P. Bala Venkata Koteswara Rao, B.Com, B.L.,

Page 1 of 5 C.C.No.240 of 15

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ELURU.

Present: Mr. P.Bala Venkata Koteswara Rao, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017

C.C.No.240 of 2015

Between:

The Inspector of Police,

II Town Police Station, Eluru. ... Complainant

And

1.Kola Parvathi

2.Kayala Nagamani

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 27-04-2017 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and Sri K.N.V.S.N.Rambabu Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration on this day and this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Eluru, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s 382 or 411 in

Cr.No. 219/13of Eluru II Town P.S.

2. The facts of the case of the prosecution in precise are as follows:

The complainant by name Pandiripalli Ramalakshmi (in precise complainant) gave report to the police. Basing on which the case in

Cr.No.219/13 registered U/s 382 or 411 IPC and investigated into. On 30-07-2013 at about 4:30 p.m. the complainant while crossing

Gilakalagate of Kothapet, in Eluru on foot two Criminal offenders approached her from behind and one of them pulled the complainant by holding her tuft of her, and the another offender snatched the box which contains gold chandraharam weighing 6 sovereigns from the blouse of the complainant and escaped and then the complainant fell down and the neighbours Ravikumar and one Dileep Kumar provided water to her and shifted her to her house. Then the complainant went to

Page 2 of 5 C.C.No.240 of 15 the police station and lodged report to the police. After the registration of the case on 01-08-2013 at 12:00 noon the S.I. police arrested the accused at Ajantha centre Eluru in the presence of one Karimullah and

Keerthi Nagababu and recovered the gold chain work of Rs.1,45,000/- which was stolen from the complainant under the cover of mediators report. The accused are liable for punishment U/s 382 or 411 I.P.C.

Hence, the charge sheet.

3. The case is taken on file for the offence U/s 382 or 411 I.P.C.

5. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused were examined U/s 239 Cr.P.c. for the offences U/s 382 or 411 I.P.C.

7. The accused denied incriminating material, pleaded not guilty for the charges U/s 382 or 411 I.P.C. and claimed to be tried.

8. Hence the case is posted for trial.

9. The prosecution opened it’s case and examined PW1 to PW8. Ex.P1 to Ex.P.9 were marked.

10. The evidence of the prosecution is closed. The accused were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

11. Heard the arguments of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused.

12. Now the point of determination is whether the prosecution proved guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/s 382 or 411 I.P.C.

13. From the Very evidence of the P.W1 to P.W.7 and Ex.P1 to P.9 admittedly, the accused A1 and A2 are mother and daughter. The

Page 3 of 5 C.C.No.240 of 15 complainant is no other than the mother of A1 and grandmother of A2.

P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5, Accused A1 and one Peddi Ramanamma are the sisters, P.W.7 is the brother of the P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5, Accused A1 and one Peddi Ramanamma. The evidence of the P.W.4 is revealing that the accused were arrested by him and they were sent to the Court for

Judicial custody and he has shown the recovery of M.O.1 produced by

P.W.2 which belongs to the complainant according to the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the commission of the offence by committing theft of M.O.1 from the possession of the complainant. The complainant is no more and therefore the prosecution lost the valuable evidence of the complainant because of her death when the matter comes for trial. Therefore, the mere recovery of the property of the M.O.1 from the accused, basing on the confession under the cover of Ex.P3 mediators report is of no use to the case of the prosecution for the reason that the confession of the accused before any person in the presence of a Police officer is of no use the case of the prosecution. If the very Ex.P3 is excluded there is no evidence against the accused to say that the accused committed the offence of robbery or theft or even in possession of the M.O.1 property. It is the duty of the prosecution to link the recovery of M.O.1 to the accused by collecting incriminating material during investigation and by placing the same before the Court in the form of evidence which will then the role of the accused to disprove the case will arise. Therefore, in the absence of cogent piece of evidence any reliance on the confession of the accused is against the spirit of the adversary system of Criminal Justice. As such the accused are entitled to be acquitted. Coming to the M.O.1 produced by the P.W.2 which was given interim custody to the complainant and since the complainant is no more, the children of the complainant and the mother

Page 4 of 5 C.C.No.240 of 15 of the complainant are alone entitled to the M.O.1 property. One of her sons Ramarao is no more and his wife was examined as P.W.6 and she being the wife of Ramarao, she will step into the shoes of her husband to succeed her share along with other members of the family of the deceased Pandiripalli Ramalakshmi. From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.8 it clearly reveals that P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.6, A1 and P.W.7 are the legal heirs of the deceased Ramalakshmi. As such the P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.6,

A1, P.W.7 and Peddi Ramanamma are equally entitled to the M.O.1 property. Therefore, the M.O.1 property is ordered to be returned to the

P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.6, A1, P.W.7 and Peddi Ramanamma on their executing self bonds for Rs.50,000/- each and the same shall be made absolute after the expiry of the appeal time and the P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.6,

A1, P.W.7 and Peddi Ramanamma are bound to produce the property in case of any appeal or suit before any Court having Jurisdiction for any claim relating to M.O.1 property.

In the result the accused were found not guilty for the offence U/S 382 or 411 IPC and they are acquitted U/S 248(1) Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 property is ordered to be returned to the P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.6, A1, P.W.7 and Peddi Ramanamma on their self bonds for Rs.50,000/- each to cause production of the property before the Court in relation to any appeal or suit to the M.O.1 property before any Court and the M.O.1 property is accordingly disposed of and the same is made absolute after the expiry of the appeal time and subject to any claim before any civil court.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-P.B.V.Koteswararao

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ELURU.

Page 5 of 5 C.C.No.240 of 15

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1- J.Lakshmi -None- P.W.2- Palina Syam P.W.3-Sk.Karimullah (V.R.O) P.W.4-N.R.Kishore Babu (I.O.) P.W.5- Padala Chilakamma P.W.6-Pandiripalli Durga Mahalakshmi P.W.7-Pandiripalli Srinu

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Complaint NIL Ex.P.2: Petition in Crl.M.P.3552/13 Ex.P.3: Mediator’s Report Ex.P.4: F.I.R. Ex.P.5: Death certificate of Ramalakshmi Ex.P.6: Promissory executed by PW2 Ex.P.7: Petition filed by L.Rs of the deceased Ex.P.8: Death certificate of Ramarao Ec.P.9: Petition filed by Pandiripalli Durga mahalakshmi

Sd/-

P.B.V.K.R.

I A.J.M.F.C.,

ELURU.

Page 1 of 4 C.C.No.109 of 15

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ElURU.

Present: Mr.P.Bala Venkata Koteswara Rao, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017

C.C.No.109 of 2015

Between:

The Inspector of Police,

II Town Police Station, Eluru. ... Complainant

And

1.Arnepalli Tirupathi Rao

2.Immandi Ananth Kumar

3.Bandari Mahavir Jain ... Accused

This case is coming before me on 27-04-2017 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and Sri J.U.M.R, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration on this day and this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Eluru, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s 420 IPC, and U/S 3 & 4 of A.P.GAMING ACT, 1974 in Cr.25/14 of Eluru II Town P.S.

2. The facts of the case of the prosecution in precise are as follows:

The Accused A1 is resident of Pushpa Leela Nagar, Tangellamudi,

Eluru, A2 is resident of Chepalathumu Centre, Eluru, A3 is the resident of Power Station Road, Power Pet, Eluru. A1 and A2 cheated the public by collecting amount from the public by organizing the cricket betting by believing the public on the pretext of giving more amounts on the betted amount. While A1 and A2 are conducting cricket betting by watching

England Vs Australia 20-20 cricket match in TV, while A1 contacting the public over phone for cricket betting, A3 contacted A1 over phone and betted money with him. The scene of offence took place in the building

Page 2 of 4 C.C.No.109 of 15 of house of Divanapu Vijayamma bearing D.No.16B-8-24, Lankapet,

Eluru, which is within the limits of the Eluru II Town P.S. On 2-2-2014 while the Inspector of Police, present at Police station attending to routine, and received credible information about cricket betting which going at the house of Divanapu Vijayamma, and he obtained search warrant from S.D.P.O. and conduct raid on the said house on 2-2-2014 at 4:00 p.m. the Inspector of Police along with his staff and 2 mediators conducted raid on the house and found A1 and A2 were watching

England-Australia 20-20 match in TV was speaking with the public over cell phone by collecting betting information whereas A2 is notice betting details in the laptop and they tried to run away be seeing the police and caught the A1 and A2 with assistance of the staff and arrested them on suspicion circumstances. A1 and A2 voluntarily confessed admitted their guilty in the offence about their conducting cricket betting collecting amount from the public towards cricket betting by contacting through cell phones by cheating them on the pretext of giving more amount. During the course of investigation, on receipt of credible information on 1-3-14 t 2.30 p.m. the inspector of police arrested A3 at Stick bridge (wooden bridge) and sent him for remand, and A1 and A2 confessed that the main organizer and prime accused contacting through cell phone and is operating from Hyderabad and sent money through his agent by hand and his address not known and used to contact through cell phone only for money transaction. On 2-2-2014 the SI of police visited the scene of offence examined the same and prepared rough sketch. The SI of Police,

Eluru II Town P.S and registered a case in Cr.No.25/14 U/S 420 IPC, and U/S 3 & 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974.Hence, the charge sheet.

3. The above report of the police was taken cognizance by the Court for the Offence U/S 420 IPC and U/S 3 & 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974.

Page 3 of 4 C.C.No.109 of 15

4. Copies of documents are furnished to the accused U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused A1 to A3 were examined U/S.239 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating material and pleaded not guilty for the offences U/S 420 and U/S 3 & 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974.

6. Hence the case is posted for trial.

8. Hence the evidence of the prosecution is closed. The accused A1 to

A3 were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defense evidence.

9. Heard, the arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

10. Now the point for the determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s 420 IPC and 3 & 4 of

A.P. Gaming Act, 1974.

11. During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 the accused were arrested while they were watching T.V., on the ground that the accused are playing game by allowing the public in the live cricket match and the Accused A1 and A2 were arrested i.e., Under Ex.P1.

The P.W.1 and P.W.2 are no other than the Police Constables, P.W.3 is

S.I., P.W.4 is V.R.O. But, there is no independent piece of evidence

before the court to say that the accused are playing game of chance by

allowing the people to participate the game. There is no incriminating evidence relating to the cricket betting by the accused except seizure of the cash, T.V., Laptop, and Mobile phones. Therefore, the very evidence of PW1 to PW4 not revealing the cricket betting with any public. The mere watching of T.V ipsofacto is not sufficient to say that the accused committed the offence of Gaming and cheating even the confession of the accused under Ex.P1 and P2 are of no use to the case of the prosecution for the reason that the confession of the accused before a

Page 4 of 4 C.C.No.109 of 15 police officer to any person in the presence of a police cannot be proved against the accused.

12. In the absence of any direct evidence relating on the commission of the offence the evidence of police officers is of no use to the case of the prosecution. In the light of there is no cogent piece of evidence any reliance on the evidence of the PW1 to PW4 is most unsafe for conviction.

Even the evidence of P.W1 to P.W.4 that the accused playing cricket game is not infusing confidence in the mind of the Court. Therefore, the accused A1 to A3 are entitled to be acquitted.For all the above reasons the accused are entitled to be acquitted.

13. In the result the Accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/S 420 I.P.C. and U/S 3 & 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974, and they are acquitted U/S 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The unmarked case property i.e., T.V., laptop, 9 mobile phones and cash Rs.2,500/- is confiscated to the State and same is made absolute after the expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2017.

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1- K.Satyanarayana(P.C.No.1497) -None- P.W.2- M.Radhakrishna (P.C.No.1851) P.W.3- N.R.Kishore Babu (S.I.of police) P.W.4- K.Durgarao (Mediator)

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Mediators report -Nil- Ex.P.2: Mediators report Ex.P.3: F.I.R.

I A.J.M.F.C.,

ELURU.

Page 1 of 2 O.S.35/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ELURU.

PRESENT: Sri P.Bala Venkata Koteswararao Rao, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2017

O.S.No.35 of 2017

BETWEEN:

Pudi Srinivas .…..Plaintiff

Vs

1.Gottipalli Chandararao

2.Gottipalli Lakshmi p ……Defendants

This suit is coming on 24-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Suryanarayana and for the plaintiff and Defendants are called absent and set exparte, therefore the matter is on perusal of record and having stood over to this day for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff Under Section 26

Order VII rule 1 of C.P.C and the plaintiff prays this Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by ordering him to pay an amount of Rs.2,13,750/- to the plaintiff and to grant subsequent interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- and to award the costs of the suit. Hence, the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:-

The defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-02-2014 towards their family expenses and on the same date he executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. On several demands made by the plaintiff and through mediators for repayment of the dent the defendants did not choose to clear off the said debt and postponing the same from time to time. Hence, the suit.

3. Therefore the plaintiff prays this Court to pass the decree in favour of the plaintiff to the suit claim of Rs.2,13,750/- and subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realization with costs.

4. The defendants received the summons from the Court and failed to appear before the Court. Therefore, the defendants are set exparte.

5. The plaintiff filed his Chief affidavit as P.W1 and Exhibits A1 is marked. The defendant remained exparte. Hence, the cross examination

Page 2 of 2 O.S.35/2017 on behalf of the defendant treated nil. The Counsel for the plaintiff reported no further evidence. Hence the evidence the plaintiff is closed.

Heard the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff.

6. On behalf of the defendant there are no pleadings and no evidence.

Since, they remained exparte.

7. Now, the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree to the suit claim of Rs.2,13,750/- with subsequent interest at 24% per annum?

8. Considering the evidence of the PW1 and considering the Exhibit

A1 and considering that there is no pleadings and evidence on behalf of the defendant, this Court holds that the Ex.A1 is executed by the defendant and it is supported by valid consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- in the light of the presumption U/s 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to decree to the principal sum of

Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of execution of Ex.A1 i.e., from 15-02-2014 till this 24-04-2017 with future interest at 6% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with proportionate costs.

In the result the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the Principal sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of execution of Ex.A1 i.e., from 15-02- 2014 till this 24-04-2017 with future interest at 6% per annum on the

principal sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with proportionate costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2017.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff Defendant

P.W.1 : Pudi Srinivas None

Exhibits marked:

Exhibit A1: Promissory Note executed by the defendant NIL [

I.A.J.C.J.,ELURU.