Sri. P. Anjaneyulu

1CC.15/2013

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor.

Present : Sri. P.Anjaneyulu, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mobile (PCR), Adilabad

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor.

Wednesday this the 18 th day of April, 2018

CC No. 15 of 2013

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector, PS Jainoor. … Complainant

Vs.

A1) Gedam Jangu Bai, W/o Damu, Age 55 years, Caste Gond, Occ Agril,

A2) Surpam Durvas, S/o Vittal, Age 40 years, Caste Oja, Occ Kirana shop

Both R/o Ushegam village. … Accused

This case is coming up before me on 11.04.2018 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri. Zakeer Khan, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector, Jainoor filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sec.409, 420 r/w 34 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant lodged report with the police on 05.09.2012 stating that she was the leader of Dhanalaxmi(B) Mahila Dwakra group and her V.O group leader-Gedam Jangubai-A1 took an amount of Rs.75,000/- in 2CC.15/2013 order to deposit them in the bank and later misappropriated the said amount. The cashier of the V.O group-A2 took an amount of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant in order to remit the same in the bank, but did not remit it and misappropriated it and the said incident took place during the year 2007-2008. On receipt of the said report, the Sub-

Inspector of police-Lw10 registered a case in Cr.No.47/2012 for the offence u/secs.409, 420 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, he examined the complainant and recorded her statement. He visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators. He examined the eye witnesses. On 20.09.2012 he apprehended both the accused and on interrogation they confessed the commission of offence and upon that he arrested them and produced before the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The cognizance of the offence was taken by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,Utnoor, for the offence u/secs.409, 420 r/w 34

IPC and numbered as CC.No.15/2013.

4.On appearance of both the accused before the court, the copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Both the accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

and charge for the offence under Sections 409, 420 r/w 34 IPC, has been framed, read over and explained to them, for which the accused denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3CC.15/2013

6. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 8 and got marked Exs P1 to P6.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. No defence evidence is adduced by the accused.

8.Heard the learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

9.The point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence Under

Sections 409, 420 r/w 34 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT: In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws-1 to 8. Pw1 is the complainant, Pws-2 to 4 are the members of the group, Pw5 is the Assistant Project Manager IKP,

Jainoor, Pws-6 and 7 are the panchas for CDF and Pw8 is the investigating officer.

11.The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused

No.1 who is the V.O (Village Organization) President and A2 who is the

Accountant of the group, misappropriated the amount of Dwakragroup lead by Pw1 and thereby cheated the members. As per the report of

Pw1, A1 misappropriated an amount of Rs.75,000/- and A2 misappropriated an amount of Rs.7,000/-. During the course of investigation and on examination of the members of the group and 4CC.15/2013 other witnessed, it was revealed that A1 and A2 misappropriated an amount of Rs.54,500/-

12. The evidence of Pw1 who is the leader of the group namely Dhanalaxmi MahilaDwakra group in Ushegaon village. As per her evidence, they gave an amount of Rs.75,000/- to A1 in the presence of other members to deposit them in the bank and later she came to know that A1 misappropriated the said amount. Further she gave Rs.7,000/- to A2 in the presence of the same members, but he also misappropriated it without depositing them in the bank. From the above, it appears that A1 is said to have misappropriated an amount of

Rs.75,000/-, whereas A2 misappropriated an amount of Rs.7,000/-. In her cross-examination, Pw1 stated that she collected different amounts from theDwakra group members on different occasions and paid them to A1 and A2 in order to deposit them in the bank. Pw1 admitted that she does not remember the date, month and year on which she gave the amount to the accused and no document was executed in respect of the payments. She stated that the Bank Manager of Jainoor informed her that the accused did not deposit the amount of their group. The evidence of Pw1 clearly shows that except stating that she gave total amount of Rs.75,000/- to A1 and Rs.7,000/- to A2, she did not give any specific date or the place where she paid the amount to them. Admittedly, the transaction took place during 2008, whereas the report was lodged in 2012. Pw1 only deposed that she gave amount in the presence of Lws-3 and 4, and among them, Lw3 only was examined as Pw3. The prosecution did not examine Lw4.

13.The evidence of Pw2 who is also a member of group of Pw1 shows that about 12 years ago she worked as Secretary of Dhanalaxmi 5CC.15/2013

Mahila Dwakra group and Pw1 was the President. She deposed that about 10 years ago A1 and A2 took a loan of Rs.30,000/- in the name of their group, but paid only Rs.21,000/- to their members and later the members repaid Rs.18,500/- to A1. She further deposed that when she insisted A1 for the amounts which were not deposited in the bank,

A1 replied that she gave amount to the Village Organizers and thereafter they lodged report with the police. Pw2 in her cross- examination categorically admitted they obtained loan of Rs.30,000/- from the bank which was marked as Ex.D1. She admitted that an amount of Rs.18,500/- was paid by them in the house of A1. She admitted that she stated before the police that the accused was due an amount of Rs.52,500/-. From the above evidence of Pw2, it is clear that her evidence is contrary to the case of the prosecution and is not corroborating the version of Pw1 as there was discrepancy with regard to the loan amount availed and the payments made to the accused.

14.Pw3 is another member of the group and her evidence shows that A1 withdrew an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loan of the group but distributed only Rs.20,000/- to the members and later they repaid Rs.30,000/- towards loan and interest. She deposed that when they enquired A1 about the due amount of Rs.10,000/-, she replied that she only withdrew Rs.20,000/- towards loan. A1 further withdrew amount of Rs.45,000/- towards further loan of the group and deposited only Rs.25,000/- and subsequently the accused again collected

Rs.45,000/- from them. She deposed that later they came to know that

A1 did not deposit the amount into the bank and A1 and A2 misappropriated the amount of Rs.82,000/-. Pw3 in her cross- examination clearly pleaded the ignorance about the details and date of availment of the loan amount and repayments to A1 by the 6CC.15/2013 members. She admitted that she did not obtain any receipt from the accused. She admitted that she stated before the police that an amount of Rs.75,000/- was misappropriated. From the above evidence of Pw3, it is very much clear that her evidence is contrary to the case of the prosecution and suffering from omissions, mainly with regard to the details of the amounts and dates of the payments made by them to accused.

15.Pw4 is another group member. Her evidence shows that their group members paid an amount of Rs.7,000/- to each of the accused and the same was misappropriated by them, and further their group members also paid Rs.82,000/- to the accused and the same was also misappropriated. Pw4 was declared hostile and she was cross-examined by learned APP. In the cross-examination by the learned APP, Pw4 admitted the contents of her statement before the police. However, Pw4 in her cross-examination by the defence counsel admitted that they gave Rs.30,000/- to A1 at her house and also gave

Rs.30,000/-, Rs.7,000/- and Rs.18,500/- to A1 within one month, but did not obtain the receipt. The evidence of PW4 is also not supporting the case of the prosecution and there is also discrepancy in her evidence with regard to the quantum of amounts obtained as loan and paid to the accused.

16.Pw5 is the Assistant Project Manager IKP, Jainoor. His evidence shows that his duty was to co-ordinate the activities of

Dwakra group. He stated that he never conducted enquiry against the complainant and A1 and A2 and he does not know about the present case. Pw5 was declared hostile. The learned APP cross-examined the witness, but nothing contrary was elicited. Pws-6 and 7 are the 7CC.15/2013 panchas for scene of offence, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. Pw8 is the investigating officer and his evidence only shows that after recording the statements of the witnesses he filed charge sheet against the accused.

17.From a perusal of evidence of the prosecution witnesses as discussed above, it is clear that Pws 1 to 4 are the members of the

Dhanalaxmi Mahila Dwakra group of Ushegaon village. Though all the witnesses deposed that they gave amounts to A1, all of them failed to state the the specific dates and instances of the payments made to

A1. Further, there is a discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses with regard to the quantum of amounts availed as loan and paid to the accused, and their evidence is contrary to the case of the prosecution with regard to the details of the amount and not corroborating with each other with regard to the amounts paid to the accused. As admitted by the investigating officer-Pw8, none of the witnesses stated

before him about the specific date of payment of the amounts to the

accused. He categorically admitted that he did not seize the minutes book maintained by the group and he did not record the confession of the accused.

18.Generally, there will be records and passbooks to be maintained by the leaders of theDwakra group and the amounts paid to the members and the amounts received from them will be noted in the respective passbooks. Admittedly, Pws-1 to 4 did not obtain any receipt from the accused with regard to the payments made to them.

Except the oral evidence which is contrary and uncorroborative, there is no piece of the document to prove the loans availed from the bank, 8CC.15/2013 amounts received from the members and paid to the accused on different dates. The investigating officer did not collect any document from the bank to prove the details of the loan paid to the group. He simply recorded the statements of the Bank Manager as Lw8. Even the prosecution failed to examine Lw8-Bank Manager, for the reasons best known to it. It is clear that there is no piece of document to prove that the accused were entrusted the amounts by Pws-1 to 4 and other members and later they misappropriated the amounts and thereby cheated the members. In the light of the above discussion, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused misappropriated the amounts with dishonest intention and thereby cheated the witnesses. Therefore, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, both the accused are entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, both the accused are found not guilty of the offence punishable under sections 409, 420 r/w 34 IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in Open Court on this 18th day of April, 2018.

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE (PCR), Adilabad. F.A.C .Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor.

9CC.15/2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ProsecutionAccused (Lw1)Pw1:Chandan Bai Guptha/complainant --None-- (Lw3)Pw2: Susheela/member of the group (Lw)Pw3:Md. Khairunissa/member of the group (Lw)Pw4:Y. Suman Bai/member of the group (Lw)Pw5: Lanka Raj Reddy/Assistant Project Manager IKP, Jainoor (Lw)Pw6:Jalapathi/panch for CDF (Lw)Pw7:Gedam Nagorao/panch for CDF (Lw)Pw8:J. Suresh, S.I of police, PS Jainoor/investigating officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution: Accused:

Ex.P1 is the complaintEx.D1 is the 161Cr.P.C relevant portion of Pw2 Ex.P2 is the 161Cr.P.C statement of Pw5 Ex.P3 is the signature on CDF by Pw6 Ex.P4 is the signature on CDF by Pw7 Ex.P5 is the F.I.R Ex.P6 is the CDF

MOs MARKED -Nil-

SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MOBILE (PCR),

F.A.C Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor.

1CC.No.72/2017

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor.

Present : Sri. P.Anjaneyulu, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mobile (PCR), Adilabad

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor.

Wednesday this the 04 th day of April, 2018

CC No. 72 of 2017

State represented by Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, PS . Utnoor. … Complainant

Vs.

Smt. Ollepu Chinnaka, W/o Shanker, Age 38 years, Caste Vaddera, Occ Coolie, R/o N.T.R colony, Utnoor … Accused

This case is coming up before me on 28.03.2018 for final hearing in the presence of learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri. Dheeraj Gupta, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Utnoor, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.11.2014 at 5.10 p.m., on receiving reliable information about the illegal possession and sale of ID liquor by accused at her home at NTR colony Utnoor, the Excise Sub-Inspectors-Lws-3 to 5 along with their staff conducted raid. During the raid, they found a woman with a bag on her head. On seeing them she dropped the bag and ran away. On enquiry, they came to know the details of the accused from the 2CC.No.72/2017 neighbours. Later they seized the bag which contained 10 liters of ID liqour in two polythene covers, under cover of panchanama in the presence of Lws 1 and 2 and drew samples from the seized liqour for the purpose of analysis. Later they brought the seized property to the station and handed over to Lw4. Later Lw4 registered a case in COR

No.577/2014-15 against the accused for the offence u/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Ac. On 12.10.2015 he arrested the accused and produced before the court for judicial custody. He sent the sample bottles to the chemical examination and the Chemical examiner analyzed the sample and gave a report. The remaining contraband was destroyed as per the orders of the Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Adilabad.After completion of investigation, Lw-4 filed charge sheet.

3. The cognizance of the offence was taken by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor, for the offence u/sec 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

AP. Prohibition Act and numbered as CC 72/2017.

4.On appearance of the accused before the court, the copies of case documents were furnished to her as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of APP Act, has been framed, read over and explained to her, for which the accused denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Exs P1 to P6 and MO1.

3CC.No.72/2017

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. No defence evidence is adduced by the accused.

8.Heard the learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

9.The point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT: In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws-1 to 4. Pw1 is a panch for scene of offence and seizure and Pws-2 to 4 are the Investigating Officers.

11.From the evidence of Pws 2 to 4, it is evident that they along with other staff went the house of the accused at NTR colony,

Utnoor on receiving reliable information about sale of ID liquor. They found the accused with a bag on her head, and on seeing them she ran away from the place by leaving the bag. Then they secured two mediators Pw1 and Lw2 and in their presence, they enquired the neighbours at that place and came to know about the accused. Later they seized the bag which contained 10 liters of ID liquor, after drawing two samples under cover of panchanama in the presence of

PW1 and LW2. It is also evident that basing on the material, Pw3 registered a case, and subsequently, Pw4 arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against he accused. Pw1 who is a panch for confession and seizure did not 4CC.No.72/2017 support the panchanama and he was declared hostile. Now it has to be seen whether the evidence of excise officials-Pws- 2 to 4 can be relied upon.

12.From the evidence of Pws 2 to 4, it is clear that Pw4 did not mention the descriptive particulars of polythene covers. It is also clear that they did not examine any witness near the scene of offence to show that the accused escaped, and further to show that the accused was dealing with I.D.liquor in the village. Even if the evidence of Pws 2 to 4 is to be believed, the independent panch witness Pw1 did not support the panchanama. The prosecution did not examine the other panch-Lw2 as the police failed to produce him before the court. It appears that the charge sheet has been filed only basing on the seizure panchanama. In the above circumstances, the evidence of

Pws-2 to 4 who are the Excise Officials cannot be relied upon to prove that the accused was in possession of ID liquor and that the same was seized from his possession under cover of panchanama. Therefore, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

The MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 04th day of April, 2018.

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE (PCR), Adilabad. F.A.C .Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor.

5CC.No.72/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ProsecutionAccused (Lw1)Pw1: Mesram Venkati/panch witness --None-- (Lw3)Pw2: J. Raghu, S.I of Excise/investigating officer (Lw4)Pw3: Md. Akbar Hussari, Inspector of police/ investigating officer (Lw5)Pw4: V. Venkateshwar, SI of Excise/investigating officer and filed charge sheet

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution: Accused:

Ex.P1 is the signature of Pw1 on panchanama -Nil- Ex.P2 is the signature of Pw1 on sample bottles Ex.P3 is the panchanama Ex.P4 is the destroyed report Ex.P5 is the destruction panchanama Ex.P6 is the COR issued by Pw3

MOs MARKED

MO1 is the sample bottle

SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MOBILE (PCR),

F.A.C Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor.

1CC.No.71/2017

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor.

Present : Sri. P.Anjaneyulu, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mobile (PCR), Adilabad

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor.

Wednesday this the 11 th day of April, 2018

CC No. 71 of 2017

Between:

The State represented by Proh.& Excise Sub-Inspector, PS Utnoor. … Complainant

Vs.

Sri. Nunavath Thukaram, S/o Mohan, Age 40 years, Caste ST(Lambada), Occ Coolie, R/o Shampur village, Utnoor Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming up before me on 04.04.2018 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri. Zameer Khan and CH. Giri, Advocates for the Accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Utnoor filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.10.2015 at 12.30 p.m., on receiving reliable information about the illegal possession and sale of illicit distilled liquor (Arrack) by the accused, the Excise Sub-Inspectors-Lw3 & Lw4 along with their staff, reached Shampur village and found a person moving from his house under suspicious circumstances with a plastic can. On seeing them 2CC.No.71/2017 the said person who is the accused escaped from that place by leaving the plastic can. Lws-3 & 4 seized the plastic can which contained 05 liters ID liquor under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and also drew two samples. Basing on the above material,

Lw4 registered a case in P.R.No.509/2015-16 for the offence U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Prohibition Act and issued report. He sent the sample bottles to the chemical examination and the Chemical examiner analyzed the sample bottles and gave a report. The remaining contraband was destroyed as per the orders of the Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Adilabad.On the same day he arrested the accused and produced him before the court for judicial custody.After completion of investigation, Lw-4 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The cognizance of the offence was taken by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class ,Utnoor, for the offence u/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act and numbered as CC.No.71/2017.

4.On appearance of the accused before the court, the copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of APP Act, has been framed, read over and explained to him, for which the accused denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Exs P1 to P8.

3CC.No.71/2017

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. No defence evidence is adduced by the accused.

8.Heard the learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

9.The point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence Under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT: In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws-1 to 4. Pws-1 & 2 are the panch witnesses and Pws 3 & 4 are the Investigating Officers.

11.From the evidence of Pws 3 and 4, it is evident that they along with their staff went to Shyampur village on receiving reliable information about possession and sale of ID liquor. Immediately they along with their staff and Pws1 and 2 proceeded to the said place and found the accused with a plastic can and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape from the scene by leaving the plastic can. Immediately they apprehended the accused. They seized the said plastic can which contained 5 liters of ID liquor, under cover of panchanama in the presence of Pws-1 and 2. It further shows that they arrested the accused and produced before the court for judicial custody and after completion of investigation Pw4 filed charge sheet against the accused. Pws 1 & 2 who are the panch witnesses did not support the seizure panchanama of the contraband and they were declared hostile.

4CC.No.71/2017

Now it has to be seen whether the evidence of excise officials-Pws-3 & 4 alone can be relied upon.

12.From the evidence of Pws 3 and 4, it is clear that thay did not mention the names of their staff members who accompanied them on the date of offence. They also did not mention the capacity of plastic can and also the colour of the plastic can which was left by the accused in front of his house. They also did not mention the person who gave reliable information about the accused person. Their evidence also does not show the house number of the accused. Int he above circumstances even if the evidence of Pws 3 and 4 is to be believed, the evidence of the independent panch witnesses Pws 1 and 2 is not supporting the apprehension of the accused and seizure of the contraband from his possession under cover of panchanama. In the light of above discussion, the evidence of Pws-3 & 4 who are the

Excise Officials cannot be relied upon to believe the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

The MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2018.

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE (PCR), Adilabad. F.A.C .Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor.

5CC.No.71/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ProsecutionAccused (Lw1)Pw1: Bandi Shekar/panch witness --None-- (Lw2)Pw2: S. Chandrasekhar/panch witness (Lw3)Pw3: Md. Akbar hussain, P&E.S.I, PS Utnoor/investigating officer (Lw4)Pw4: V. Venkateshwar, P&E.S.I, PS Utnoor/investigating officer and filed charge sheet

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution: Accused:

Ex.P1 is the signature of Pw1 on the panchanama -Nil- Ex.P2 is the signature of Pw1 on the sample bottle Ex.P3 is the signature of Pw2 on the panchanama Ex.P4 is the signature of Pw2 on the sample bottle Ex.P5 is the panchanama by Pw3 Ex.P6 is the destruction report by Pw3 Ex.P7 is the destruction panchanama by Pw3 Ex.P8 is the COR issued by Pw4

MOs MARKED

MO1 is the sample bottle

SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MOBILE (PCR),

F.A.C Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor.

CC/76/20181 / 1Dt: 22-04-2018

TSAD130003022017

IN THE COURT OF THE Junior Civil Judge: UTNOOR

Present: Junior Civil Judge, UTNOOR ____ day, this the __ day of ____, 20__

CC/76/2018

Between:

Poual Akash Address: Caste. BC-Marata, Occ. Auto driver, R/o. Kasipatelguda, Jainoor.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Sinde Shivaji Address: Caste. BC-Marata, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Kasipatelguda, Jainoor … Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for : APP,Advocate

Counsel for : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

This case is advanced to this day i.e., 22-04-2018 in view of Lok Adalath. Accused and defacto complaint/injured are present and are identified by PC.No. 171 of PS Jainoor. Accused is charged for the offence U/Sec.290, 323, 324, 506 IPC. The offence U/Sec.290,IPC. Notice is given to A.P.P. The petition filed U/Sec.321 Cr.P.C. by the A.P.P. for withdrawing the section 290 IPC. is permitted by this court in the interest of justice. The offence U/Sec.323 324, 506 IPC is compoundable as per the decision reported in 2015 (1) ALD (Crl) 280 of Hon&amp#039ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and in the interest of justice as no prejudice would be caused to the complainant / injured as they

CC/76/20181 / 1Dt: 22-04-2018 submitted that they have compromised the matter. Hence the compromise is recorded. This case is settled in Lok Adalath vide separate award. Is acquitted U/Sec.320 (8) of Cr.P.C. bail bonds of the Accused if any shall stand cancelled.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 22-04-2018 Junior Civil Judge UTNOOR (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE (PCR) ADILABAD

Present:- Sri. P.Anjaneyulu.,

Spl.JFCM Mobile (PCR),

Adilabad.

Saturday this the 9 th day of March, 2019

CC No. 43 of 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police PS Jainath.

… Complainant.

//And//

Talakwar Santosh s/o Bapur Rao, Age: 42 yrs, Caste: Komati, Occ: Panshop at Nirala Bus stand, R/o Nirala village of Jainath Mandal.

..... Accused.

DOCKET-ORDER (Dated: 09.03.2019)

Accused called present. Copies furnished. He is examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded guilty for the offence under sections 270 and 273 IPC. The plea of the accused is found to be made voluntary and hence, the same is accepted for the offence under sections 270 and 273 IPC.

In the result, the accused is found guilty, of the offfence u/secs. 270 and 273 IPC, and accordingly, he is convicted under section 252 of Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) and in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks for the offence punishable under section 270 IPC.

Further, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) and in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks for the offence punishable under section 273 IPC.

The total fine amount is Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only). The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 9th day of March, 2019.

Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR), Adilabad.