Sri P. Divakar, B.Sc., L.L.B.,

1

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. No.63/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, DARSI.

1. Date of offence:10-09-2011

2. Date of report or complaint:10-09-2011

3. Date of taken on file: 22-03-2012

4. Date of apprehension of accused:14-09-2011

5. Date of release on bail:14-09-2011

6. Date of commencement of trial:11-03-2014

7. Date of closure of trial: 11-03-2014

8. Date of sentence or order:12-03-2014

9. Complainant:State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Darsi P.S. (Cr. No.89/2011)

10. Description of accused :

1.Muthayala Rangaiah, S/o.Rangaiah, aged 70 years.

2.Muthayala Ranga Swamy, S/o.Rangaiah, aged 30 years.

Bothe are Balija by caste and residents of Srinivasa Theatre, Chowtapalem road, Darsi Village and Mandal.

11. Offence: U/Sec.324 r/w.34 of I.P.C.

12. Plea of Accused:Not guilty

13. Finding: Found not guilty 14.Sentence or order: In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 r/w.34 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The Accused A1 and A2 are directed to execute bail bonds, to appear before the Higher Court as and when such court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of the respective court and such bail bonds shall be in-force for 6 months. No property order is passed since no property seized and produced.

15. Explanation for the delay: Cognizance was taken on 22-03-2012. Accused appeared on 25-04-2012 and copies of documents were furnished. On 16-08-2013 accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the matter posted for trial. At this stage, the case being adjourned from time to time due to unreadiness of both parties. On 11-03-2014 PW1 and PW2 examined and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 marked and prosecution side evidence closed and as there is incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with and heard arguments on both sides and Judgment (Vide separate Judgment) pronounced in open court on the same day i.e. on 12-03-2014. Hence, the delay.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DARSI

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

: DARSI :

PRESENT: SRI P. DIVAKAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, DARSI.

Friday, the 12th day of March, 2014.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 63/2012

(Crime No.80/2011 of Darsi P.S.) Between: State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Darsi P.S. .. Complainant

A N D

1. Muthayala Rangaiah, S/o.Rangaiah, aged 70 years.

2. Muthayala Ranga Swamy, S/o.Rangaiah, aged 30 years.

Bothe are Balija by caste and residents of Srinivasa Theatre, Chowtapalem road,

Darsi Village and Mandal. .. Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. K.Aruna Kumari, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. A.Venkatesh Naidu, Advocate for the accused and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Darsi P.S. has filed the charge sheet against A1 and A2 in Cr. No.89/2011 of Darsi P.S. for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 r/w.34 r/w.34 of I.P.C.

2.The gravamen of the charge sheet is as follows:

That there are existing disputes between both parties with regard to watering to their wet lands from the N.S.P. Canal and while so, on 10-09-2011 around 11-00 a.m. when LW1-Thandava Chinna Kondaiah was watering to his wet land from the

N.S.P. Canal, A1 and A2 went there, picked up quarrel with LW1 and in the said quarrel A1 beat LW1 with a stick on his head and caused bleeding injury and then

A1 and A2 beat LW1 with their hands and legs indiscriminately. On the basis of the complaint of LW1, LW7 S.M.Vinod, H.C.396 of Darsi P.S. registered this case, submitted F.I.R. to this court besides sent the copies of the same to all the concerned officers, examined the witnesses and recorded their statement, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. LW6 P.Radha Krishna, who treated

LW1 and issued wound certificate. During the course of further investigation,

LW8-Y.Naga Raju, S.I. of Police, Darsi P.S. arrested the accused on 14-09-2011 3 and sent them for remand and after completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence u/s.324 r/w.34 of I.P.C.

3.On perusal of record, the case was taken on file U/Sec.324 r/w.34 of IPC, against the accused.

4. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents are furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.When A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C., for the offence

U/Sec.324 r/w.34 of IPC, the contents of charge sheet was read over to A1 and A2, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, so charge U/Sec.324 r/w.34 of IPC, against A1 and A2 was framed. Hence the trial.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The evidence of LW4-Chinthala

Anji, LW5-Sandu Anji, LW6-Dr. P.Radha Krishna, LW7-S.M.Vinod, Head

Constable and LW8-Y.Naga Raju,S.I. of Police was given up by the learned A.P.P.

The evidecne of LW1-Thandava Chinna Kondaiah was closed as he died. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7. From the evidence of witnesses, there is no incriminating material at all against A1 and A2. Hence the examination under 313 Cr.P.C. is also dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is that; “Whether the prosecution proved its case against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 r/w.34 of IPC, against A1 and A2 ?

10. P O I N T :-To prove the case the prosecution so far examined PW1 and

PW2. PW1 is the brother's son of deceased LW1-Thandava Chinna Kondaiah and

PW2 is the wife of deceased LW1 and so also, they are projected eye witnesses to the occurrence. Coming to the evidence on record, PW1 and PW2 categorically 4 deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and the accused never beat LW1-Thandava Chinna Kondaiah and they did not witness the occurrence. In this case, LW1-Thandava China Kondaiah is the defacto- complainant and his evidence is crucial, but he died pending trial of the case and his evidence was closed, which is fatal to the case of prosecution. Since PW1 and

PW2 who are projected eye witnesses to the occurrence became hostile and did not depose any incriminating material against A1 and A2, the evidence of LW4 to LW8 was given up by A.P.P. Since there is no incriminating material at all against A1 and

A2 from the witnesses examined, the examination of A1 and A2 u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C.

is also dispensed with. When PW1 is the brother's son of deceased LW1-Thandava

Chinna Kondaiah and PW2 is the wife of deceased LW1 and so also, they are projected eye witnesses to the occurrence did not depose anything about the incident, nothing more necessary to come to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A1 and A2.

11.Since there is no incriminating material against A1 and A2, the prosecution totally failed to prove the accusation against the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.324 r/w.34 of IPC, against A1 and A2, hence A1 and A2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

12. In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 r/w.34 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The Accused A1 and A2 are directed to execute bail bonds, to appear before the Higher Court as and when such court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of the respective court and such bail bonds shall be in-force for 6 months. No property order is passed since no property seized and produced.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant of this Court, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12th day of March, 2014.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DARSI.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE::

PW1 : T.Balaiah. -NONE- PW2 : T.Lakshmamma.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1. -NIL- Ex.P2 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

J.F.C.M., Darsi.

1

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. No.72/2013 (Private Complaint) ON

THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, DARSI.

1. Date of offence:Prior to 08-02-2013

2. Date of report or complaint:08-02-2013

3. Date of taken on file: 21-03-2013

4. Date of apprehension of accused:13-08-2013

5. Date of release on bail:13-08-2013

6. Date of commencement of trial:19-03-2014

7. Date of closure of trial: 19-03-2014

8. Date of sentence or order:19-03-2014

9. Complainant: Upparapalli Nagendrum, W/o.Anji Reddy, aged about 30 years, C/o.Mulamreddi Oblu Reddy, r/o.Veluguvaripalem Village, Thallur Mandal, Prakasam District.

10. Description of accused :

1. Upparapalli Anji Reddy, S/o. Third Venkata Reddy, aged 35 years.

2. Upparapalli Bali Reddy, S/o.Third Venkata Reddy, aged 30 years.

3. Upparapalli Third Venkata Reddy @ Dubulu, S/o.Pitchi Reddy, 60 years.

4. Upparapalli Nagamma, W/o.Third Venkata Reddy, aged 50 years. All are residents of Veluguvaripalem Village, Thallur Mandal, Prakasam District.

11. Offence: U/Sec.498 – A of I.P.C.

12. Plea of Accused:Not guilty

13. Finding: Found not guilty 14.Sentence or order: In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The Accused A1 to A4 are directed to execute bail bonds, to appear before the Higher Court as and when such court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of the respective court and such bail bonds shall be in-force for 6 months. No property order is passed since no property seized and produced.

15. Explanation for the delay: Cognizance was taken on 21-03-2013. Accused appeared on 13-08-2013 and copies of documents were furnished. On 18-03-2014 accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the matter posted for trial. On 19- 03-2014 PW1 examined and no document marked and prosecution side evidence closed and as there is incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with and heard arguments on both sides and Judgment (Vide separate Judgment) pronounced in open court on the same day i.e. on 19-03-2014. Hence, the delay.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DARSI Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: DARSI

PRESENT: SRI P. DIVAKAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, DARSI.

2

Wednesday, the 19th day of March, 2014.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 72/2013

(Private Complainant) Between: Upparapalli Nagendrum, W/o.Anji Reddy, aged about 30 years, C/o.Mulamreddi Oblu Reddy, r/o.Veluguvaripalem Village,

Thallur Mandal, Prakasam District. .. Complainant

A N D

1. Upparapalli Anji Reddy, S/o. Third Venkata Reddy, aged 35 years.

2. Upparapalli Bali Reddy, S/o.Third Venkata Reddy, aged 30 years.

3. Upparapalli Third Venkata Reddy @ Dubulu, S/o.Pitchi Reddy, 60 years.

4. Upparapalli Nagamma, W/o.Third Venkata Reddy, aged 50 years. All are residents of Veluguvaripalem Village, Thallur Mandal, Prakasam District.

.. Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Ranga, Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri. V.Srinivasa Sastry, Advocate for A1 to A4 and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court passed the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The complainant, by name, Upparapalli Nagendrum has filed the complaint against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A, 323, 506 r/w.34 of r/w.34 of I.P.C. and u/s.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The brief averments of the complainant are that :

The marriage of the complainant-Upparapalli Nagendrum was performed with the accused A1 around 12 years ago and at the time of marriage the parents of the complainant presented an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- besides gold ornaments to

A1. Immediately after the marriage the complainant joined with A1 to lead marrital lie at Veluguvaripalem Village and the marriage was consummated. A1 got all sorts of bad vices like consuming liquor, womanizing etc., and used to suspect the character of the complainant and started harassment against her both mentally and physically for want of additional dowry to meet his bad vices. Even the parents of the complainant arranged additional dowry in three times, A1 with the support of

A2 to A4 harassed the complainant to get additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents and whenever she expressed her parents inability to fulfill the demands of the accused, the accused kept the complainant in the house and lock the doors without providing food to her. While so, on 30-01-2013 when the complainant was sleeping the accused set fire to the clothes of the complainant with an intention of kill her, but she woke up and rescued herself from the hands of the accused and on hearing the cries of the complainant the neighbours rushed there, then also the accused beat the complainant with a stick on her head. On coming to know the incident, the parents of the complainant rushed there and when they questioned the accused about their attitude, the accused threatened them with dire consequences and abused them and demanded additional dowry otherwise they would marry again 3 to A1. As the police did not take any action against the accused, the complainant filed this complaint against the accused A1 to A4.

3.On perusal of record, the case was taken on file U/Sec.498-A of IPC, against

A1 to A4.

4. On appearance of A1 to A4, copies of documents are furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.When A1 to A4 were examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C., for the offence

U/Sec.498-A of IPC, the contents of charge sheet was read over to A1 to A4, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, so charge U/Sec.324 498-A of IPC was framed. Hence the trial.

6. To prove her case, the complainant herself examined as PW1 and nobody was examined on her behalf and no documents was marked. No oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the accused.

7. From the evidence of witnesses, there is no incriminating material at all against A1 to A4. Hence the examination under 313 Cr.P.C. is also dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is that; “Whether the complainant proved its case against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC ?

10.P O I N T :-To prove the case of complainant her self examined as PW1 only and nobody was examined on her behalf. Coming to the evidence of PW1, she testified that she has no any disputes with her husband. The accused did not harass her and they never beat her. At the instigation her parents she lodged complainant.

She urged that the accused may be acquitted. Since the main and material witness became hostile and did not depose any incriminating material against A1 to A4, the examination of A1 to A4 u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. When P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant she did not depose anything about the incident, nothing more necessary to come to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A1 to A4.

4

11.Since there is no incriminating material against A1 to A4, the prosecution totally failed to prove the accusation against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.498-A of I.P.C. against A1 to A4, hence A1 to A4 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

12. In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The

Accused A1 to A4 directed to execute bail bonds, to appear before the Higher Court as and when such court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of the respective court and such bail bonds shall be in-force for 6 months. No property order is passed since no property seized and produced.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant of this Court, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of March, 2014.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DARSI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE::

PW1 : U.Nagendrum -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

J.F.C.M., Darsi.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: DARSI

PRESENT: Sri P. DIVAKAR,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DARSI

Dated this the 18th day of March, 2014

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 8 of 2012

Between

Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd. ... Plaintif

And.,

Thammisetty Srinivasulu and others... Defendants

This suit coming before me on this day for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri G.T. Siva Sharma, Advocate for Plaintif and Defendants were set ex-parte, and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, till this day, this Court delivered the the following:-

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

01.Suit fled for recovery of Rs.47,146/- being the balance of installments amount of chit including the interest at 12% p.a., due by the frst defendant, who joined as subscriber of chit bearing No. DKL-19, holding ticket No.19, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- payable in 50 monthly installments at Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from 15.01.2009 and executed agreement of chit on 19.12.2008 and participated in the auction held on 12.05.2010 and became prized winner by forgoing Rs.28,000/- and receiving the amount of

Rs.72,000/- on 17.08.2010 and executed stamped cash voucher and for future liability, the defendants 2 to 4 stood as guarantors and executed agreement of guarantee and pronote by all the defendants on 17.08.2010 with subsequent interest and for costs.

02.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.47,146/-. The defendant shall pay the same with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of fling of the suit, till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.43,880/-.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 18th day of March, 2014

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI

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

DARSI

Present: Sri P. Divakar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Darsi

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2014

C.C. No. 109 of 2003

Between:

Annabathina Narasaiah….Complainant

AND

Shaik Jani.…Accused

This case coming before me for fnal hearing on this day in the presence of

Sri V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri G. Srinivasula Reddy,

Advocate for accused,and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, till this day, this Court delivered the the following:-

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

The complainant fled a private complaint against the accused for the offences punishable u/Sec. 13n of N... Act.

Complainant absent. Despite of directions given by this Court, the complainant not chosen to appear. Even on last occasion on 13-2-2014, the

Advocate commissioner reported that due to non-cooperation of complainant he could not able to execute the warrant when the complainant have no interest in proceeding with the case,there is no meaning in contesting the case hence the petition u/Sec. 256 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed for default and complainant is dismissed for default,Advocate Commissioner is directed to return the warrant.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13 th day of March, 2014

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Darsi

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

DARSI

Present: Sri P. Divakar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Darsi

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2014

C.C. No. 51 of 2006

Between:

M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,….Complainant

AND

M.V. Ramana Reddy .…Accused

The complainant fled a private complaint against the accused for the offences punishable u/Sec. 18n of N.... Act.

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

Complainant called absent, no representation. Hence, the complaint is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24 th day of March, 2014

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Darsi