shall undergo, simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

29. Record reveals no previous remand period of convict/ Accused, accordingly there is no order as to set off of remand period U/s. 428 of

Cr.P.C. The accused is informed about her right to carry the matter in appeal and legal aid.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the, 07thday of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT :

PW1 :Alapati Venkat Subbarao

FOR DEFENCE: None.

18

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1: Original promissory note executed by the accused in favour of the complainant dt.28.06.2021.

Ex.P2: Original Cheque bearing No. 000008 issued by accused to the complainant dated 08.07.2022.

Ex.P3: Original cheque return memo issued by the bank dt.11.07.2022.

Ex.P4: Office copy of registered legal notice got issued by the complainant to the accused dated 19.07.2022.

Ex.P5: Track consignment issued by the postal authorities dt.30.08.2022 with regard to service of Ex.P4 legal notice.

FOR DEFENCE : Nil.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

//True copy//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT;ELURU 19

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU

C.C.No. 115/2023

01.Date of Offence: 11.07.2022

02.Date of Filing: 01.09.2022

03.Date of Apprehension of accused: --

04.Date of Released on Bail: --

05.Date of Commencement of Trial: 22.06.2023

06.Date of Closure of Trial: 16.12.2025

07.Date of sentence or order: 07.04.2026

08.Name of the Complainant: Alapati Venkat Subbarao, S/o. Ramanna, Hindu, Male, age 55 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.NO.28-1-53/172, 7th road, Santhinagar, Eluru, W.G.District. (Eluru III Town PS Limits).

09.Name of the Accused: Chinta Sita Mahalakshmi, W/o. Sesha Sai, Hindu, Female, age 45 years, Record Assistant, DA Office, District Educational Office, N.R.Pet, Eluru, W.G.District. (Eluru III Town PS Limits).

10.Nature of Offence: U/s.138 r/w 142 of N.I.Act

11.Plea of Accused: Pleaded not guilty

12.Finding of Court: Found guilty 20

CC No.115/2023

Dt.: 07.04.2026

Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

13. Explanation for the delay: The case is taken on file on 05.09.2022 Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C on 10.02.2023.

Trial commenced on 22.06.2023 and concluded on 16.12.2025.

Accused examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C on 19.12.2025. Arguments heard on 31.03.2026. Judgment pronounced 07.04.2026.

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, I find that, accused is guilty of the offence under section 138 of N.I Act. Accordingly, she is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo

Imprisonment for six months and also directed the accused to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- being cheque amount to the complainant, within one month from the date of this order, in default of payment of compensation amount, the accused shall undergo, simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Record reveals no previous remand period of convict/ Accused, accordingly there is no order as to set off of remand period U/s. 428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is informed about her right to carry the matter in appeal and legal aid.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT;ELURU

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Eluru.

//True copy//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT;ELURU

1 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT:: ELURU

Present:- Smt N.Mary,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

Thursday, this the 12th day of March, 2026

C.C.No. 861 of 20 24

(Crime No.329 of 2024 of Eluru III Town P.S)

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police

Eluru III Town Police Station. ...Complainant

Vs.

Yerrasani Lakshman, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, age 20 years, C/Vatsaralu, R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tadepalligudem, now at Weeker colony, Tadepalligudem.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 11.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Hemalatha, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

Prosecution and Sri P. Prasada Rao, Advocate for the Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Basing on the complaint given by Balusu Venkata Vamsi

Krishna, this case was registered in crime No.329/2024, for the offence, 2 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru under sections 331(4), 305(a) of BNS Registered by LW.8-K. Prasad, S.I of police, Eluru III Town Police Station.

2. Case of the prosecution as was set out by prosecution, is that :

a)On 10.11.2024 at about 8.30 pm., LW.1-Balusi Venkata

Vamsi Krishna along with his family went to Hyderabad by locking the house and on their return to his house on 05.11.2024 at about 1.00 am, they found noticed that, the door locks have been broken, and whereof they noticed missing of Rs.13,000/- from the safe and the complainant was preferred to lodge complaint.

b) On the strength of the report given by him, LW.8-K.

Prasad, S.I of police, Eluru III Town Police Station, registered a crime 329/2024 u/sec. 305(a) and 317(2) of BNS recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 14.11.2024, arrested the accused and recovered

Rs.11,000/- (22 x 500/-) apart from property relating to other crime, in the presence of mediators and got produced the accused before the Court and that, on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. The Court took cognizance of the offence under sections 331(4), 305(a) of BNS against accused.

3 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

4. On the appearance made by accused copies of documents along with relevant material, have been supplied to him, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. My Ld. Predecessor conducted examination of accused u/sec.262 of BNSS, explaining the accusation made against him, and charges for the offences, U/S. 331(4) and 305(a) and 317(2) of BNS against accused, have been framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6. In order to substantiate the allegations leveled by the prosecution, against the accused, it had examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO.1 marked.

7. The accused was examined U/S.351 of BNSS for the incriminating material found against accused, in the evidence of prosecution witness, to which, his plea is one of total denial. He did not choose to examine any person on his behalf and marked no documents.

8. I have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

4 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

9. Now the question that arises for consideration is:

 “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offences under sections 331(4), 305(a) and 317(2) of BNS?”

10. P O I N T: The sum and substance of the prosecution case alleged against the accused is that, they committed theft of property relating to the defacto complainant, and on his complaint, the

Investigating agency enquired into the matter, arrested the accused, recovered MO.1 on 14.11.2024. The case of accused is total denial.

Evidence on behalf of prosecution:

11. To prove the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and it is now relevant to refer the necessary evidence on record to prove the specific charges framed against the accused.

12. The testimony of P.W.1/B. Venkata Vamsi Krishna is that, 01.11.2024 at 9.00 pm., they went to Hyderabad by duly locked the house and on 05.11.2024 they returned from Hyderabad at 1.00 am., and found the doors were broke opened, they rushed into the house and found the things are in pell-mell and the iron safe was broke opened, when they verified the iron safe , found an amount of Rs.13,000/- was missing, on 5 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru that, he lodged report to police/Ex.P1on 10.11.2024. He further stated that, 20 days after Ex.P1, police informed him that, Rs.11,000/- has been from the possession of accused. During PW1 cross examination, he admitted that, he did not mention the denomination and serial number of currency of Rs.13,000/- in his report and that, he did not mention the reasons for delay in filing the report. He also admitted that, the station writer in the presence of CI of Police, SI of Police handed over Rs.11,000/- to him.

13. PW2/D. Suresh Babu, VRO, Postal colony, Eluru , deposed that on 24.11.2024, while he was present in his office, he received a phone call from the MRO directing him to go to Eluru III Town Police

Station along with LW7 to act as mediators in a criminal case.

Accordingly, both of them proceeded to the police station and thereafter accompanied the police to Pedapadu Bridge, located near the Mini Bypass Flyover, at about 4:00 PM. There, they noticed a person coming on a two-wheeler who, upon seeing the police party, attempted to escape. However, the police apprehended him and inquired about his identity. The accused disclosed his name and other particulars but failed to produce or account for the vehicle documents.

PW2 further testified that upon further enquiry, the accused confessed that during the first week of November 2024 he had committed theft of 6 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru the said vehicle at Dondapadu and had also stolen an amount of

Rs.13,000/-, out of which he spent Rs.2,000/-. When questioned about the remaining amount, the accused handed over Rs.11,000/- to the police. Thereafter, the police seized the motorcycle as well as the said amount of Rs.11,000/- from the possession of the accused.

Subsequently, a detailed confessional panchanama was prepared under

Ex.P2 and PW2 signed the same as a mediator. PW2 , in cross examination admitted that no serial number of seizure currency was mentioned in Ex.P2. He denied that, he was a stock mediator.

14. PW3/K. Prasad, the then SI of Police, Eluru III Town deposed that, on 10.11.2024 at 8.30 pm., basing on the written complaint/Ex.P1 being filed by PW.1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.329/2024 under section 331(4), 305(A) of BNS, examined PW1, recorded his statement, and that, on the next day, examined LW2/B

Syamala, LW3/M. Suresh, LW4/S. Srinivasarao and LW5/S. Kishore recorded their statements. He further stated that the Clues Team had visited the scene of offence and collected chance prints. He conceded that on 12.11.2024, after obtaining the report from the fingerprint experts, it was revealed that the fingerprints matched with those of

Yarrasani Lakshman, who is a habitual offender, thereby indicating his involvement in the theft committed in the house of PW1. PW3 further 7 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru testified that on 24.11.2024, upon receiving reliable information regarding the movements of the accused, he secured the presence of mediators, namely PW2 and LW8. Thereafter, along with them and the police staff, he proceeded to the Mini Bypass Flyover Bridge at

Pedapadu . At that place, they noticed the accused coming on a motorcycle in a suspicious manner and, on seeing the police party, he attempted to escape. However, with the assistance of the staff, the accused was apprehended. During interrogation, the accused confessed that he had committed theft of Rs.13,000/- from a house situated at Sanivarapupeta and had also stolen the motorcycle while escaping from the scene. Pursuant to his confession, PW3 arrested the accused and seized an amount of Rs.11,000/- along with the motorcycle from his possession.

15. In the cross-examination, PW3 conceded that the complainant did not mention the reasons for the delay in filing Ex.P1. He also admitted that in the mediator’s report (Ex.P2), the serial numbers of the seized currency were not mentioned and that no property identification parade was conducted. He further admitted that the statement of the fingerprint expert was not recorded and that the currency allegedly seized from the accused was not sent to the experts for comparison of fingerprints. However, he denied the suggestion that, 8 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru as the accused was involved in other property offence cases, the police falsely implicated him in the present case and that the entire record was fabricated at the police station.

16. Referring to the said evidence brought on the record, what the learned counsel for the accused would contend is that, there is no satisfactory evidence indicating the direct involvement of accused in the offence alleged and that in the absence of any material satisfying the ingredients of Section 331 and 305 (a) of BNS, he cannot be convicted.

17. In the case at hand, admittedly, the testimony of PW1 does not disclose any incriminating material against the accused to the effect that he committed theft of Rs.13,000/-, except the alleged confession attributed to him. PW1, in his cross-examination, stated that his house is situated in a residential locality. However, there is no whisper in his testimony to show that the accused was apprehended immediately after the incident. Moreover, it is not even the case of the investigating agency that the accused was caught immediately after the occurrence. There is no direct evidence on record establishing that the accused entered the house of PW1 and committed theft. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not 9 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru inspire confidence, either on facts or in law, to connect the accused with the commission of the offence under Section 331 and 305(a) of the BNS.

18. Coming to the charge framed under section 317(2) of BNS is concerned, the prosecution relies on the testimony of P.W.2 one of the mediator and P.W.3, the Investigating Officer, coupled with Ex.P.2 mediators report.

19. It is in the testimony of P.W.3, the Investigating Officer that, he registered, Ex.P.3 FIR on the complaint given by P.W.1, visited the place of offence, prepared rough sketch, the Clues Team had collected chance prints on 12.11.2024. According to P.W.3, on he received report covered by Ex.P4 fromfinger print experts informing that finger prints matched with those of Yarrasani Lakshman who involved in various crimes and in course of his investigation, on reliable information, he along with P.W.2 and another mediator L.W.8/K. Prasad, SI of Police, Eluru III

Town PS, proceeded to Mini Bypass flyover, apprehended a person, accused herein and enquired him who disclosed his complicity not only in the case at hand but also about his committing theft of vehicle relating to other crime and kept the same in his possession. The testimony of P.W.2 one of the mediators speaks supporting the investigation claimed to have been undertaken by P.W.3, the Investigating Officer about arrest of 10 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru accused and seizure of property not only the property in this crime covered by M.O.1 but also vehicle relating to other crime Vide

Cr.no.327/24.

20. Learned counsel for the accused would maintain that, the investigation claimed to have been carried out by P.W.3 is table made and with the help of interested witnesses, he falsely implicated the accused in various cases.

21 The learned APP, inter alia, contended that the accused had habituated to an extravagant lifestyle and, in order to sustain it, allegedly indulged in committing theft from targeting locked houses. It was further submitted that P.W.2, the VRO, had clearly deposed regarding the manner of occurrence as confessed by the accused, and no apparent reason has been shown to doubt his testimony. It was also argued that the recovery of M.O.1 from the possession of the accused would establish their involvement in the offence.

22. It is no doubt true that, P.W.2 in his cross examination has admitted that, he acted as mediator in other cases, but that by itself is not a ground to discredit the case of prosecution. Moreover, P.W.2 is Village 11 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

Revenue officer and his evidence cannot be thrown out by referring to some minor draw backs, in the case of prosecution. Similarly, it has to be seen, whether the testimony of P.W.2 one of the mediator has been shaken when he was subjected to cross examination. He denied when suggested that, the accused never confessed admitting the offences that were committed, which lead to seizure of property in this case. Ex.P2 mediator's report, whereunder the property in question was recovered contains the signature of not only both the mediators, but also the signature of accused, acknowledging its contents. Nothing was elicited by the accused in the cross examination of P.W.3, the Investigating Officer, except denying the investigation undertaken by him.

23. The contents of Ex.P2, in specific terms, indicate that the accused, having no other avocation and being addicted to bad vices, started committing thefts of properties from houses which he had identified as being under lock and key, in order to earn money. His alleged confession further discloses that he, along with others, committed several property offences and was involved in about 20 cases. He is stated to have spent away certain stolen properties for his personal use, including cash. It is further stated that, while moving on a stolen motorcycle in search of another house to commit theft, he was apprehended by the police. At that time, he allegedly produced and handed over Rs.11,000/- 12 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru from his pocket, stating that the said amount pertained to the present case. He also produced the motorcycle, which related to another crime.

Thereafter, PW3, upon identifying that the property covered under M.O.1 related to the present case, seized the same along with other properties connected to different crimes.

24. Apparently, the confessional statement made by the accused in the presence of PW2 and LW8 discloses that his confession led to the recovery of M.O.1, namely Rs.11,000/-, along with other property. In view of the said recovery pursuant to the disclosure made by the accused, there appears to be no reason for this Court to disbelieve the portion of the confession admissible under law as reflected in Ex.P2. Needless to say, Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits proof of that portion of a statement made by an accused to the police, whether it amounts to a confession or not, which distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered.

Thus, even a confessional statement made before the police, to the extent that it distinctly leads to the discovery of a fact, is admissible in evidence under Section 27. Thus, the part of confessional statement covered under Ex.P.2 which distinctly relates to the discovery of property covered by MO.1 is admissible. Therefore, this court of the view that, the prosecution is able to bring home to the guilt of accused for the offence under section 317(2) of BNS.

13 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

25. In the result, the prosecution is able to succeed in bringing home the guilt of accused for the offence under section 317(2)(a) of BNS for having in possession of property in possession unlawfully and consequently, I find that, the accused is guilty of the offence on the said count and convicted under section 265(2) BNSS. However, the prosecution failed to place any positive material, for connecting the accused with the offence under section 331(4) and 305(A) of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 265(1) of BNSS.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and

pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of May, 2026.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

26. Accused is heard about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, he submits that he is working as coolie and he is poor people.It It is a case, where accused was found in possession of cash in subject matter and vehicle, belonging to other crime. The confessional statement of accused covered by Ex.P.2 itself is self explanatory showing the circumstances which drove him to commit series of property offences including indulging in transporting ganja, one of the vehicle found noticed in his possession, when he was caught hold by the Investigating Officer, pursuant to the information given by finger print expert stating that, 14 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru finger prints of accused are tallied. Therefore, taking into consideration of not only oral and documentary evidence but also the scientific evidence placed on record in other cases of similar nature, I have no hesitation to say that, accused is not entitled for any benefits of P.O.Act for taking lenient view.

27. In the result, the accused is sentenced him for to undergo

Rigorous imprisonment for Six Months apart from paying a fine of

Rs.200/-, in default in payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one Month for the offence u/sec.317(2) of BNS. The property covered by M.O.1 is ordered to be returned to P.W.1 ( B.

Venkata Vamsi Krishna) on expiry of appeal time, if not already done.

28. The period which the accused is in Jail during investigation or trial, ie from 25.11.2024 to 09.01.2025 and 03.02.2026 to till date ie 12.03.2026 (ie 108 days) is ordered to be given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is informed about his right to carry the matter in appeal.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and

pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

15 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1: B. Venkata Vamsi Krishna

PW2: D. Suresh Babu, VRO, Postal colony, Eluru.

PW3: K. Prasad, the then ASI of Police, Eluru III town PS.

FOR DEFENCE:: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Prosecution: For Defence: -Nil –

Ex.P.1: Report of PW1

Ex.P.2: Mediator report, dt.24.11.2024.

Ex.P.3: Original FIR.

Ex.P.4: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.5: Finger print expert report, dt.12.11.2024 along with right palm impression on the slips (4 pages).

Material Objects marked:

MO1: Rs.11,000/-.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

16 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.861/2024 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:: SPECIAL MOBILE COURT::ELURU

Date of

OffenceComplaintApprehensioRelease onCommence-Close of trialSentence of or reportn of 0abailment of trialOrder 1ccused 01.11.202410.11.202406.05.2025To t ill date25.02.202603.03.202612.03.2026

Explanation for delay: This case is taken on file dt. 30.12.2024. Copies furnished to accused on 03.01.2025. Accused was examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C on 03.02.2026. Trial commenced on 25.02.2026 and concluded on 03.03.2026. Accused examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C on 06.03.2026. Heard arguments on 11.03.2026. Judgment pronounced on 12.03.2026.

Cr.No. : 329 of 2024 of Eluru III Town P.S

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station

Offence : Under sections 331(4), 305(a) of BNS

Name of the accused:

Yerrasani Lakshman, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, age 20 years, C/Vatsaralu, R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tadepalligudem, now at Weeker colony, Tadepalligudem.

Finding: Found guilty

Result: In the result, the prosecution is able to succeed in bringing home the guilt of accused for the offence under section 317(2)(a) of BNS for having in possession of property in possession unlawfully and consequently, I find that, the accused is guilty of the offence on the said count and convicted under section 265(2) BNSS. However, the prosecution failed to place any positive material, for connecting the accused with the offence under section 331(4) and 305(A) of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 265(1) of BNSS.

17 C.C.No. 861 of 2024 Dt.12.03.2026 Spl. Mobile Court, Eluru

In the result, the accused is sentenced him for to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for Six Months apart from paying a fine of Rs.200/-, in default in payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one Month for the offence u/sec.317(2) of BNS. The property covered by M.O.1 is ordered to be returned to P.W.1 ( B. Venkata Vamsi Krishna) on expiry of appeal time, if not already done. The period which the accused is in Jail during investigation or trial, ie from 25.11.2024 to 09.01.2025 and 03.02.2026 to till date ie 12.03.2026 (ie 108 days) is ordered to be given set off under section 428 of

Cr.P.C. The accused is informed about his right to carry the matter in appeal.

Sd/- Smt. N. Mary

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

2. The Superintendent of Police, Eluru.