Sri. P.dattatreyulu

C.C.No.204/2010 1 Dated: 29-09-2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE: VISAKHAPANTAM

Judgment in : C.C.204/2010

Date of Offence : 27-10-2009

Report /complaint: 25-03-2010

Release on bail: On Bail

Commencement of trial: 15-11-2011

Close of trial : 24-09-2014

Sentence or order : 29-09-2014

Explanation for delay and remarks : The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the Complainant. The accused paid the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) on 29-09-2014. Sentence suspended till 27.10.2014.

Name of the complainant :

Garisepalli Nageswara Rao, S/o G.Gopaiah, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/o Sundaraiah Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

Name of the Accused :

Bellamkonda Venkata Raju, S/o late Tata Raju, Hindu, aged 45 years, Employee, R/o D.no.30-23-3, Lakshmipuram Colony, R.H Vadlapudi Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

Offence : U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

Finding : Found guilty.

Result:- In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence u/Sec. 138 of N.I Act and he is convicted of the same u/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. When questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, he submitted that he underwent bypass surgery operation to his heart. As such, he pleaded mercy. In view of the nature of the offence, this Court is not inclined to apply the provisions of A.P.P.O Act. He did not assign any special reason to take any lenient view. Further this Court cannot take any lenient view even in the form of fine since there was Judgment of Hon'ble APEX Court deprecating such practice and to deal with such offences with heavy hand. As such, the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in default, Simple Imprisonment for three months with benefit u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C against substansive sentence only. As per the record and as per the representation of the counsel for the accused, there was no detention period to be set off against the substansive sentence passed against the accused. A free copy of this Judgment shall be furnished to the accused forthwith. He is informed about his right of appeal within 30 days from the date of this Judgment.Sd/- P.Dattatreyulu.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka. Copyto the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

// True Copy //

C.C.No.204/2010 2 Dated: 29-09-2014

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE: VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

PRESENT: Sri P.Dattatreyulu,

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014

C.C.No.204/2010

This case is coming on 05-09-2014 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Smt. S.A.Lakshmi, Advocate for the

complainant and of Sri M.Rama Sudhakar, Advocate for accused and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

ASerial No. of the caseCalendar Case No.204 of 2010

BDate of commission of 27-10-2009 offence

CName of the Garisepalli Nageswara Rao, complainantS/o G.Gopaiah, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/o Sundaraiah Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

DName of the AccusedBellamkonda Venkata Raju, S/o late Tata Raju, Hindu, aged 45 years, Employee, R/o D.no.30-23-3, Lakshmipuram Colony, R.H Vadlapudi Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

EOffense complied ofSec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

FPlea of the accusedFound Not guilty.

GFindingFound guilty.

HDate of Final Order29-09-2014

The complainant filed this complaint to punish the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (herein after referred to as Act for the sake of brevity and convenience) for getting the cheque bounced back for want of sufficient funds though he issued the same to the Complainant to discharge the legal enforceable debt owed by him to him.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:-

While friendly terms were existing and subsisting, the

Complainant lent an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and

C.C.No.204/2010 3 Dated: 29-09-2014

Fifty Thousand only) on 24-09-2009 to the accused as hand loan in the presence of one Rambabu and Jai Krishna. At that time the accused agreed to repay the same within 15 days. Subsequently, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.719750, dated 27-10-2009 for the said amount drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant

Branch, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam to liquidate the said hand loan debt. The Complainant presented the said cheque for collection in his

Bank, i.e., State Bank of India, Kurmannapalem Branch,

Visakhapatnam on three occasions at the request of the accused, but on the said three occasions it was bounced back for want of sufficient funds. When the accused dashed his hopes and trust placed on him without maintaining sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque issued by him, he got issued statutory legal notice asking him to liquidate the said cheque amount within 15 days on receipt of the same. Even though issuance of notice by him was intimated by the

Postal Authorities on two occasions, the accused did not choose to receive the same. When the accused did so and having no other go, he was constrained to file this complaint to punish the accused according to Law. Hence, the Complaint.

3.The complaint was taken on file against the accused under

Section 138 of the Act.

4.After appearance of the accused copies of documents furnished to him. He was examined under section 251 Cr.p.c., when he denied the accusation after understanding the same and when he claimed to have been tried, the complaint was posted for trial.

05. During course of trial, the complainant himself was examined as

PW.1 and got marked EXs.P-1 to P-6 on his behalf. The accused is also examined himself as D.W.1 but no document was marked on his behalf.

C.C.No.204/2010 4 Dated: 29-09-2014

06. After closure of evidence of complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material found in the evidence of P.W.1 and reported no defence.

07. Heard arguments of both sides.

08. Now the point for determination of this court is:

Whether the complainant is able to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 138 of the Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

09. POINT:

Shortly stated the gravamen of the charge alleged against the accused is that without maintaining of sufficient funds in his account, he got bounced back Ex.P-1 cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) for want of sufficient funds on three occasions though the same was issued to the

Complainant to liquidate the legally enforceable debt, dated 24-09- 2009, that on the other hand he maintained silence to the notice got issued by him without receiving the same, though intimation was passed on two occasions, as such, it is alleged by the Complainant that he is liable for punishment u/Sec.138 of the Act.

10. The case of the accused is not one of total denial. In this backdrop, this Court has carefully gone through the entire material available on record to see whether the same is sufficient enough to connect the accused with the offence levelled against him.

11.In order to substantiate the offence, the Complainant himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 through his ocular evidence. On the other hand, the accused also entered into the witness box to scorn the case of the complainant intoto as D.W.1 with the permission accorded by this Court to him u/Sec.315 of Cr.P.C.

C.C.No.204/2010 5 Dated: 29-09-2014

12.The evidence of P.W.1 is replica of his case. Conversely, the evidence of the accused as D.W.1 is replica of allegations and recriminations. It can be said that with the aid of Section 139 of the

Act, that Ex.P-1 was issued to liquidate the legally enforceable debt owed to the Complainant. But such presumption cannot be extendable to the existence of the legally enforceable debt. So, there were two points available on record, viz., 01. that Ex.P-1 was issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt owed to the Complainant by the accused.

Conversely there should be existence of legally enforceable debt owed by the accused to the Complainant. Since there was Ex.P-1 coupled with ocular evidence of P.W.1, it can be said that the Complainant answered the first point stated supra. Such presumption was available to the Complainant if such presumption was not contradicted by the accused in any manner with the material available in the Complaint or by adducing his own ocular or documentary evidence even by preponderance of probabilities which will work out like in Civil Cases.

The accused whiled away the cross-examination of P.W.1 mostly in the form of suggestions. If the allegations and counter allegations were appreciated in the right perspective the contention of the accused is three-fold viz., 01. there was no previty of contract between them and the Complainant was utter stranger to him; 02. There was no legally enforceable debt existing between them since he issued Ex.P-1 cheque to one Rambabu and he pressed the complainant into this complaint case and got filed the same with Ex.P-1 which was in fact issued to the said Rambabu and 03. He did not receive notice allegedly got issued by the complainant. The accused whiled away the cross-examination of

P.W.1 mostly in the form of suggestions which were denied by the complainant. It is well settled that suggestions, however, ingenious have no evidentiary value unless admitted by the witness or proved

C.C.No.204/2010 6 Dated: 29-09-2014 otherwise. The Complainant averred in the complaint as well as in his sworn chief affidavit that he lent a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) as hand loan in the presence of one

Rambabu and Jai Krishna. It was disclosed through the cross- examination of the accused that the said Rambabu was no more and taking advantage of his death, the accused was canvassing that there was no legally enforceable existing debt between them. In such case, the complainant ought to have examined another witness, i.e., Jai

Krishna, but he did not do so. Further, he did not take any piece of paper to disclose that he lent such huge amount on 24-09-2009. It is true that he did not take any piece of paper or any other Negotiable

Instrument from the accused at the time of lending money to the accused as hand loan. But subsequently he took another form of

Negotiable Instrument from the accused in terms of Ex.P-1 cheque. A promissory note, a cheque and a bill of exchange are recognized under the Act. There was no Law or Authority that any lending of any amount should be evidenced by a Negotiable Instrument or any other form of a document. So, this Court is inclined to appreciate the controversy as to whether there was such existence of legally enforceable debt between the parties in the light of the contentions raised and canvassed by the accused. When the evidence of P.W.1 was not shaken in any manner and when nothing was elicited to doubt the veracity lurked in the evidence of P.W.1 particularly as he is lending of

Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused as hand loan on 24-09-2009, how this

Court could insist the complainant to prove categorically the very existence of legally enforceable debt owed by the accused to him. If the accused was able to succeed in his counter allegations and recriminations then there would be some meaning in asking the

Complainant to place some more material to disclose the existence of

C.C.No.204/2010 7 Dated: 29-09-2014 legally enforceable debt subsisting between them.

13. It is the first contention of the accused that there was no previty of contract between them and he was utter stranger to the complainant and this complaint case was brain child of one Rambabu.

In such case, the accused has to expand and explain as to how Ex.P-1 fell into the hands of the complainant. He averred in his sworn chief affidavit that one S.Rambabu who was very close to him and when there was financial transaction between them, that while borrowing an amount from the said Rambabu, he issued three numbers of blank signed cheques for collecting the amount from any bank probably eight years back, that probably the said Rambabu through this complainant fabricated the cheque and got filed the complaint through him as there were serious disputes between him and the said Rambabu. So, according to his own admission made on oath, he issued three numbers of blank signed cheques to the said Rambabu when he borrowed some amount from him. So, he issued those three numbers of blank signed cheques about eight years ago. According to his further admission subsequently serious disputes were erupted between them. In such case, as a sane person and as a prudent person he ought to have asked the said Rambabu for return of those three blank signed cheques to him since serious disputes arose between them, but he did not do so. On the other hand, he did not demand the said

Rambabu in writing for return of those three numbers of blank signed cheques forthwith, he did not do so. In such case, he ought to have put an application before his Banker not to honour those cheques whenever they were presented by any person. But he did not do so. It is significant to note that he did not explain as to on what date and how much amount he borrowed from the said Rambabu and whether he executed any paper or instrument in his favour. In that regard, he

C.C.No.204/2010 8 Dated: 29-09-2014 kept this Court and the Complainant under the darkness. He vaguely and ambiguously alleged that he borrowed some amount from the said

Rambabu and he issued three numbers of blank signed cheques to him for the recovery of the amount borrowed by him. He did not explain further whether he liquidated the said borrowed amount or whether such liquidation was effected by way of cash or by way of any one of the blank signed cheques collected by him from him. If really, he issued three numbers of blank signed cheques about eight years ago, he would be in the custody of best documentary evidence available to disclose such alleged fact. Even then he could summon his Banker to disclose in which year the booklet of the cheques containing Ex.P-1 was issued to him, but he did not do so. Though there were many avenues to expose his allegations in the form of contrary material he did not do so. He simply stepped into the witness box and put up his own case readily available and prepared subsequent to filing of this case. If really the allegations canvassed by him were true and correct to their core and substansive why he did not choose to receive the notice got issued by him though intimated to him on two occasions and further why he did not choose or opt to send a befitting reply with the allegations pressed into service in this complaint through the cross- examination of P.W.1 and through the cross-examination of his opponent and through his own sworn chief affidavit. There was no iota of answer from his mouth to the questions raised by the complainant.

If the accused was able to answer suitably to anyone of those questions certainly this Court has to insist the complainant to put some more material to disclose the very existence of legally enforceable debt between them for issuance of Ex.P-1 cheque. He did not do so in any manner to prompt this Court to pounce upon the complainant to do so.

When the evidence of the complainant was whiled away mostly in the

C.C.No.204/2010 9 Dated: 29-09-2014 form of suggestions and when the allegations canvassed by the accused are not standing to scrutiny and reasonings, certainly this

Court has to hold that there was such existence of hand loan debt between the parties, as such, he issued Ex.P-1 cheque to liquidate the same. If really the alleged existence of legally enforceable debt is a myth or a tailor made one in the corridors of the complainant and the said Rambabu where was the necessity to the complainant to go on presenting the cheque for collection consecutively on three occasions.

A single presentation of the cheque for collection is sufficient enough to get cause of action to file the complaint of this nature under the Act.

14. It is another contention of the accused that he did not receive notice at all. As a saving grace he did not allege that the address contained on Ex.P-6 was incorrect. When he did not raise such contentions, this Court has to presume that there was a deemed service on the accused with the aid of Sec.27 of the General Clauses

Act. Ex.P-6 is disclosing that intimation was given on two occasions to the accused to come and to receive the same. When Ex.P-6 was shot to his correct address, that when intimation was given on two occasions and at the same time when he did not choose to receive the same, how he could show his volte face about the issuance of statutory notice got issued by the complainant on the third occasion of dishonour of the cheque for want of sufficient funds. A trickster cheque drawer would get a premium to avoid receiving the notice through different strategies and he could escape from the legal consequences of Sec.138 of the Act, as such it must be born in mind that Court should not attach an interpretation which helps the dishonest evader and clips on

honest payee as that would defeat the very legislative measure. So,

this Court cannot permit the accused to canvass like so that he did not receive the statutory notice got issued by the complainant. When the

C.C.No.204/2010 10 Dated: 29-09-2014 cheque was presented on three occasions within the period of validity, that when Ex.P-1 was found issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt in the absence of any kind of contradictory material, that when the cheque was bounced back on three occasions for want of sufficient funds, that when the complainant complied the mandate of issuance of issuance of statutory notice asking him to liquidate the cheque amount and lastly when the accused did not choose to receive the same and further to give any reply and further to liquidate the cheque amount what was more required to put the accused in the center of the offence u/Sec.138 of the Act. When the evidence of P.W.1 was cogent and convincing where was the necessity to this Court to insist upon him to place some more material to support his voice towards existence of legally enforceable debt. Viewed from any angle, the accused was unable to place any material to improbablise the case of the complainant even on any minute account.

15. For the fore going reasons, the inevitable conclusion is that the complainant was able to succeed in bringing home the guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

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

Cr.P.C. When questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, he submitted that he underwent bypass surgery operation to his heart.

As such, he pleaded mercy. In view of the nature of the offence, this

Court is not inclined to apply the provisions of A.P.P.O Act. He did not assign any special reason to take any lenient view. Further this Court cannot take any lenient view even in the form of fine since there was

Judgment of Hon'ble APEX Court deprecating such practice and to deal with such offences with heavy hand. As such, the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six

C.C.No.204/2010 11 Dated: 29-09-2014

Months and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees

Five Thousand only) in default, Simple Imprisonment for three months with benefit u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C against substansive sentence only. As per the record and as per the representation of the counsel for the accused, there was no detention period to be set off against the substansive sentence passed against the accused. A free copy of this

Judgment shall be furnished to the accused forthwith. He is informed about his right of appeal within 30 days from the date of this

Judgment.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of September, 2014.

Sd/- P.Dattatreyulu.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defense :

P.W.1: G.Nageswararao. D.W.1: B.Venkata Rama Raju.

Exhibits Marked

For Complainant: For Defense :

Ex.P.1/27-10-2009: Cheque - Nil -

Ex.P-2/30-09-2009: Return memo.

Ex.P-3/01-01-2010: Return Memo.

Ex.P-4/08-02-2010: Return Memo.

Ex.P-5/22-02-2010: Office copy of Legal notice.

Ex.P-6/04-03-2010: Unserved returned cover.

Sd/- P.Dattatreyulu.

III Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

// True Copy //

III Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

C.C.No.578/2013 1 Dated: 31-07-2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPANTAM

Judgment in : C.C.578/2013

Date of Offence : Night of 08-09-2013 & 10-09-2013 Report /complaint : 10-09-2013 & 11-09-2013 Release on bail : A-2 on bail. A-1 & A-3 in Custody. Commencement of trial : 09-06-2014 Close of trial : 25-07-2014 Sentence or Judgment : 31-07-2014 Explanation for delay and remarks: The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant : State represented by the S.I of Police, New Port P.S,Visakhapatnam City. Name of the Accused: 1.Pendra Rambabu @ Karri, S/o late Appanna, aged 29 years, ST by caste, R/o Girijana Colony, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

02. Motoru Sankara Rao, S/o Ranga-Nayakulu, aged 32 years, Agnikula Kshatriya, R/o Satyanarayanapuram, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

03. Shaik Saleem @ Nani, S/o Durga, 22 years, Muslim, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

Offence :U/s.379 or 411 IPC

Finding:- : found not guilty

Result: In the result A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. A-1 and A-3 are in Judicial Custody, they shall be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. The bail bonds of A.2 shall stand cancelled forth with. M.Os.1 and 2 were already returned to P.Ws.1 and 2 for interim custody, those orders shall stand good subject to result of appeal, if any.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Copy to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

C.C.No.578/2013 2 Dated: 31-07-2014

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

PRESENT: Sri P.Dattatreyulu, III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka

THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, 2014

C.C.No.578/2013

This case was coming on 25-07-2014 for final hearing

before me in the presence of A.P.P., for the complainant and of Sri

S.Ramana Babu, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

A.Serial No. of the caseCalendar Case No.578/2013

B.Date of commission of 08-09-2013 at 09.00 hours and offenceon 10-09-2013

C.Nameofthe State represented by the Sub- complainantInspector of Police, New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

D.Name of the Accused01. Pendra Rambabu @ Karri, S/o late Appanna, aged 29 years, ST by caste, R/o Girijana Colony, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

02. Motoru Sankara Rao, S/o Ranga- Nayakulu, aged 32 years, Agnikula Kshatriya, R/o Satyanarayanapuram, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

03. Shaik Saleem @ Nani, S/o Durga, 22 years, Muslim, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

E.Offense complied ofU/s.379 or 411 IPC

F.Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty.

G.Final Judgment Found not guilty.

H.Date of Order 31-07-2014

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, New Port

Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, laid charge sheet against A-1 to A- 3 in Cr.Nos.181 and 182/2013 to punish the accused U/Sec.379 or 411

C.C.No.578/2013 3 Dated: 31-07-2014

IPC.

02.The case of the dejury complainant, in brief, is as follows:-

On 08-09-2013 at about 9.00a.m., some unknown offenders committed theft of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 AG 6530 belonged to L.W.1 Bheesetty Suryanarayana when he parked the same at Fish Market, Pedagantyada and escaped with the motorcycle successfully. In this connection and context, a case in Cr.No.181/2013 was registered and investigated into.

03. Likewise, on the night of 10-09-2013 some unknown offenders committed theft of Hero Honda Splendor plus motorcycle bearing No.

AP 35 F 8586 belonged to L.W.3 Gangula Balaji Prasad when he parked the same in his office premises and escaped with the stolen motorcycle successfully. In this connection and context, a case in

Cr.No.182/2013 was registered and investigated into.

04. During the course of investigation, on 12-09-2013 L.W.9 the S.I of Police K.Nageswararao, New Port Police Station arrested A-1 and A-3 near TNR Function Hall, BC Road at 7.00p.m., while they were proceeding on one of the two stolen motorcycles concerned in Cr.No.

182/2013 and recovered the stolen motorcycle under cover of a mahajar in the presence of mediators. On the confession of A-1 and A- 3 leading to the discovery of fact, the Investigating Officer went to the house of A-2 where he recovered another stolen motorcycle concerned in Cr.No.181/2013 from his possession under cover of separate mahajar, but in the presence of same mediators. After culmination and completion of his investigation, the Investigating Officer charge sheeted them for the offence stated supra. Hence, the charge.

3.After filing of the charge sheet, the case was taken on file U/s.379 or

C.C.No.578/2013 4 Dated: 31-07-2014 411 IPC against A-1 to A-3 and proceeded with.

04. After securing the presence of A-1 to A-3, copies of documents furnished to them, examined them U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. When they denied the accusation, a charge U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC was framed, explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been tried.

05. During course of trial, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5, Exs.P-1 to P-8 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked.

06. After closure of prosecution side evidence, A-1 to A-3 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. Having understood the incriminating material available in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

07. Heard arguments of both sides.

08.Now the point for determination of this court is :

Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of both the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

09. POINT:-

Shortly stated the gravamen of the charge alleged against the accused is that they committed theft of M.Os.1 and 2 from the respective possession of P.Ws.1 and 2 and escaped with the same successfully or in alternative they found in possession of M.Os.1 and 2 knowing their nature as stolen properties and without offering any plausible explanation to account for such possession, as such, it is alleged by the prosecution that they are liable for punishment u/Secs.379 or 411 of IPC.

C.C.No.578/2013 5 Dated: 31-07-2014

10. The case of the accused is one of total denial. This court has carefully gone through the entire material available on record to see whether the same is sufficient enough to connect the accused with the charge levelled against them.

11.In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution in all examined five witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5. Among them, P.Ws.1 and 2 were the defacto Complainants respectively. P.W.3 was one of the mediators who was involved and associated in the arrest and seizure proceedings effected against A-1 and A-3 at TNR Function Hall, B.C Road,

Gajuwaka, P.W.4 was the Investigating Officer, who did preliminary and initial investigation when P.Ws.1 and 2 put the criminal law into motion

before him with Exs.P-1 and P-2 reports and P.W.5 was the

Investigating Officer who unearthed this case with recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 against the accused.

12.The truth or otherwise has to be culled out from the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 5. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is disclosing that they lost

M.Os.1 and 2 in the hands of some unknown offenders, as such, they put the criminal law into motion with Exs.P-1 and P-2 before P.W.4 for taking necessary action and for recovery of the stolen properties. The accused did not deny their ownership since they were the registered owners of M.Os.1 and 2, as such, they did not put up any claim over

M.Os.1 and 2. A suggestion was put to P.Ws.1 and 2 that they were deposing falsehood at the instance of the police, such suggestions were denied by them. It is well settled that suggestions, however, ingenious have no evidential value unless admitted by the witness or proved otherwise. But P.Ws.1 and 2 declared the offenders as unknown offenders, no eye witness account was examined to

C.C.No.578/2013 6 Dated: 31-07-2014 substantiate the charge u/Sec.379 of IPC. The first offence was occurred on 08-09-2013 and the second offence was occurred on 10- 09-2013 and the recovery was effected on 12-09-2013. So, there was considerable gap between these two points, as such, the prosecution cannot avail the statutory presumption provided u/Sec.114 of the

Indian Evidence Act. When there was no eye witness account and when the prosecution was unable to unveil the mask of unknown offenders from the heads of the accused who were charged herein.

This Court has to hold that the prosecution has no case at all against the accused towards the charge u/Sec.379 IPC

13. Now this Court has to see what was stored in the evidence of seizure witnesses towards the charge u/Sec.411 IPC. In that regard and direction, this Court has to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4.

According to the case of the prosecution, M.O.2 was recovered from the possession of A-1 and A-3 at TNR Function Hall and M.O.1 was recovered at the house of A-2. P.W.3 half heartedly supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed half of the seizure proceedings alleged by the prosecution against all the accused. In other words,

P.W.3 deposed the seizure of M.O.2 from the possession of A-1 and A-3 and had showed volte face against the recovery of M.O.1 from the house of A-2. He categorically deposed that after arrest and seizure proceedings effected against A-1 and A-3 under cover of Ex.P-3 mahajar, police took A-1 and A-3 to the Station. He did not disclose that on the further confession of A-1 and A-3, they all went to the house of A-2 where P.W.5 recovered M.O.1 under cover of Ex.P-4 mahajar. If really, he was present during arrest and seizure proceedings effected under cover of Exs.P-3 and P-4, he would depose the second part of the recovery of M.O.1 at the house of A-2. But

C.C.No.578/2013 7 Dated: 31-07-2014

P.W.5 the Investigating Officer deposed both the seizures in the presence of P.W.3 and L.W.6 Botta Srinivasa Reddy. When P.W.3 supported and corroborated the evidence of P.W.4 to the first part of seizure of M.O.2 alone, how this Court could hold that there was perfect and matching corroboration between the evidence of seizure witnesses. In such case, how the evidence of P.W.3 can be taken as corroborative piece of evidence to the evidence of P.W.5. In such case, the prosecution ought to have examined another mediator to fill the blanks and to fill the void left by P.W.3, but it did not do so. If the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 was taken into consideration, two views are possible, one is whether P.W.3 was speaking lies on oath or P.W.5 was speaking lies on oath or vice-versa or both are speaking falsehood or both are speaking truth. In such case, when two views are possible and when such two views are emanating, a doubt against the arrest and seizure proceedings effected against the accused on two different places, certainly this Court has to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused, otherwise, traversity of justice will occurr. Viewed from any angle, there was no legally acceptable material to connect the accused with the charge u/Sec.411 of IPC levelled against the accused.

14. For the foregoing reasons the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution was unable to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. In the result A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the charge under

Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/s 248(1)

Cr.P.C. A-1 and A-3 are in Judicial Custody, they shall be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. The bail bonds of

A-2 shall stand cancelled forth with. M.Os.1 and 2 were already returned to P.Ws.1 and 2 for interim custody, those orders shall stand

C.C.No.578/2013 8 Dated: 31-07-2014 good subject to result of appeal, if any.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of July, 2014.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defense :

PW.1: B.Suryanarayana. -NIL-

PW.2: Gangula Balaji Prasad.

P.W.3: Komara Appala Naidu.

P.W.4: BY.Naidu, H.C., 2290.

P.W.5: Sri K.Nageswararao, S.I of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defense:

Ex.P-1/10-09-2013: Report of P.W.1. -NIL-

Ex.P-2/11-09-2013: Report of P.W.2

Ex.P-3/12-09-2013: Mahajar.

Ex.P-4/10-09-2013: F.I.R in Cr.No.181/13.

Ex.P-5/10-09-2013: Rough Sketch.

Ex.P-6/11-09-2013: F.I.R in Cr.No.182/13.

Ex.P-7/11-09-2013: Rough Sketch.

Ex.P-8/12-09-2013: Another Mahajar.

No. of Material Objects marked

M.Os.1 and 2 : Two Motorcycles.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate

Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka

C.C.No.578/2013 9 Dated: 31-07-2014 C.C.No.578/2013 10 Dated: 31-07-2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPANTAM

Judgment in : C.C.932/2008

Date of Offence : On the night of 13-10-08 (2 crimes) Report /complaint : 14-10-2008 Release on bail : On bail. Commencement of trial : 02-02-2012 Close of trial : 30-06-2014 Sentence or Judgment : 03-07-2014 Explanation for delay and remarks: The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant :State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the Accused :

01. Kulikuri Srinivas, S/o Narayanarao, 19 years, Vysya, R/o D.No.94, Burma Colony, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

02. Seeku Koteswararao @ Koti, S/o Kanakarao, 19 years, Settibalija, Seekuvanipalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

Offence :U/s.379 or 411 IPC

Finding:- : found not guilty Result: In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled forthwith. M.O.1 was already returned to P.W.1 for interim custody, but

C.C.No.578/2013 11 Dated: 31-07-2014

M.O.2 was not returned to L.W.3 (Bhikash Munna) who was the owner of the property since the police was unable to trace out his whereabouts, as such M.O.2 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal. The interim custody of M.O.1 given to P.W.1 shall stand good subject to result of appeal, if any.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka. Copy to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

DT:-09-04-2014:-

CC 28/2009

C.C.No.578/2013 12 Dated: 31-07-2014

Judgment pronounced Vide Separate Judgment In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC and he is acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. His bail bond shall stand cancelled forthwith. The stolen property was produced not only its original shape but also beyond its identification as the case property.

As such PC 105 Steel Plant Police was asked to take the same since the stolen property was produced in pieces that to like stones. As such there was no need to pass a property order for the disposal off the case property.

III ACMM Gajuwaka.

C.C.No.578/2013 1 Dated: 31-07-2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPANTAM

Judgment in : C.C.578/2013

Date of Offence : Night of 08-09-2013 & 10-09-2013 Report /complaint : 10-09-2013 & 11-09-2013 Release on bail : A-2 on bail. A-1 & A-3 in Custody. Commencement of trial : 09-06-2014 Close of trial : 25-07-2014 Sentence or Judgment : 31-07-2014 Explanation for delay and remarks: The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant : State represented by the S.I of Police, New Port P.S,Visakhapatnam City. Name of the Accused: 1.Pendra Rambabu @ Karri, S/o late Appanna, aged 29 years, ST by caste, R/o Girijana Colony, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

02. Motoru Sankara Rao, S/o Ranga-Nayakulu, aged 32 years, Agnikula Kshatriya, R/o Satyanarayanapuram, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

03. Shaik Saleem @ Nani, S/o Durga, 22 years, Muslim, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

Offence :U/s.379 or 411 IPC

Finding:- : found not guilty

Result: In the result A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. A-1 and A-3 are in Judicial Custody, they shall be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. The bail bonds of A.2 shall stand cancelled forth with. M.Os.1 and 2 were already returned to P.Ws.1 and 2 for interim custody, those orders shall stand good subject to result of appeal, if any.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Copy to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

C.C.No.578/2013 2 Dated: 31-07-2014

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

PRESENT: Sri P.Dattatreyulu, III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka

THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, 2014

C.C.No.578/2013

This case was coming on 25-07-2014 for final hearing

before me in the presence of A.P.P., for the complainant and of Sri

S.Ramana Babu, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

A.Serial No. of the caseCalendar Case No.578/2013

B.Date of commission of 08-09-2013 at 09.00 hours and offenceon 10-09-2013

C.Nameofthe State represented by the Sub- complainantInspector of Police, New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

D.Name of the Accused01. Pendra Rambabu @ Karri, S/o late Appanna, aged 29 years, ST by caste, R/o Girijana Colony, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

02. Motoru Sankara Rao, S/o Ranga- Nayakulu, aged 32 years, Agnikula Kshatriya, R/o Satyanarayanapuram, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

03. Shaik Saleem @ Nani, S/o Durga, 22 years, Muslim, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

E.Offense complied ofU/s.379 or 411 IPC

F.Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty.

G.Final Judgment Found not guilty.

H.Date of Order 31-07-2014

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, New Port

Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, laid charge sheet against A-1 to A- 3 in Cr.Nos.181 and 182/2013 to punish the accused U/Sec.379 or 411

C.C.No.578/2013 3 Dated: 31-07-2014

IPC.

02.The case of the dejury complainant, in brief, is as follows:-

On 08-09-2013 at about 9.00a.m., some unknown offenders committed theft of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 AG 6530 belonged to L.W.1 Bheesetty Suryanarayana when he parked the same at Fish Market, Pedagantyada and escaped with the motorcycle successfully. In this connection and context, a case in Cr.No.181/2013 was registered and investigated into.

03. Likewise, on the night of 10-09-2013 some unknown offenders committed theft of Hero Honda Splendor plus motorcycle bearing No.

AP 35 F 8586 belonged to L.W.3 Gangula Balaji Prasad when he parked the same in his office premises and escaped with the stolen motorcycle successfully. In this connection and context, a case in

Cr.No.182/2013 was registered and investigated into.

04. During the course of investigation, on 12-09-2013 L.W.9 the S.I of Police K.Nageswararao, New Port Police Station arrested A-1 and A-3 near TNR Function Hall, BC Road at 7.00p.m., while they were proceeding on one of the two stolen motorcycles concerned in Cr.No.

182/2013 and recovered the stolen motorcycle under cover of a mahajar in the presence of mediators. On the confession of A-1 and A- 3 leading to the discovery of fact, the Investigating Officer went to the house of A-2 where he recovered another stolen motorcycle concerned in Cr.No.181/2013 from his possession under cover of separate mahajar, but in the presence of same mediators. After culmination and completion of his investigation, the Investigating Officer charge sheeted them for the offence stated supra. Hence, the charge.

3.After filing of the charge sheet, the case was taken on file U/s.379 or

C.C.No.578/2013 4 Dated: 31-07-2014 411 IPC against A-1 to A-3 and proceeded with.

04. After securing the presence of A-1 to A-3, copies of documents furnished to them, examined them U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. When they denied the accusation, a charge U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC was framed, explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been tried.

05. During course of trial, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5, Exs.P-1 to P-8 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked.

06. After closure of prosecution side evidence, A-1 to A-3 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. Having understood the incriminating material available in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

07. Heard arguments of both sides.

08.Now the point for determination of this court is :

Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of both the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

09. POINT:-

Shortly stated the gravamen of the charge alleged against the accused is that they committed theft of M.Os.1 and 2 from the respective possession of P.Ws.1 and 2 and escaped with the same successfully or in alternative they found in possession of M.Os.1 and 2 knowing their nature as stolen properties and without offering any plausible explanation to account for such possession, as such, it is alleged by the prosecution that they are liable for punishment u/Secs.379 or 411 of IPC.

C.C.No.578/2013 5 Dated: 31-07-2014

10. The case of the accused is one of total denial. This court has carefully gone through the entire material available on record to see whether the same is sufficient enough to connect the accused with the charge levelled against them.

11.In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution in all examined five witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5. Among them, P.Ws.1 and 2 were the defacto Complainants respectively. P.W.3 was one of the mediators who was involved and associated in the arrest and seizure proceedings effected against A-1 and A-3 at TNR Function Hall, B.C Road,

Gajuwaka, P.W.4 was the Investigating Officer, who did preliminary and initial investigation when P.Ws.1 and 2 put the criminal law into motion

before him with Exs.P-1 and P-2 reports and P.W.5 was the

Investigating Officer who unearthed this case with recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 against the accused.

12.The truth or otherwise has to be culled out from the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 5. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is disclosing that they lost

M.Os.1 and 2 in the hands of some unknown offenders, as such, they put the criminal law into motion with Exs.P-1 and P-2 before P.W.4 for taking necessary action and for recovery of the stolen properties. The accused did not deny their ownership since they were the registered owners of M.Os.1 and 2, as such, they did not put up any claim over

M.Os.1 and 2. A suggestion was put to P.Ws.1 and 2 that they were deposing falsehood at the instance of the police, such suggestions were denied by them. It is well settled that suggestions, however, ingenious have no evidential value unless admitted by the witness or proved otherwise. But P.Ws.1 and 2 declared the offenders as unknown offenders, no eye witness account was examined to

C.C.No.578/2013 6 Dated: 31-07-2014 substantiate the charge u/Sec.379 of IPC. The first offence was occurred on 08-09-2013 and the second offence was occurred on 10- 09-2013 and the recovery was effected on 12-09-2013. So, there was considerable gap between these two points, as such, the prosecution cannot avail the statutory presumption provided u/Sec.114 of the

Indian Evidence Act. When there was no eye witness account and when the prosecution was unable to unveil the mask of unknown offenders from the heads of the accused who were charged herein.

This Court has to hold that the prosecution has no case at all against the accused towards the charge u/Sec.379 IPC

13. Now this Court has to see what was stored in the evidence of seizure witnesses towards the charge u/Sec.411 IPC. In that regard and direction, this Court has to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4.

According to the case of the prosecution, M.O.2 was recovered from the possession of A-1 and A-3 at TNR Function Hall and M.O.1 was recovered at the house of A-2. P.W.3 half heartedly supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed half of the seizure proceedings alleged by the prosecution against all the accused. In other words,

P.W.3 deposed the seizure of M.O.2 from the possession of A-1 and A-3 and had showed volte face against the recovery of M.O.1 from the house of A-2. He categorically deposed that after arrest and seizure proceedings effected against A-1 and A-3 under cover of Ex.P-3 mahajar, police took A-1 and A-3 to the Station. He did not disclose that on the further confession of A-1 and A-3, they all went to the house of A-2 where P.W.5 recovered M.O.1 under cover of Ex.P-4 mahajar. If really, he was present during arrest and seizure proceedings effected under cover of Exs.P-3 and P-4, he would depose the second part of the recovery of M.O.1 at the house of A-2. But

C.C.No.578/2013 7 Dated: 31-07-2014

P.W.5 the Investigating Officer deposed both the seizures in the presence of P.W.3 and L.W.6 Botta Srinivasa Reddy. When P.W.3 supported and corroborated the evidence of P.W.4 to the first part of seizure of M.O.2 alone, how this Court could hold that there was perfect and matching corroboration between the evidence of seizure witnesses. In such case, how the evidence of P.W.3 can be taken as corroborative piece of evidence to the evidence of P.W.5. In such case, the prosecution ought to have examined another mediator to fill the blanks and to fill the void left by P.W.3, but it did not do so. If the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 was taken into consideration, two views are possible, one is whether P.W.3 was speaking lies on oath or P.W.5 was speaking lies on oath or vice-versa or both are speaking falsehood or both are speaking truth. In such case, when two views are possible and when such two views are emanating, a doubt against the arrest and seizure proceedings effected against the accused on two different places, certainly this Court has to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused, otherwise, traversity of justice will occurr. Viewed from any angle, there was no legally acceptable material to connect the accused with the charge u/Sec.411 of IPC levelled against the accused.

14. For the foregoing reasons the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution was unable to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. In the result A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the charge under

Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/s 248(1)

Cr.P.C. A-1 and A-3 are in Judicial Custody, they shall be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. The bail bonds of

A-2 shall stand cancelled forth with. M.Os.1 and 2 were already returned to P.Ws.1 and 2 for interim custody, those orders shall stand

C.C.No.578/2013 8 Dated: 31-07-2014 good subject to result of appeal, if any.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of July, 2014.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defense :

PW.1: B.Suryanarayana. -NIL-

PW.2: Gangula Balaji Prasad.

P.W.3: Komara Appala Naidu.

P.W.4: BY.Naidu, H.C., 2290.

P.W.5: Sri K.Nageswararao, S.I of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defense:

Ex.P-1/10-09-2013: Report of P.W.1. -NIL-

Ex.P-2/11-09-2013: Report of P.W.2

Ex.P-3/12-09-2013: Mahajar.

Ex.P-4/10-09-2013: F.I.R in Cr.No.181/13.

Ex.P-5/10-09-2013: Rough Sketch.

Ex.P-6/11-09-2013: F.I.R in Cr.No.182/13.

Ex.P-7/11-09-2013: Rough Sketch.

Ex.P-8/12-09-2013: Another Mahajar.

No. of Material Objects marked

M.Os.1 and 2 : Two Motorcycles.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate

Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka

C.C.No.578/2013 9 Dated: 31-07-2014 C.C.No.578/2013 10 Dated: 31-07-2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPANTAM

Judgment in : C.C.932/2008

Date of Offence : On the night of 13-10-08 (2 crimes) Report /complaint : 14-10-2008 Release on bail : On bail. Commencement of trial : 02-02-2012 Close of trial : 30-06-2014 Sentence or Judgment : 03-07-2014 Explanation for delay and remarks: The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant :State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the Accused :

01. Kulikuri Srinivas, S/o Narayanarao, 19 years, Vysya, R/o D.No.94, Burma Colony, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

02. Seeku Koteswararao @ Koti, S/o Kanakarao, 19 years, Settibalija, Seekuvanipalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

Offence :U/s.379 or 411 IPC

Finding:- : found not guilty Result: In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled forthwith. M.O.1 was already returned to P.W.1 for interim custody, but

C.C.No.578/2013 11 Dated: 31-07-2014

M.O.2 was not returned to L.W.3 (Bhikash Munna) who was the owner of the property since the police was unable to trace out his whereabouts, as such M.O.2 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal. The interim custody of M.O.1 given to P.W.1 shall stand good subject to result of appeal, if any.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka. Copy to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

DT:-09-04-2014:-

CC 28/2009

C.C.No.578/2013 12 Dated: 31-07-2014

Judgment pronounced Vide Separate Judgment In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC and he is acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. His bail bond shall stand cancelled forthwith. The stolen property was produced not only its original shape but also beyond its identification as the case property.

As such PC 105 Steel Plant Police was asked to take the same since the stolen property was produced in pieces that to like stones. As such there was no need to pass a property order for the disposal off the case property.

III ACMM Gajuwaka.

C.C.No.161/2010 1 Dated: 31-07-2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPANTAM

Judgment in : C.C.161/2010

Date of Offence : On 07-01-2010 & 06-02-2010 night. Report /complaint : 07-01-2010 & 07-02-2010 Release on bail : On bail. Commencement of trial : 18-02-2014 Close of trial : 25-07-2014 Sentence or Judgment : 31-07-2014 Explanation for delay and remarks: The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant : State represented by the S.I of Police, New Port P.S,Visakhapatnam City. Name of the Accused :

1.Moturu Sankara Rao, S/o Ranga Nayakulu, aged 28 years, Palli, R/o D.No.14-44-7/1, Godduvanipalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. N/o Tattipali, Parlakimidi, Orissa State.

02. Anakapalli Tarakarao, S/o Dharma Rao, aged 22 years, Kapu, R/o Godduvanipalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. N/o Patapatnam, Srikakulam District. Offence :U/s.379 or 411 IPC

Finding:- : found not guilty

Result: In the result A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same

U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled forth with.

L.W.1 Narasayya the defacto complainant in Cr.No.06/2010 received the case property under cover of Ex.P-2 property bond. There was no record to show that the case property in Cr.No.34/2010 returned to another defacto complainant concerned in Cr.No.34/2010, as such, the same shall be returned to him forthwith under cover of proper acknowledgment and identification. Both orders shall stand good subject to result of appeal, if any.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Copy to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

C.C.No.161/2010 2 Dated: 31-07-2014

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

PRESENT: Sri P.Dattatreyulu, III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka

THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, 2014

C.C.No.161/2010

This case was coming on 25-07-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P., for the complainant and of Sri S.Ramana

Babu, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

A.Serial No. of the caseCalendar Case No.161/2010

B.Date of commission of 07-01-2010 at 12.00 hours and offencenight of 06-02-2010

C.Nameofthe State represented by the Sub- complainantInspector of Police, New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

D.Name of the Accused01. Moturu Sankara Rao, S/o Ranga Nayakulu, aged 28 years, Palli, R/o D.No.14-44-7/1,Godduvanipalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. N/o Tattipali, Parlakimidi, Orissa State.

02. Anakapalli Tarakarao, S/o Dharma Rao, aged 22 years, Kapu, R/o Godduvanipalem,Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. N/o Patapatnam, Srikakulam District.

E.Offense complied ofU/s.379 or 411 IPC

F.Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty.

G.Final Judgment Found not guilty.

H.Date of Order 31-07-2014

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, New Port

Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, laid charge sheet against A-1 and

A.2 in Cr.Nos.181 and 182/2013 to punish the accused U/Sec.379 or

C.C.No.161/2010 3 Dated: 31-07-2014 411 IPC.

02.The case of the dejury complainant, in brief, is as follows:-

On 07-01-2010 at 12.00 hours, L.W.1 Sri Sandiboina Babu

Narasayya, the then Assistant Security Officer, GPS Security Private

Limited, lodged a complaint alleging that 50 nos. of iron rods were found missing from their work spot and he suspected that some unknown offenders committed theft of the same. On the strength of his report, a case in Cr.No.06/2010 was registered and investigated into.

03. Likewise, on the night of 07-03-2010 at 11.00p.m., L.W.5 Sri

Sirisetty Dhara Malleswararao lodged a report alleging that on the night of 06-02-2010 some unknown offenders committed theft of of

Aluminium cable with holder and iron scrap pieces were found missing from their Unit and he suspected that some unknown offenders committed theft of the same. On the strength of his report, a case in

Cr.No.34/2010 was registered and investigated into.

04. During the course of investigation, on 08-02-2010 at 07.00 hours

L.W.10 Sri B.Ramakrishnarao, the then S.I of Police, New Port Police

Station arrested the accused on credible information, opposite Fire

Station, B.C Road, Pedagantyada and recovered the stolen property concerned in Cr.No.34/2010 under cover of a mahajar and in the presence of mediators. On further confession of the accused, he also recovered the case property behind the Electrical Sub-Station,

Pedagantyada at 08.15 hours under cover of separate mahajar and in the presence of same mediators. After culmination and completion of his investigation, the Investigating Officer charge sheeted them for the offence stated supra. Hence, the charge.

C.C.No.161/2010 4 Dated: 31-07-2014

05. kAfter filing of the charge sheet, the case was taken on file

U/s.379 or 411 IPC against A-1 and A-2 and proceeded with.

06. After securing the presence of A-1 and A-2, copies of documents furnished to them, examined them U/sec.239 Cr.P.C.

When they denied the accusation, a charge U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC was framed, explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been tried.

07. During course of trial, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4, Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked.

08. After closure of prosecution side evidence, A-1 and A-2 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. Having understood the incriminating material available in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

09. Heard arguments of both sides.

10.Now the point for determination of this court is :

Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of both the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

11. POINT:-

Shortly stated the gravamen of the charge alleged against the accused is that they committed theft of properties from the units belonged to L.W.1 Narasayya and L.W.5 Malleswara Rao and escaped with the same successfully or in alternative they found in possession of the stolen properties knowing their nature as stolen properties and without offering any plausible explanation to account for such possession, as such, it is alleged by the prosecution that they are liable for punishment u/Secs.379 or 411 of IPC.

C.C.No.161/2010 5 Dated: 31-07-2014

12. The case of the accused is one of total denial. This court has carefully gone through the entire material available on record to see whether the same is sufficient enough to connect the accused with the charge levelled against them.

13. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution in all examined four witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4. Among them, P.W.1 was the

Contractor who did the contract works of L.W.1 Narasayya and who knew the particulars of the theft occurred in the site of L.W.1

Narasayya. P.Ws.2 and 3 were the mediators who involved and associated in the arrest and seizure proceedings and P.W.4 was the

Investigating Officer, who did investigation from the beginning to end and who laid charge sheet against the accused.

14. The prosecution was unable to examine L.W.1 Narasayya who was competent to speak the particulars of theft concerned in

Cr.No.06/2010. After pressing hard and with great difficulty, the prosecution examined L.W.2 as P.W.1, who did contract works in the scene of offence and who knew the signature of L.W.1 Narasayya. The prosecution made him to voice the particulars of the theft and also made him to identify the signatures of L.W.1 Narasayya. The prosecution made him to depose that L.W.1 Narasayya took the case property under cover of Ex.P-2 property bond for interim custody. So, the defacto complainant in Cr.No.06/2010 was not examined. The stolen property was not exhibited and everything was completed through the mouth of P.W.1 though he was no where concerned with the commission of theft and with the stolen property. Another damage was occurred to the case of the prosecution that as it did not choose to examine another defacto complainant who put the criminal law into

C.C.No.161/2010 6 Dated: 31-07-2014 motion in Cr.No.34/2010. The stolen property pertaining to him was also not exhibited. When the stolen property was not at all produced

before this Court and the same was also not at exhibited before this

Court, how this Court could envision that there was such commission of theft and the properties were committed theft of by some unknown offenders, so it can be said that the prosecution has no case at all against the accused towards the charge u/Sec.379 of IPC.

15. Now this Court has to see what was there in the remaining material towards the charge u/Sec.411 IPC. In that regard and direction, the prosecution has examined the mediators as P.Ws.2 and

3. As usual and without giving any surprise and to the dismay of the prosecution, they had showed blunt hands and volte faces to the prosecution, as such, they were declared as hostile and their signatures found on the mahajars were marked as Exs.P-3 to P-6 respectively. So, the prosecution did not cull out any strength or support to the seizure of the stolen property from the evidence of

P.Ws.2 and 3.

16. The remaining voice was the Investigating Officer. Even though, his evidence was not taken for all practical purposes, how this Court could place total amount of reliance in the absence of any sort of corroboration to his evidence. P.Ws.2 and 3 did not support the case of the prosecution, it ought to have examined any other police personnel who assisted P.W.4 in unearthing this case against the accused, but it did not do so. P.W.4 as Investigating Officer will always tried for fruition of his investigation in the form securing a conviction against the accused. The legal proverb that uncorroborated sole testimony is unsafe to convict the accused dissuading this Court to act

C.C.No.161/2010 7 Dated: 31-07-2014 upon the evidence of P.W.4 in order to anoint the charge on the head of the accused. When the property was not exhibited to give a colour to it as stolen property, that when the mediators did not support the case of the prosecution, that when the evidence of the Investigating

Officer fell into isolation, how this Court could hold that there was infallible material to connect the accused with the charge levelled against them. Viewed from any angle, there was no legally acceptable material to connect the accused with the charge u/Sec.411 of IPC levelled against the accused.

17. For the foregoing reasons the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution was unable to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. In the result A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled forth with. L.W.1

Narasayya the defacto complainant in Cr.No.06/2010 received the case property under cover of Ex.P-2 property bond. There was no record to show that the case property in Cr.No.34/2010 returned to another defacto complainant concerned in Cr.No.34/2010, as such, the same shall be returned to him forthwith under cover of proper acknowledgment and identification. Both orders shall stand good subject to result of appeal, if any.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of July, 2014.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

C.C.No.161/2010 8 Dated: 31-07-2014

Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defense :

PW.1: Gorla Govinda Rao. -NIL-

PW.2: Bosari Dasu.

P.W.3: Ayyapu Reddy Paradesirao.

P.W.4: Sri B.Ramakrishnarao, S.I of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defense:

Ex.P-1/07-01-2010: Report of P.W.1. -NIL-

Ex.P-2/ ---- : Property Bond

Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4: Singatures of P.W.2 on Exs.P-10 & P-11 Mahajar.

Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6: Singatures of P.W.3 on Exs.P-10 & P-11 Mahajar.

Ex.P-7/07-02-2010: Report in Cr.No.34/2010.

Ex.P-8/07-02-2010: F.I.R in Cr.No.34/2010.

Ex.P-9/07-01-2010: F.I.R in Cr.No.06/2010.

Exs.P-10 and P-11 : Mahajars, dated 08-02-2010.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka

C.C.No.161/2010 9 Dated: 31-07-2014 C.C.No.161/2010 10 Dated: 31-07-2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPANTAM

Judgment in : C.C.932/2008

Date of Offence : On the night of 13-10-08 (2 crimes) Report /complaint : 14-10-2008 Release on bail : On bail. Commencement of trial : 02-02-2012 Close of trial : 30-06-2014 Sentence or Judgment : 03-07-2014 Explanation for delay and remarks: The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant :State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the Accused :

01. Kulikuri Srinivas, S/o Narayanarao, 19 years, Vysya, R/o D.No.94, Burma Colony, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

02. Seeku Koteswararao @ Koti, S/o Kanakarao, 19 years, Settibalija, Seekuvanipalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

Offence :U/s.379 or 411 IPC

Finding:- : found not guilty Result: In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled forthwith. M.O.1 was already returned to P.W.1 for interim custody, but

M.O.2 was not returned to L.W.3 (Bhikash Munna) who was the owner of the property since the police was unable to trace out his whereabouts, as such M.O.2 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal. The interim custody of M.O.1 given to P.W.1 shall stand good subject to result of appeal, if any.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

C.C.No.161/2010 11 Dated: 31-07-2014

Copy to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

DT:-09-04-2014:-

CC 28/2009

Judgment pronounced Vide Separate Judgment In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC and he is acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. His bail bond shall stand cancelled forthwith. The stolen

C.C.No.161/2010 12 Dated: 31-07-2014 property was produced not only its original shape but also beyond its identification as the case property.

As such PC 105 Steel Plant Police was asked to take the same since the stolen property was produced in pieces that to like stones. As such there was no need to pass a property order for the disposal off the case property.

III ACMM Gajuwaka.

C.C.No.161/2010 1 Dated: 31-07-2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPANTAM

Judgment in : C.C.161/2010

Date of Offence : On 07-01-2010 & 06-02-2010 night. Report /complaint : 07-01-2010 & 07-02-2010 Release on bail : On bail. Commencement of trial : 18-02-2014 Close of trial : 25-07-2014 Sentence or Judgment : 31-07-2014 Explanation for delay and remarks: The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant : State represented by the S.I of Police, New Port P.S,Visakhapatnam City. Name of the Accused :

1.Moturu Sankara Rao, S/o Ranga Nayakulu, aged 28 years, Palli, R/o D.No.14-44-7/1, Godduvanipalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. N/o Tattipali, Parlakimidi, Orissa State.

02. Anakapalli Tarakarao, S/o Dharma Rao, aged 22 years, Kapu, R/o Godduvanipalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. N/o Patapatnam, Srikakulam District. Offence :U/s.379 or 411 IPC

Finding:- : found not guilty

Result: In the result A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same

U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled forth with.

L.W.1 Narasayya the defacto complainant in Cr.No.06/2010 received the case property under cover of Ex.P-2 property bond. There was no record to show that the case property in Cr.No.34/2010 returned to another defacto complainant concerned in Cr.No.34/2010, as such, the same shall be returned to him forthwith under cover of proper acknowledgment and identification. Both orders shall stand good subject to result of appeal, if any.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Copy to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

C.C.No.161/2010 2 Dated: 31-07-2014

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

PRESENT: Sri P.Dattatreyulu, III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka

THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, 2014

C.C.No.161/2010

This case was coming on 25-07-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P., for the complainant and of Sri S.Ramana

Babu, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

A.Serial No. of the caseCalendar Case No.161/2010

B.Date of commission of 07-01-2010 at 12.00 hours and offencenight of 06-02-2010

C.Nameofthe State represented by the Sub- complainantInspector of Police, New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

D.Name of the Accused01. Moturu Sankara Rao, S/o Ranga Nayakulu, aged 28 years, Palli, R/o D.No.14-44-7/1,Godduvanipalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. N/o Tattipali, Parlakimidi, Orissa State.

02. Anakapalli Tarakarao, S/o Dharma Rao, aged 22 years, Kapu, R/o Godduvanipalem,Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. N/o Patapatnam, Srikakulam District.

E.Offense complied ofU/s.379 or 411 IPC

F.Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty.

G.Final Judgment Found not guilty.

H.Date of Order 31-07-2014

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, New Port

Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, laid charge sheet against A-1 and

A.2 in Cr.Nos.181 and 182/2013 to punish the accused U/Sec.379 or

C.C.No.161/2010 3 Dated: 31-07-2014 411 IPC.

02.The case of the dejury complainant, in brief, is as follows:-

On 07-01-2010 at 12.00 hours, L.W.1 Sri Sandiboina Babu

Narasayya, the then Assistant Security Officer, GPS Security Private

Limited, lodged a complaint alleging that 50 nos. of iron rods were found missing from their work spot and he suspected that some unknown offenders committed theft of the same. On the strength of his report, a case in Cr.No.06/2010 was registered and investigated into.

03. Likewise, on the night of 07-03-2010 at 11.00p.m., L.W.5 Sri

Sirisetty Dhara Malleswararao lodged a report alleging that on the night of 06-02-2010 some unknown offenders committed theft of of

Aluminium cable with holder and iron scrap pieces were found missing from their Unit and he suspected that some unknown offenders committed theft of the same. On the strength of his report, a case in

Cr.No.34/2010 was registered and investigated into.

04. During the course of investigation, on 08-02-2010 at 07.00 hours

L.W.10 Sri B.Ramakrishnarao, the then S.I of Police, New Port Police

Station arrested the accused on credible information, opposite Fire

Station, B.C Road, Pedagantyada and recovered the stolen property concerned in Cr.No.34/2010 under cover of a mahajar and in the presence of mediators. On further confession of the accused, he also recovered the case property behind the Electrical Sub-Station,

Pedagantyada at 08.15 hours under cover of separate mahajar and in the presence of same mediators. After culmination and completion of his investigation, the Investigating Officer charge sheeted them for the offence stated supra. Hence, the charge.

C.C.No.161/2010 4 Dated: 31-07-2014

05. kAfter filing of the charge sheet, the case was taken on file

U/s.379 or 411 IPC against A-1 and A-2 and proceeded with.

06. After securing the presence of A-1 and A-2, copies of documents furnished to them, examined them U/sec.239 Cr.P.C.

When they denied the accusation, a charge U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC was framed, explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been tried.

07. During course of trial, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4, Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked.

08. After closure of prosecution side evidence, A-1 and A-2 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. Having understood the incriminating material available in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

09. Heard arguments of both sides.

10.Now the point for determination of this court is :

Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of both the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

11. POINT:-

Shortly stated the gravamen of the charge alleged against the accused is that they committed theft of properties from the units belonged to L.W.1 Narasayya and L.W.5 Malleswara Rao and escaped with the same successfully or in alternative they found in possession of the stolen properties knowing their nature as stolen properties and without offering any plausible explanation to account for such possession, as such, it is alleged by the prosecution that they are liable for punishment u/Secs.379 or 411 of IPC.

C.C.No.161/2010 5 Dated: 31-07-2014

12. The case of the accused is one of total denial. This court has carefully gone through the entire material available on record to see whether the same is sufficient enough to connect the accused with the charge levelled against them.

13. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution in all examined four witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4. Among them, P.W.1 was the

Contractor who did the contract works of L.W.1 Narasayya and who knew the particulars of the theft occurred in the site of L.W.1

Narasayya. P.Ws.2 and 3 were the mediators who involved and associated in the arrest and seizure proceedings and P.W.4 was the

Investigating Officer, who did investigation from the beginning to end and who laid charge sheet against the accused.

14. The prosecution was unable to examine L.W.1 Narasayya who was competent to speak the particulars of theft concerned in

Cr.No.06/2010. After pressing hard and with great difficulty, the prosecution examined L.W.2 as P.W.1, who did contract works in the scene of offence and who knew the signature of L.W.1 Narasayya. The prosecution made him to voice the particulars of the theft and also made him to identify the signatures of L.W.1 Narasayya. The prosecution made him to depose that L.W.1 Narasayya took the case property under cover of Ex.P-2 property bond for interim custody. So, the defacto complainant in Cr.No.06/2010 was not examined. The stolen property was not exhibited and everything was completed through the mouth of P.W.1 though he was no where concerned with the commission of theft and with the stolen property. Another damage was occurred to the case of the prosecution that as it did not choose to examine another defacto complainant who put the criminal law into

C.C.No.161/2010 6 Dated: 31-07-2014 motion in Cr.No.34/2010. The stolen property pertaining to him was also not exhibited. When the stolen property was not at all produced

before this Court and the same was also not at exhibited before this

Court, how this Court could envision that there was such commission of theft and the properties were committed theft of by some unknown offenders, so it can be said that the prosecution has no case at all against the accused towards the charge u/Sec.379 of IPC.

15. Now this Court has to see what was there in the remaining material towards the charge u/Sec.411 IPC. In that regard and direction, the prosecution has examined the mediators as P.Ws.2 and

3. As usual and without giving any surprise and to the dismay of the prosecution, they had showed blunt hands and volte faces to the prosecution, as such, they were declared as hostile and their signatures found on the mahajars were marked as Exs.P-3 to P-6 respectively. So, the prosecution did not cull out any strength or support to the seizure of the stolen property from the evidence of

P.Ws.2 and 3.

16. The remaining voice was the Investigating Officer. Even though, his evidence was not taken for all practical purposes, how this Court could place total amount of reliance in the absence of any sort of corroboration to his evidence. P.Ws.2 and 3 did not support the case of the prosecution, it ought to have examined any other police personnel who assisted P.W.4 in unearthing this case against the accused, but it did not do so. P.W.4 as Investigating Officer will always tried for fruition of his investigation in the form securing a conviction against the accused. The legal proverb that uncorroborated sole testimony is unsafe to convict the accused dissuading this Court to act

C.C.No.161/2010 7 Dated: 31-07-2014 upon the evidence of P.W.4 in order to anoint the charge on the head of the accused. When the property was not exhibited to give a colour to it as stolen property, that when the mediators did not support the case of the prosecution, that when the evidence of the Investigating

Officer fell into isolation, how this Court could hold that there was infallible material to connect the accused with the charge levelled against them. Viewed from any angle, there was no legally acceptable material to connect the accused with the charge u/Sec.411 of IPC levelled against the accused.

17. For the foregoing reasons the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution was unable to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. In the result A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled forth with. L.W.1

Narasayya the defacto complainant in Cr.No.06/2010 received the case property under cover of Ex.P-2 property bond. There was no record to show that the case property in Cr.No.34/2010 returned to another defacto complainant concerned in Cr.No.34/2010, as such, the same shall be returned to him forthwith under cover of proper acknowledgment and identification. Both orders shall stand good subject to result of appeal, if any.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of July, 2014.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

C.C.No.161/2010 8 Dated: 31-07-2014

Appendix of evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defense :

PW.1: Gorla Govinda Rao. -NIL-

PW.2: Bosari Dasu.

P.W.3: Ayyapu Reddy Paradesirao.

P.W.4: Sri B.Ramakrishnarao, S.I of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defense:

Ex.P-1/07-01-2010: Report of P.W.1. -NIL-

Ex.P-2/ ---- : Property Bond

Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4: Singatures of P.W.2 on Exs.P-10 & P-11 Mahajar.

Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6: Singatures of P.W.3 on Exs.P-10 & P-11 Mahajar.

Ex.P-7/07-02-2010: Report in Cr.No.34/2010.

Ex.P-8/07-02-2010: F.I.R in Cr.No.34/2010.

Ex.P-9/07-01-2010: F.I.R in Cr.No.06/2010.

Exs.P-10 and P-11 : Mahajars, dated 08-02-2010.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka

C.C.No.161/2010 9 Dated: 31-07-2014 C.C.No.161/2010 10 Dated: 31-07-2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPANTAM

Judgment in : C.C.932/2008

Date of Offence : On the night of 13-10-08 (2 crimes) Report /complaint : 14-10-2008 Release on bail : On bail. Commencement of trial : 02-02-2012 Close of trial : 30-06-2014 Sentence or Judgment : 03-07-2014 Explanation for delay and remarks: The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant :State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the Accused :

01. Kulikuri Srinivas, S/o Narayanarao, 19 years, Vysya, R/o D.No.94, Burma Colony, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

02. Seeku Koteswararao @ Koti, S/o Kanakarao, 19 years, Settibalija, Seekuvanipalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

Offence :U/s.379 or 411 IPC

Finding:- : found not guilty Result: In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled forthwith. M.O.1 was already returned to P.W.1 for interim custody, but

M.O.2 was not returned to L.W.3 (Bhikash Munna) who was the owner of the property since the police was unable to trace out his whereabouts, as such M.O.2 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal. The interim custody of M.O.1 given to P.W.1 shall stand good subject to result of appeal, if any.

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

C.C.No.161/2010 11 Dated: 31-07-2014

Copy to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

DT:-09-04-2014:-

CC 28/2009

Judgment pronounced Vide Separate Judgment In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC and he is acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. His bail bond shall stand cancelled forthwith. The stolen

C.C.No.161/2010 12 Dated: 31-07-2014 property was produced not only its original shape but also beyond its identification as the case property.

As such PC 105 Steel Plant Police was asked to take the same since the stolen property was produced in pieces that to like stones. As such there was no need to pass a property order for the disposal off the case property.

III ACMM Gajuwaka.