P. Koteswara Rao

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

1 C.C. No.174/2009

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TIRUPATI

PRESENT: SRI. P. KOTESWARA RAO, II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati

Wednesday, this the 06th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 174 of 2009

Between:-

The State represented by the Drugs Inspector, Tirupati. … Complainant

And:-

S.Raghunathan, S/o Subramanyam, Proprietor M/s Tecnomed Pharmaceuticals, 89-90, Mahiea, Industrial Estate, Uranganpatti, Madurai, Tamilnadu state. …. Accused.

This case is coming before this Court for final on 06.05.2026 hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri P.V. Sathya Srinivasan, Learned Counsel for the Accused and upon perusing the evidence and material papers on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The Drug Inspector, Tirupati filed Complaint against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i) punishable under section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act.

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

2 C.C. No.174/2009

2. The case of the prosecution as per the Complaint in brief are as follows:-

On 18.05.2006 LW1 – M.V.S.S.Prasad, Drugs Inspector inspected the whole sale medical shop M/s Sapthagiri Enterprises, D.No. 10-5-529, Dodda puram Street, Tirupati and during inspection he picked up sample of

MUCOSOME tablets, Batch No. MU-004 with manufacture date 11/2005 and expiry date 10/2008, manufactured by accused company, for analysis along with another drug in the presence of LW2 -B.Rajendra Reddy, LW1 picked up 4 X 6 X 10 tablets of MUCOSOME tablets, divided in to four portions, sealed with seal of LW1

It is further submitted that on 18.05.2006, LW1 sent one sealed sample portion MUCOSOME tablets to Government analyst, Hyderabad for analysis and that on 25.01.2007 LW3 - B.Suresh babu, received analysis report from the Government analyst, Hyderabad along with covering letter declaring the sample as "Not of Standard Quality for the reason that sample does not meet

IP specification under disintegration test for uncoated tablets”. On 25.01.2007

LW3 served a copy of analytical report to M/s Sapthagiri and on 29.01.2007

LW2 submitted reply along with attested copy of purchase bill of subject

MUCOSOME tablets, stating that the same is purchased from M/s Technomed

Pharmaceuticals, Vijayawada vide invoice no:143-R dt:15-12-2005 and enclosed attested copy of purchase bill.

It is further submitted that on 05.02.2007, LW3 sent a letter to M/s

Tecnomed Pharmaceuticals, Vijayawada along with a copy of analytical report and one sealed sample portion of 6 x 10 tablets of MUCOSOME tablets and on 09.03.2007, LW3 received letter dt; 03.03.2007 of LW4 - CH. Krishna

Murthy Kuppaswamy / Managing partner of M/s Tecnomed Pharmaceuticals,

Vijayawada acknowledging the said letter. On 21.04.2007 LW5 - Y.V.V.

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

3 C.C. No.174/2009

Sathyanarayana sent a letter along with a copy of analytical report to M/s

Technomed Pharmaceuticals, Vijayawada to furnish purchase particulars of subject MUCOSOME tablets and on 30.04.2007, LW4 sent a letter along with attested copies of transfer challans MUCOSOME tablets issued by accused company.

It is further submitted that on 07.07.2007, LW5 addressed a letter to A1

Company along with a copy of analytical report to furnish records of manufacture and analysis of subject MUCOSOME tablets and on 25.10.2007 of A1 Company sent reply with documents to LW5 viz., manufacture, analysis and distribution particulars and license copies of subject MUCOSOME tablets and LW5 in turn submitted the same to the Director, Drugs Control

Administration, Hyderabad giving full details of the case. It is evidence that

S.Ragunathan, Proprietor and manufacturing chemist of accused company is responsible for Manufacture of subject MUCOSOME tablets and hence violated section 18 (a) (i) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 punishable under section 27 (d) of the Act.

3.In this case, cognizance is taken for the offence punishable under section 18(a)(i) punishable under section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act against the Accused and issued summons.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents as contemplated under sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to him.

5.On appearance of the Accused, they were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C for the substance of allegations leveled against him by explaining the contents of Complaint, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for trial.

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

4 C.C. No.174/2009

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P14 and MO1.

7. On closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence by explaining the same, to which he denied the same and stated that he has no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material on record.

9. Now the points for determination are, “Whether the prosecution be able to prove the case against the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 18(a)(i) r/w 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

10. POINT:

It is the main crux of the case that when PW1 inspected M/s Sapthagiri

Enterprises, he collected 240 tables of Mucosome tablets an Zincolac capsules and sent MO1/samples for the purpose of analysis and thereafter,

PW2 received the analytical report vide Ex.P8 opined that “subject Drug was

not of standard quality since the sample does not meet the IP

Specification under disintegration test for uncoated tablets” and when he issued notice to said M/s Sapthagiri Enterprises, he came to know that accused company is the manufacture of said drugs and hence, he file the present complaint against the accused.

11.The Learned APP submitted arguments that the prosecution able to prove the case against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt by examining PW1 and PW2 coupled with Ex.P1 to P14 and MO1. Further

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

5 C.C. No.174/2009 submitted that the plea taken by the Accused is unsupported by any evidence, hence cannot be believed and prayed to convict the Accused.

12.On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Accused submitted arguments that the Accused did not commit any offence and there is no independent evidence in this case, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt, hence prayed to acquit the

Accused.

13.As already stated above, in order to bring home the guilt of accused for the alleged offence, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and MO1. PW1 is the Drug Inspector / defacto complainant on whose report, the present crime has been registered. PW2 is the another drug inspector who took up further investigation.

14.Now, it is to be seen whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences under charge.

The testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses are very much available on record in the shape of depositions and there is no need to re- produce the same in this judgment to avoid repetition. I have gone through the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, exhibits marked and other material available on record. Hence, the appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses is directly proceeded with as follows, under different heads.

15.The prosecution in order to establish its case has relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2.

It is the evidence of PW1 that on 18.05.2006, he went to M/s Sapthagiri

Enterprises situated at D.No.10-5-529, Doddapuram Street, Tirupati for inspection and at that time LW2 / B.Rajendra Reddy being partner of the shop

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

6 C.C. No.174/2009 is present and doing Drug Business and during inspection, he took 240 tablets of Mucosome tablets batch Number MU-044 manufactured by accused company M/s Tecnomed Pharmaceuticals, Madurai among the Drugs stocked for sale and he also picked up another Drug namely Zincolac capsules for the purpose of analysis in the presence of LW2, properly packed Mucosome

Tablets in four packets in four portions in 60 tablets / MO1, paid cost of the samples Rs.620/-, obtained cash receipt / Ex. P3 and handed over one sample portion to LW2 / B.Rajendra Reddy under EX. P4 acknowledgment.

It is his further evidence that on the same day, he sent one portion of the sample Mucosome Tablets to the Government Analyst, Drug Control

Laboratory along with Form-18 having his specimen seal for analysis through registered parcel and sent another copy of Form -18 / Ex.P5 along with his covering letter / Ex.P6 separately to the Government Analyst, Drug Control

Laboratory, Hyderabad

16.Similarly, it is the evidence of PW2 that on 25.01.2007, he has received Ex. P8 analytical report from Government Analyst, which reveals that the “subject Drug was not of standard quality since the sample does not meet the IP Specification under disintegration test for uncoated tablets”. It is his further evidence that on the same day i.e., 25.01.2007, he served notice / Ex.

P9 to M/s Sapthagiri Enterprises and requested to produce the procurement details in respect of subject drug and on 29.01.2007, he received Ex. P10 reply letter, dated 29.01.2007 from M/s Sapthagiri Enterprises, Tirupati stating that subject drug procured from M/s Technomed Pharmaceuticals along with invoice No.143-R, dated 15.12.2005 / Ex. P11 towards purchase of subject drug.

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

7 C.C. No.174/2009 ii.It is his further evidence that he addressed Ex.P12 letter, dated 05.02.2007 to Technomed Pharmaceuticals, Vijayawada along with one sealed sample portion of subject drug and analytical report and requested to produce procurement and distribution and other particulars related subject drug and on 09.03.2007, he received Ex.P13 reply letter, dated 03.03.2007 from M/s Tecnomed Pharmaceuticals, Vijayawada along with photostat copy of their Drug License and informed that they have procured the drug from manufacturer M/s Technomed, vide Challan Nos.64, dated 25.11.2005, 65,

dated 05.12.2005 and 66, dated 08.12.2005.

17. The main stay of the prosecution case is that PW1 who is the Drug

Inspector of Tirupati visited the shop of LW2 M/s Sapthagiri Enterprises,

Tirupati on 18.05.2006 and picked up a sample of Mucosome tablets and

Zincolac capsules for test analysis and sent to Government Analyst, Drugs

Control Laboratory, Hyderabad and later the sample was declared as “not of standard quality for the reason that the sample did not comply test for disintegration test for uncoated tablets. The Accused is the Manufacturer of said drugs.

18.To substantiate the same, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to P14 and MO1, as stated supra. Firstly, the said

Drugs Inspector i.e., PW1, who visited the premises of LW2 on the alleged date and found the subject drug being sold in the premises of LW2 which is purchased from the Accused firm declared as of not of standard quality was expired by the date of evidence. The other Drug Inspector / PW2 deposed

before the Court about the investigation done by him in the case and PW1

also done part of investigation of the case.

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

8 C.C. No.174/2009

19.When testify the above evidence, it is an admitted fact that PW1 and PW2 as Drug Inspectors, mandated the procedure under their designatory position. Nothing was elicited during the cross examination of

PW1, except denying the suggestions posed by the learned counsel for the accused. However, PW2 during his cross examination, he deposed that he received case record from PW1 and that PW1 sent both the samples for analysis and he received analytical report only in respect “not of standard quality only for the subject drug”. PW2 further deposed that he do not remember whether he received analytical report in respect of another drug or not and that the subject drug failed in respect of Designation test for uncoated tablets as for IP specifications. He further deposed that in general, the Drugs shall be kept in specified temperature as per the instructions mentioned in a particular drug and that he has not seen the sample of the drug, since it was packed condition. He further deposed that he has only gone through the analytical report. He admitted that the invoice vide Ex.P.11 is pertaining to the year 2005. He denied that the subject drug failed only because of not keeping the subject drug in a specified atmosphere. He further deposed that it is clearly mentioned in Form-17 that the subject drug was kept in specified atmosphere and that the specification of atmosphere in which the drug was kept is not detailed in Form-17.

20.A perusal of record discloses that PW1 and PW2 are the notified

Drugs Inspectors under Ex.P1 and P7 and they are having jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and in particular at Tirupati as they were holding the post of Drugs Inspector, Tirupati at the relevant time. Further the said aspect is not in dispute. Therefore, PW1 and PW2 are competent to conduct inspection of the shop in question and to file the present complaint against the accused company.

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

9 C.C. No.174/2009

21.Except PW1 and PW2, no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Both the witnesses nowhere in their respective evidences stated about the efforts made by them in securing the mediators at the time their inspection from the vicinity. The prosecution is silent on this material aspect, as to why the independent witnesses are not examined to substantiate the version of PW1 and PW2. When the independent witnesses are not examined to support the prosecution case, it is highly unsafe to rely on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are Officials, interested in the outcome of prosecution case.

22.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that PW1 and PW2 did not follow the procedure as contemplated in search process and hence, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 are not relied upon. Further argued that though PW1 took samples of two types of medicines, but report received for only one type of medicine.

Further argued that though the seized medicines are sent on 18.05.2006, the analyst report received on 20.01.2007 and there is no information on which date the analysis took place and whether said medicines are kept intact with relevant atmosphere, if so, the result of analysis will differ.

Further argued that Ex.P11 receipt shows that the medicines in question was shipped for 500 quantity, but billed for only 400 quantities and there is no evidence on difference of 100 quantity.

Further argued that the drug inspector vide Ex.P12 sent a letter to accused firm to furnish documents regarding license, validity and there is no evidence on this aspect from the mouth of prosecution witness, which is fatal to the case of prosecution. All these unerringly shows the defective on the part of the prosecution witness and prayed to acquit the accused.

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

10 C.C. No.174/2009

23.In order to strengthen the said version, it is evident that PW1 and

PW2 failed to secure the independent witnesses at the time of alleged inspection and seizure during the process of investigation, which mandates under the provisions of Cr.P.C.. Moreover, it is evident that the Drugs Inspector who is the complainant / LW5 of the case has not followed proper procedure of search and seizure as per Cr.P.C. No signatures of independent witnesses of the locality were taken at the time of seizing of the subject drug from the premises of LW2. No employees of the premises were shown as witnesses in support of the case. Therefore, sincere efforts were not made by either PW1 or LW5 to secure mediators in support of the case, which is fatal to the case of prosecution.

24.Coming to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused, as above, it is pertinent to discuss the same one by one. As per the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P2, PW1 took two types of samples i.e., Zincolak and Mucosome tablets from the shop of LW2 and they are seized by PW1.

When perused the Ex.P6 Form-18, it is observed that only Mucosome tablets are sent to the Govt. Analyst for analysis. It is further observed that the manufacturing date of said medicine is November, 2005 and Expiry date is

October, 2008, manufactured by the accused company. However, upon perusal of Ex.P7 and P8, PW1 received analysis report opined that the sample referred i.e., Mucosome tablets are “not of standard quality”. Be that as it may, when PW1 took samples of two types of tablets, why they sent only one type of tablet for analysis by withholding the second sample tablet. There is no information regarding the result / quality of said second medicine ie..

Zincolak. The prosecution witnesses are silent on this material aspect.

However, PW2 during his cross examination deposed that he received case record from PW1 and that PW1 sent both the samples for analysis and he

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

11 C.C. No.174/2009 received analytical report only in respect “not of standard quality only for the subject drug”. But, Ex.P6 Form-18, shows only one tablet i.e., Mucosome tablets. Very surprisingly, PW2 during his cross examination deposed that he do not remember whether he received analytical report in respect of another drug or not and that the subject drug failed in respect of Designation test for uncoated tablets as for IP specifications, which is fatal to the case of prosecution. There arise a reasonable doubt in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding seizure of number of medicines.

25.Coming to the second aspect that as per Ex.P2, said medicines in question are seized on 18.05.2006 and the Govt. analyst report was received on 20.01.2007 vide Ex.P8. Upon perusal of Ex.P8, there is no information on which date the analysis was taken place and whether said medicines are kept intact within relevant atmosphere. It is pertinent to mention that the subject drug being a medicine requires specific temperature for its storage and effectiveness. PW1 after seizure of the same, sent the same for test analysis and report. So the aspect whether said medication received by the expert was fit for test analysis has to be ascertained before declaring it as of non-standard quality. Moreover, whether the said medicines are underwent test within required time with specific atmosphere or not, which is silent in the above case.

26.It is evident from the record vide Ex.P11 bill that 500 number of quantity of the medicines were shipped, but the number of billed quantity shows that only 400 were billed. There is no evidence on the difference 100 units. Seems that the investigation was not done on these lines. The discrepancy in the number of drugs seized was not explained by either PW1 of PW2 in their cross-examination.

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

12 C.C. No.174/2009

27.The other aspect is that regarding the validity of the documents to be furnished by the accused firm. As per Ex.P12, PW2 asked to furnish the documents and in turn the accused also furnished the same vide Ex.P13, but there is no evidence on record as to the said documents possess validity or not.

28.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that though the prosecution is able to produce the above witnesses, but failed to examine the crucial witness i.e., LW5 / Y.V.V.V. Sathyanarayana,

Drug Inspector who alleged to speak about investigation and filing of the above case and without examining him, the alleged investigation falsifies the present case, which is fatal to the case of prosecution and the same is one among the serious lacuna on the part of the prosecution.

29.Admittedly, on perusal of records, it shows that the Drug Inspector officer / LW5 who filed the present complaint, was not examined by the prosecution. The learned APP filed a special report stating that LW5 was expired and to that effect, the death certificate is also filed and hence, the evidence of LW5 was closed. However, in absence of evidence of investigating officer and complainant of the present case, it nullifies the entire story narrated by the prosecution regarding involvement of the accused and alleged seizure. Moreover, the another aspect i.e., alleged seizure from the shop of LW2 also shows afterthought in the version of prosecution, as the said

LW2 also was not examined before this court to substantiate the version of prosecution, for the reasons best known.

30.Except PW1 and PW2, neither the independent witnesses nor the investigating Drug Inspector were not examined by the prosecution, as stated supra. The only evidence on hand i.e., PW1 and PW2 / Drug Inspectors,

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

13 C.C. No.174/2009 nowhere in their respective evidences stated about the efforts made by them in securing the mediators at the time of inspection at the premises of LW2 shop. When the independent witnesses are not examined to support the prosecution case, it is highly unsafe to rely on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 alone who are Official, interested in the outcome of prosecution case.

Bounden duty casts upon the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and until it proves its case, the accused shall be presumed as innocent of the offence. Seems no such acts were initiated by the prosecution. Moreover, there is no evidence on record regarding other allegation of commission of offence as alleged by the prosecution against the accused, except the evidence of PW1 and PW2, as discussed supra. Therefore the veracity and credibility of the prosecution witnesses is not believable and untrustworthy.

ii.Considering that the drug Inspectors / PW1 and PW2 have not followed proper procedure during the search and seizure in the above case, the same amounts to be defective in the process of investigation. Hence this

Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against Accused.

31.Mere presumptions nor assumptions are not sufficient to take adverse inference against the accused unless there is specific and substantive piece of evidence focused on accused guilty. No essential ingredients for the commission of offence were satisfactorily established. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit goes in favour of accused persons and they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, point is answered.

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

14 C.C. No.174/2009 32. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 18(a)(i) r/w section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act and he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

Accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-

A of Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time or subject to appeal result.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 06 thday of May, 2026.

(Sd/- P. Koteswara Rao) II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW 1:M.V.S.S. Vara Prasad / Drug None Inspector

PW 2:B. Suresh Babu / Drug Inspector

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 is Gazette Notification, dated 12.12.1988.

Ex.P2 is the Form-17

EX. P3 is the Cash receipt issued by the Sapthagiri Enterprises.

Ex.P4 is the Acknowledgment.

Ex.P5 is the Form-18.

Ex.P6 is the covering letter.

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

15 C.C. No.174/2009

Ex.P7 is the GO.Ms.No.152, dated 21.05.1998.

Ex.P8 is the Analytical Report No.0062/DCL/2007, dated 20.01.2007.

Ex.P9 is Notice served on 25.01.2007 to M/S Sapthagiri Agency.

Ex.P10 is the Reply letter, dated 29.01.2007.

Ex.P11 is the Invoice No.143-R, dated 15.12.2005.

Ex.P12 is the Letter, dated 05.02.2007.

Ex.P13 is the Reply Letter, dated 03.03.2007.

Ex.P14 is the Bunch of three invoices of M/s Technomed, Madhurai.

FOR DEFENCE:

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 : Sample portion of Mucosome tablets.

// True copy \\(Sd/- P. Koteswara Rao) II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Tirupati. II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.

APCH080006042007

II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT

16 C.C. No.174/2009

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TIRUPATI

Calender in C C.No.174 of 2009

Date of offence:18.05.2006

Date of complaint:29.12.2007

Date of cognizance taken:16.06.2009

Date of appearance of accused:06.08.2024

Date of commencement of trial:04.12.2024

Date of close of trial:06.05.2026

Date of Judgment:06.05.2026

Complainant : The State represented by the Drugs Inspector, Tirupati.

Description of the accused : S.Raghunathan, S/o Subramanyam, Proprietor M/s Tecnomed Pharmaceuticals, 89-90, Mahiea, Industrial Estate, Uranganpatti, Madurai, Tamilnadu state.

Nature of offence: u/Sec. 18(a)(i) r/w section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court: NOT GUILTY

Reasons for delay: Non appearance of the accused; in view of covid-19 pandemic; NBW pending on the accused. Sentence or Order : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 18(a)(i) r/w section 27(d) of Drugs and

Cosmetic Act and he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time or subject to appeal result.

// True copy \\(Sd/- P. Koteswara Rao) II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Tirupati. II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.

APCH080014312026 1II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT P.R.C. No.20/2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TIRUPATI

PRESENT: Sri P. Koteswara Rao, II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati

Wednesday, this the 06th day of May, 2026.

P.R.C. No.20 OF 2026

(Cr.No.15 of 2020 of I Town Police Station, Tirumala)

Between:

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Tirumala. …. Complainant And:

Valli, W/o F. Buchchi Babu, aged 56 years, residing at D.No.60-242, Jhansi Nagar, E-Road town and district, Tamilnadu.

….Accused.

This case is coming before me on this day i.e., on 06.05.2026 for hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for

Complainant and Sri A.Bhoopathy, Advocate for the accused,upon hearing, upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following:

O R D E R

The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Tirumala filed charge sheet against accused in Cr. No.15 of 2020 for the offence punishable under sections 328 and 379 of IPC.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are:

On 28.01.2020 at about 7.30 pm, at Sri Bedi Anjaneyaswamy Temple,

Tirumala, wherein unknown female offender committed theft of gold chain – 73

APCH080014312026 2II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT P.R.C. No.20/2026 grams belonging to complainant’s mother LW2 – Bhumala Jayalakshmi while she wass sleeping and decamed with booty. Basing on the report of LW1, a case in Cr.No.15/2020 U/sec. 379 has been registered in I Town PS, Tirumala and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has examined the complainant, victim and other witnesses, recorded their statement, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. Further, the investigating officer secured the CCTV footage and basing on the credible information about the movements of the accused, the investigating officer taken custody of the accused on 02.03.2026, on enquiry, the accused voluntarily admitted about commission of offence by administering the sleeping tablets to the victim and after committing the offence, the accused kept the gold chain at her house for about six months and then took it to

Bangalore and sold and spent the same for her emergency hospital expenses and thereafter, the investigating officer seized portion of stolen property from the possession of the accused in the presence of mediators under the cover of mahazarnama. Basing on the confession statement of the accused, the investigating officer altered the section of law from 379 to sec. 328 and 379 of

IPC and sent her to remand for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under sections 328 and 379 of IPC.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence under section 328 and 379 of IPC against accused and issued summons to accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to her under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Heard, perused the record.

APCH080014312026 3II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT P.R.C. No.20/2026

6. Now the point for determination is: Whether the offences under sections 328 and 379 of IPC against Accused are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions?

7. POINT:

On perusal of the material record and close scrutiny of the entire material placed on record, a prima facie case is made out against accused for the offence punishable under sections 328 and 379 of IPC, out of which sec.

328 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. Hence, this case is committed to the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division at Chittoor under section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, point is answered.

8. In the result, the case against accused is committed to the Honble court of Sessions, Sessions Division at Chittoor under section 209 (a) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under sections 328 and 379 of IPC, out of which sec. 328 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. The Accused who is in judicial custody shall continue on the same remand, during, and till the conclusion of trial in the court of Sessions under Sec. 209 of Cr.P.C. The

Public Prosecutor, Chittoor is notified about the committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Chittoor Division U/s. 209(a) Cr.P.C. The Accused is in judicial custody from 02.03.2026 to till date. The Superintendent, Spl. Sub-Jail,

Tirupati is directed to produce the accused before the Hon’ble sessions court as and when directed. The Office is directed to submit entire case records along with material objects if any, duly indexed. The accused is informed about her right to get free legal aid to defend her case before the court of

Sessions.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 06th day of May, 2026.

(Sd/- P. Koteswara Rao) II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati

APCH080014312026 4II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT P.R.C. No.20/2026

Appendix of Evidence

- Nil -

// True copy \\(Sd/- P. Koteswara Rao) II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) CumTirupati II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati

APCH080014312026 5II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT P.R.C. No.20/2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TIRUPATI

P.R.C. No. 20 of 2026

Extract of Reg. No. 27

1.Number of the case :PRC No. 20 OF 2026 (Cr.No.15 of 2020 of I Town Police Station, Tirumala)

2.Name of the accused : Valli, W/o F. Buchchi Babu, aged 56 years, residing at D.No.60-242, Jhansi Nagar, E-Road town and district, Tamilnadu.

3.Substance of complaint: Under sections 328 and 379 of IPC

4.Complainant:The State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Tirumala. 05Name of witnesses for Complainant : .

1.Bumula Srinivasa Reddy7.Thammisetty Somasekhar

2.Bhumala Jayalakshmi8.Yenupothula Venkatesh

3.Settypalli Sandeep9.M.Siva Sankar

4.S.Murali Mohan Reddy10.T.V. Sudhakar

5.Prabhakar Reddy.11.C. Chalapathi

6.J.Kodanda Reddy 06 Name of witnesses for defence: Nil 07 Summary of facts proved or confessed:

On 28.01.2020 at about 7.30 pm, at Sri Bedi Anjaneyaswamy Temple,

Tirumala, wherein unknown female offender committed theft of gold chain – 73 grams belonging to complainant’s mother LW2 – Bhumala Jayalakshmi while she was sleeping and decamped with booty by administering sleeping tablets to victim. Hence, the accused committed offence punishable under sections 328 and 379 of IPC.

08Result of enquiry: The case is committed to the Court of

Sessions Division, Chittoor as per

Sec.209 Cr.P.C.

APCH080014312026 6II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT P.R.C. No.20/2026 09Date of offence : 28.01.2020 10Date of complaint: 15.02.2020 11Date of hearing : 04.05.2026 12Date of closing of enquiry: 06.05.2026 13Explanation for delay: Nil (Sd/- P.Koteswara Rao) // True copy \\II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati

APCH080014312026 7II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT P.R.C. No.20/2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TIRUPATI

DIARY EXTRACT

PRC NO. 20 OF 2026

(Cr.No.15 of 2020 of I Town Police Station, Tirumala)

04.05.2026This case is taken on file for the offence under sections 328 and 379 of IPC against accused. The Superintendent, Spl. Sub-Jail, Tirupati is directed to produce the accused, Call on 06.05.2026.

06.05.2026Accused is produced from Spl Sub-Jail, Tirupati. Case copies furnished to the accused and ordered for committal. Committal order (vide separate) pronounced in the open court. In the result, the case against accused is committed to the Honble court of Sessions, Sessions Division at Chittoor under section 209 (a) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under sections 328 and 379 of IPC, out of which sec. 328 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of

Sessions. The Accused who is in judicial custody shall continue on the

same remand, during, and till the conclusion of trial in the court of

Sessions under Sec. 209 of Cr.P.C. The Public Prosecutor, Chittoor is

notified about the committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Chittoor Division U/s. 209(a) Cr.P.C. The Accused is in judicial custody from 02.03.2026 to till date. The Superintendent, Spl. Sub-Jail, Tirupati is directed to produce the accused before the Hon’ble sessions court as and when directed. The Office is directed to submit entire case records along with material objects if any, duly indexed. The accused is informed about her right to get free legal aid to defend her case before the court of Sessions.

// True copy \\(Sd/- P. Koteswara Rao) II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum Tirupati II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati

APCH080014312026 8II ACJ (JD) - AJMFC, TPT P.R.C. No.20/2026

Notice of commitment by Magistrate to Public Prosecutor (Sec.209 (d) of Cr.P.C.)

PRC NO.20 OF 2026

(Cr.No.15 of 2020 of I Town Police Station, Tirumala)

The Magistrate of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati hereby gives notice that the case against accused by name – Valli, W/o

F. Buchchi Babu, aged 56 years,in PRC NO.20 OF 2026 (Cr.No.15 of 2020 of I Town Police Station, Tirumala) is committed for trial at the next

Sessions and the Magistrate hereby instructs the Public Prosecutor to

Conduct the prosecution of the said case.

The charge against accused is under section 328 and 379 of IPC. The

Accused is in judicial custody from 02.03.2026 to till date. The Superintendent,

Spl. Sub-Jail, Tirupati is directed to produce the accused before the Hon’ble

sessions court as and when directed.

Dated this the 06 th day of May, 2026.

// True copy \\(Sd/- P.Koteswara Rao) II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) CumTirupati II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tirupati

1

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

SRIKALAHASTI

Present: Sri P.Koteswara Rao,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srikalahasti Tuesday, the 9th day of November, 2021

CC No.715 of 2021

Between :

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS, Chittoor District.

(Crime No.102 of 2019 of B. N. Kandriga PS) .. Complainant.

And : Kaduru Babu, S/o K. Rammorthy, Dass Colony, Neerpakota Village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal.

..Accused

This case is coming on this day in the presence of learned APP for state and accused produced from Sub-Jail, Srikalahasti under proper escort and voluntarily pleaded guilty of the offence and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, B. N. Kandriga Police Station, Chittoor District laid charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.102/2019 for the offence u/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC with the following averments:- That in between 23-11-2020 at 9 AM and 30-11-2020 at about 4.30 PM in the house of complainant Vedam Padmavathi, of Kampallem Village of B.N.Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor district, some unknown offenders committed house-breaking by night in to the house of complainant-Vedam Padmavathi and committed theft of one gold chain wg about 10 gms, one bondu chain wg about 24 gms, one black beads gold chain wg about 16 gms, one white beads gold chain wg about 8 gms, two pairs gold bangles wg about 40gms, one pair ear rings and gold rings wg about 22 gms, all wg 120 gms and cash of Rs.5,000/-, allworth Rs.2,45,000/- belongs to the complainant and basing on her complaint a case in Cr.No.102/2019 U/Sec.457 and 380 IPC was registered. During course of investigation S.I of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS arrested accused on 11-08-2021 at 7 AM and seized stolen property in this crime ie., one gold chain wg about 11.50 gms, one black beads chain wg about 20.50 gms, two pairs of gold bangles wg 44 gms, two pairs of ear studs and five rings,wg 22 gms belongs to the complainant from the possession of accused under cover of seizure mahazarnama dated 11-08-2021 at 8.45 AM along with other properties. Accused was arrested and produced before this court on 18-08-2021 pertaining to this crime on execution of P.T.Warrant. After conclusion of investigation, S.I of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS, filed charge sheet against accused.

2. This court has taken cognizance of offences u/Sec.457, 380 or in alternative 411 IPC against the accused.

3. Further, on production of accused, copies of documents as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to him. On enquiry, the accused reported that he has got sufficient means to engage a counsel to defend the case against him.

4.Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr P C for the offences U/Sec.457, 411 of IPC informing the substance of accusation made against him for which he admitted having

2

committed the offence and pleaded guilty. The admission of the accused is found to be voluntary and without any coercion from anybody. Hence, the plea of guilty made by accused is accepted.

5.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences u/Secs.457, 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted for the charges levelled against him under Sec.241 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused is asked as to the quantum of sentence, for which he stated that he is only the bread winner of the family and if he is put in prison, further, his family would suffer a lot, that he would not commit any offence in future course and prayed the court to take a lenient view.

7.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, property involved in this case and submission of accused, this court is of the opinion that sentence of imprisonment will meet the ends of justice.

8.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences u/Secs.457, 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted for the charges levelled against him under Sec.241 of Cr.P.C. The accused is asked as to the quantum of sentence, for which he stated that he is only the bread winner of the family and if he is put in prison, further, his family would suffer a lot, that he would not commit any offence in future course and prayed the court to take a lenient view. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, property involved in this case and submission of accused, this court is of the opinion that sentence of imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months for the offence u/Sec.457 of Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/- for the offence U/Sec.457 IPC and in default of payment of fine amount by the accused, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months for the offence u/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code. The remand period undergone by the accused in this case i.e., from 18-08- 2021 to till date i.e., 09-11-2021 shall be given set off as contemplated u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently imposed in this case along with the sentences imposed by this court against accused in CC Nos.716/2021, 717/2021 and 718/2021 on the file of this court. The unmarked property as entered in CPR No.133/2021 ie., one gold chain wg about 11.50 gms; one black bead gold chain wg about 20.50 gms; two pairs of gold bangles wg about 44 gms and two pairs of gold ear studs andfive gold rings wg about 22 gms which is given to interim custody of the complainant-Vedam Padmavathi as per the Orders dated 20-10-2021 passed by this court in Crl.M.P.No.418/2021 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 9th day of November, 2021.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Srikalahasti. Appendix of evidence -Nil- A.J.M.F.C., Srikalahasti. Judgment in CC No.715/2021

dated 09-11-2021

3

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

SRIKALAHASTI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No.715 of 2021

Date of offence: In between 23-11-2020 at 9 AM and 30- 11-2020 at about 4.30 PM Date of report: 23-07-2019 Date of taken on file: 27-10-2021 Date of apprehension: 09-11-2021 (Appearance before court) Date of commencement of trial: - Date of close of trial : - Date of Judgment: 09-11-2021 Complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS (Crime No.102 of 2019 of B.N.Kandriga PS)

Name & Address of the accused

Kaduru Babu, S/o K. Rammorthy, Dass Colony, Neerpakota Village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal.

Offence and Sec. of Law : u/Sec.457, 411of IPC.

Finding : Found Guilty.

Sentence or Order of the Court:-

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences u/Secs.457, 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted for the charges levelled against him under Sec.241 of Cr.P.C.

The accused is asked as to the quantum of sentence, for which he prayed the court to take a lenient view.

In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months for the offence u/Sec.457 of Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/- for the offence U/Sec.457 IPC and in default of payment of fine amount by the accused, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months for the offence u/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code.

The remand period undergone by the accused in this case i.e., from 18-08- 2021 to till date i.e., 09-11-2021 shall be given set off as contemplated u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

All the sentences shall run concurrently imposed in this case along with the sentences imposed by this court against accused in CC Nos.716/2021, 717/2021 and 718/2021 on the file of this court.

The unmarked property as entered in CPR No.133/2021 ie., one gold chain wg about 11.50 gms; one black bead gold chain wg about 20.50 gms; two pairs of gold bangles wg about 44 gms and two pairs of gold ear studs andfive gold rings wg about 22 gms which is given to interim custody of the complainant-Vedam Padmavathi as per the Orders dated 20-10-2021 passed by this court in Crl.M.P.No.418/2021 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti. Note : Accused paid fine amount of Rs.100/-.

1

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

SRIKALAHASTI

Present: Sri P.Koteswara Rao,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srikalahasti Tuesday, the 9th day of November, 2021

CC No.718 of 2021

Between :

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS, Chittoor District.

(Crime No.07 of 2020 of B. N. Kandriga PS) .. Complainant.

And : Kaduru Babu, S/o K. Rammorthy, Dass Colony, Neerpakota Village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal.

..Accused

This case is coming on this day in the presence of learned APP for state and accused produced from Sub-Jail, Srikalahasti under proper escort and voluntarily pleaded guilty of the offence and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, B. N. Kandriga Police Station, Chittoor District laid charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.07/2020 for the offence u/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC with the following averments:- That in between 13-01-2020 at 6.30 PM to 17-01-2020 at 3.30 AM at the house of complainant B. Purushotham, of Neerpakota Village, Dasu Colony of B.N.Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor district, some unknown offenders committed house- breaking by night in to the house of complainant-B. Purushotham and committed theft of gold long chain wg 50 gms, one gold necklace wg 42 gms, onepair butta kammalu, 14 gm, seven pairs of ear studs wg 30 gms, one silver waist chain wg 140 gms, one pair silver chains wg 72 gms, one silver glass wg about 90 gms, one silver kumkum bharani wg 20 gms, total 136 gms of gold and 322 gms of silver belongs to the complainant and basing on his complaint a case in Cr.No.07/2020 U/Sec.457 and 380 IPC was registered. During course of investigation S.I of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS arrested accused on 11-08-2021 at 7 AM and seized stolen property in this crime ie., one pair of butta kammalu wg about 13.70 gms; two pairs of ear studs wg about 9.4 gms, one pair of silver leg chains wg about 80 gms and one silver kumkuma bharani wg 20 gms belongs to the complainant from the possession of accused under cover of seizure mahazarnama dated 11-08-2021 at 8.45 AM along with other properties. Accused was arrested and produced before this court on 18-08-2021 pertaining to this crime on execution of P.T.Warrant. After conclusion of investigation, S.I of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS, filed charge sheet against accused.

2. This court has taken cognizance of offences u/Sec.457, 380 or in alternative 411 IPC against the accused.

3. Further, on production of accused, copies of documents as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to him. On enquiry, the accused reported that he has got sufficient means to engage a counsel to defend the case against him.

4.Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr P C for the offences U/Sec.457, 411 of IPC

2

informing the substance of accusation made against him for which he admitted having committed the offence and pleaded guilty. The admission of the accused is found to be voluntary and without any coercion from anybody. Hence, the plea of guilty made by accused is accepted.

5.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences u/Secs.457, 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted for the charges levelled against him under Sec.241 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused is asked as to the quantum of sentence, for which he stated that he is only the bread winner of the family and if he is put in prison, further, his family would suffer a lot, that he would not commit any offence in future course and prayed the court to take a lenient view.

7.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, property involved in this case and submission of accused, this court is of the opinion that sentence of imprisonment will meet the ends of justice.

8.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences u/Secs.457, 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted for the charges levelled against him under Sec.241 of Cr.P.C. The accused is asked as to the quantum of sentence, for which he stated that he is only the bread winner of the family and if he is put in prison, further, his family would suffer a lot, that he would not commit any offence in future course and prayed the court to take a lenient view. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, property involved in this case and submission of accused, this court is of the opinion that sentence of imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months for the offence u/Sec.457 of Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/- for the offence U/Sec.457 IPC and in default of payment of fine amount by the accused, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months for the offence u/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code. The remand period undergone by the accused in this case i.e., from 18-08- 2021 to till date i.e., 09-11-2021 shall be given set off as contemplated u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently imposed in this case along with the sentences imposed by this court against accused in CC Nos.715/2021, 716/2021 and 717/2021 on the file of this court. The unmarked property as entered in CPR No.132/2021 ie., one pair of butta kammalu wg about 13.70 gms, two pairs of ear studs wg about 9.4 gms, one pair of silver leg chains wg about 80 gms and one silver kumkuma bharani wg 20 gms which is given to interim custody of the complainant-Bojja Purushotham as per the Orders dated 08-10-2021 passed by this court in Crl.M.P.No.414/2021 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 9th day of November, 2021.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Srikalahasti. Appendix of evidence -Nil- A.J.M.F.C., Srikalahasti.

Judgment in CC No.718/2021

dated 09-11-2021

3

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

SRIKALAHASTI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No.718 of 2021

Date of offence: 13-01-2020 at 6.30 PM to 17-01-2020 at 3.30 AM Date of report: 17-01-2020 Date of taken on file: 27-10-2021 Date of apprehension: 09-11-2021 (Appearance before court) Date of commencement of trial: - Date of close of trial : - Date of Judgment: 09-11-2021 Complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS (Crime No.07 of 2020 of B.N.Kandriga PS)

Name & Address of the accused

Kaduru Babu, S/o K. Rammorthy, Dass Colony, Neerpakota Village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal.

Offence and Sec. of Law : u/Sec.457, 411of IPC.

Finding : Found Guilty.

Sentence or Order of the Court:-

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences u/Secs.457, 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted for the charges levelled against him under Sec.241 of Cr.P.C.

The accused is asked as to the quantum of sentence, for which he prayed the court to take a lenient view.

In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months for the offence u/Sec.457 of Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/- for the offence U/Sec.457 IPC and in default of payment of fine amount by the accused, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months for the offence u/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code.

The remand period undergone by the accused in this case i.e., from 18-08- 2021 to till date i.e., 09-11-2021 shall be given set off as contemplated u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

All the sentences shall run concurrently imposed in this case along with the sentences imposed by this court against accused in CC Nos.715/2021, 716/2021 and 717/2021 on the file of this court.

The unmarked property as entered in CPR No.132/2021 ie., one pair of butta kammalu wg about 13.70 gms, two pairs of ear studs wg about 9.4 gms, one pair of silver leg chains wg about 80 gms and one silver kumkuma bharani wg 20 gms which is given to interim custody of the complainant-Bojja Purushotham as per the Orders dated 08-10-2021 passed by this court in Crl.M.P.No.414/2021 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti. Note : Accused paid fine amount of Rs.100/-.

1

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

SRIKALAHASTI

Present: Sri P.Koteswara Rao,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srikalahasti

Tuesday, the 9th day of November, 2021

CC No.717 of 2021

Between :

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS, Chittoor District. (Crime No.139 of 2019 of B. N. Kandriga PS)

.. Complainant.

And :

Kaduru Babu, S/o K. Rammorthy, Dass Colony, Neerpakota Village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal.

..Accused

This case is coming on this day in the presence of learned APP for state and accused produced from Sub-Jail, Srikalahasti under proper escort and voluntarily pleaded guilty of the offence and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, B. N. Kandriga Police Station, Chittoor District laid charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.139/2019 for the offence u/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC with the following averments:- That in between 21-07-2019 at 10 PM and 23-07-2019 at 6 AM in the house of complainant E. Bala Gunnaiah at Kampallem H/W, B.N.Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor district, some unknown offenders committed house-breaking by night in to the house of complainant-Bala Gunnaiah and committed theft of black beads chain, ear studs, mukkupudaka wg about 12 gms, 300 gms of silver leg chains and cash of Rs.48,000/- belongs to the complainant and basing on his complaint a case in Cr.No.139/2019 U/Sec.457 and 380 IPC was registered. During course of investigation S.I of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS arrested accused on 11-08-2021 at 7 AM and seized 310 gms of three pairs of silver leg chains belongs to the complainant from the possession of accused under cover of seizure mahazarnama dated 11-08-2021 at 8.45 AM along with other properties. Accused was arrested and produced before this court on 18-08-2021 pertaining to this crime on execution of P.T.Warrant. After conclusion of investigation, S.I of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS, filed charge sheet against accused.

2. This court has taken cognizance of offences u/Sec.457, 380 or in alternative 411 IPC against the accused.

3. Further, on production of accused, copies of documents as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to him. On enquiry, the accused reported that he has got sufficient means to engage a counsel to defend the case against him.

4.Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr P C for the offences U/Sec.457, 411 of IPC informing the substance of accusation made against him for which he admitted having

2

committed the offence and pleaded guilty. The admission of the accused is found to be voluntary and without any coercion from anybody. Hence, the plea of guilty made by accused is accepted.

5.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences u/Secs.457, 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted for the charges levelled against him under Sec.241 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused is asked as to the quantum of sentence, for which he stated that he is only the bread winner of the family and if he is put in prison, further, his family would suffer a lot, that he would not commit any offence in future course and prayed the court to take a lenient view.

7.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, property involved in this case and submission of accused, this court is of the opinion that sentence of imprisonment will meet the ends of justice.

8.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences u/Secs.457, 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted for the charges levelled against him under Sec.241 of Cr.P.C. The accused is asked as to the quantum of sentence, for which he stated that he is only the bread winner of the family and if he is put in prison, further, his family would suffer a lot, that he would not commit any offence in future course and prayed the court to take a lenient view. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, property involved in this case and submission of accused, this court is of the opinion that sentence of imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months for the offence u/Sec.457 of Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/- for the offence U/Sec.457 IPC and in default of payment of fine amount by the accused, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months for the offence u/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code. The remand period undergone by the accused in this case i.e., from 18-08- 2021 to till date i.e., 09-11-2021 shall be given set off as contemplated u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently imposed in this case along with the sentences imposed by this court against accused in CC Nos.715/2021, 716/2021 and 718/2021 on the file of this court. The unmarked property as entered in CPR No.134/2021 ie., three pairs of silver chains which is given to interim custody of the complainant-E. Bala Gunnaiah as per the Orders dated 08-10-2021 passed by this court in Crl.M.P.No.415/2021 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 9th day of November, 2021.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Srikalahasti. Appendix of evidence -Nil- A.J.M.F.C., Srikalahasti. Judgment in CC No.717/2021

dated 09-11-2021

3

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

SRIKALAHASTI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No.717 of 2021

Date of offence: In between 21-07-2019 at 10 PM and 23- 07-2019 at 6 AM Date of report: 03-12-2019 Date of taken on file: 27-10-2021 Date of apprehension: 09-11-2021 (Appearance before court) Date of commencement of trial: - Date of close of trial : - Date of Judgment: 09-11-2021 Complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B.N.Kandriga PS (Crime No.139 of 2019 of B.N.Kandriga PS)

Name & Address of the accused

Kaduru Babu, S/o K. Rammorthy, Dass Colony, Neerpakota Village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal.

Offence and Sec. of Law : u/Sec.457, 411of IPC.

Finding : Found Guilty.

Sentence or Order of the Court:-

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences u/Secs.457, 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted for the charges levelled against him under Sec.241 of Cr.P.C.

The accused is asked as to the quantum of sentence, for which he prayed the court to take a lenient view.

In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months for the offence u/Sec.457 of Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/- for the offence U/Sec.457 IPC and in default of payment of fine amount by the accused, accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months for the offence u/Sec.411 of Indian Penal Code.

The remand period undergone by the accused in this case i.e., from 18-08- 2021 to till date i.e., 09-11-2021 shall be given set off as contemplated u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

All the sentences shall run concurrently imposed in this case along with the sentences imposed by this court against accused in CC Nos.715/2021, 716/2021 and 718/2021 on the file of this court.

The unmarked property as entered in CPR No.134/2021 ie., three pairs of silver chains which is given to interim custody of the complainant-E. Bala Gunnaiah as per the Orders dated 08-10-2021 passed by this court in Crl.M.P.No.415/2021 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti. Note : Accused paid fine amount of Rs.100/-.