Smt P.Muktida

1

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

AT SECUNDERABAD.

PRESENT: P.MUKTHIDA,

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

CC.No.266 of 2012

Between:-

The State through Sub Inspector of Police,

PS Gandhinagar, Secunderabad...Complainant

AND

Nakka Arjun Kumar @ Arujun, s/o N.Ramulu, aged 24 years, Occ:Pvt Emp., r/o H.No.6-1-197/1, Hamalibasthi, Padmraonagar,

Hyderabad...Accused

This case is coming on 22.1.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Sujana, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Pandu Ranga, counsel appearing for the accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Gandhinagar police station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.33 of 2012 for the offences under Sec.304-A

IPC and Secs.181 and 196 of MV Act.

2The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are

That on 22.2.2012 at 8 am Sri T.Narsing lodged report stating that on 21.2.2012 at about 11.50 pm he along with his friend, Nithya, aged 48 years after completion of their work at Boats Club were returning back to home and reached opposite Shivalayam temple near Kavadiguda X road, mean time one rider of motorcycle Bajaj CT-100 bearing No.AP 10 AF 2068 came from back side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to his friend Nithin due to which his friend fell down on the road and received 2 bleeding injuries and became unconscious condition and shifted him to

Gandhi Hospital for treatment through 108 Ambulance. Based on the report, police registered a case in Cr.No.33/2012 under Sec.337 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statements of the complainant and witnesses, visited scene of offence observation panchanama and drafted rough sketch in the presence of panch witnesses. On 23.2.2012 at 6.30 am received death intimation of the injured, M.S.Nithin @ Nithyanand from Gandhi Hospital stating that the victim succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment and altered section of law from Sec.337 IPC to Sec.304(A) IPC.

Subsequently the investigating officer held inquest over the dead both of the deceased in the presence of panch witnesses and recorded the statements of the blood relatives of the deceased and got photographed the deceased at Gandhi Hospital mortuary and subjected dead body to PME and after completion of autopsy, handedover the dead body of the deceased to the brother of the deceased for final rites. Upon credible information on 24.2.2012 at about 9.30 am at Hamalibasthi, Chilkalguda apprehended the accused and brought him to police station and upon interrogation, he admitted his guilt and verified his driving licence and vehicle documents and found that the accused does not have driving licence and further registration certificate of the crime vehicle Bajaj CT 100 was on the name of the cousin of the accused expired. The accused purchased the motorcycle from his cousin family but not made efforts to transfer on his name and there is no insurance certificate for the above vehicle. The investigating officer seized Bajaj CT-100 motorcycle bearing

No.AP 10 AF 2088 in the presence of panch witnesses and registration certificate under cover of seizure report and sent to RTA for inspection.

Thereafter Secs.181 and 196 of MV Act added to the existing Sec.304(A)

IPC and thereafter effected arrest of the accused and produced before the court for judicial custody and collected PME report from the doctor opining 3 cause of death due to “Head injury”. The MVI who inspected the crime vehicle based on the requisition given by the investigating officer opined that the incident not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. Thus facts and evidence collected prima facie establish that the accused committed the offences alleged against him. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against accused.

3My learned predecessor in office had taken cognizance for the offences U/sec.304(A) IPC and Secs.181 and 196 of MV Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents, on which prosecution intended to rely upon were furnished in terms of Sec. 207

Cr.P.C.

5The accused was examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C for the offences udner Sec.304(A) IPC and Secs.181 and 196 of MV Act . Having understood he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PW1 to PW9 were examined though 17 witnesses were cited in the charge sheet. Inspite of granting sufficient times, police concerned failed to produce remaining witnesses, hence this court closed their evidence. Ex.P1 to P12 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

7The accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating material against him and he denied it. However, the accused reported no defence evidence.

8Both sides advanced their oral arguments.

9Point for determination is: Whether the conduct of accused falls within the ambit of Sec.304(A) IPC and Secs.181 and 196 of MV Act and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt?

4

POINT:

10In support of the prosecution case, 17 witnesses are cited to be examined, but the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12.

11PW1 is the defacto complainant PW2 is the eye witness while PW3 and PW4 are mediators to the scene of observation panchanama and inquest panchanama respectively. PW6 is one of the mediators to the seizure panchanama. While PW7 has assisted the investigating officer in apprehending the accused and PW8 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW5 is the MVI who has inspected the crime vehicle.

12As per the prosecution case, PW1, the complainant has reported to the police that while he along with the deceased Nitya were returning back home at about 23.50 hours on 22.2.2012, rider of one Bajaj motorcycle bearing No.AP 10 AF 2068 came from behind opposite to Shivalayam temple, near Kavadiguda cross roads in a rash and negligent manner and hit his friend, Nitya due to which his friend fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries in unconscious conditions and that after shifting to Gandhi Hospital, he had expired. PW1 testified that about 5 years ago during night time while he was returning from his work place at about 12’O’ clock and reached Kavadiguda, he found his colleague Nitya lying by the side of the road with head injury and that he shifted the said injured in

Ambulance to Gandhi Hospital and on the next day, Nitya expired and he was taken to police station where he put his thumb impression on a white paper and he was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW1 denied all the suggestions of the learned APP in cross examination. Ex.P1 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1.

13The eye witness PW2 testified that about 4 or 5 years ago at about 10.30 or 11 pm while he was returning home on his two wheeler and reached Marriot hotel, Praga Tool Road, he heard a sound after one person 5 on two wheeler crossed him at a high speed and that he saw the person lying on the ground and both of them were injured but he cannot identify the person who overtook his vehicle and that he did not even remember the number of that vehicle and within 5 minutes police reached there and enquired him about the incident and he was declared hostile by the prosecution.

14PW3 testified his presence during conducting of scene of observation panchanama at 11.50 pm on 22.2.2012.

15PW4 stated that on 23.2.2012 at about 11.30 am in his presence the police conducted inquest o the body of the deceased Nityanand at Gandhi

Hospital mortuary and observed head injury on the body of the deceased and came to know that the deceased died in a bike accident.

16 PW6 is examined as the mediator to the seizure panchanama wherein the crime bike was seized. However, he deposed that the police obtained his signature on some written papers in PS Gandhinagar in the year 2012 and that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and he denied the suggestion given by the learned APP in cross examination.

17PW5 had inspected the crime vehicle on 25.2.2012 and opined that though the vehicle was damaged at the handle frame and the some other damages were also found, the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. It was elicited in his cross examination that he did not visit the scene of offence and did not issue any summons to the accused for production of driving licence.

18 PW7 testified that on the instructions of PW9, he went to the house of the accused at Hamalibasthi and brought him to the police station on 24.2.2012 and handedover the accused to PW9 the investigating officer.

19PW8 testified conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased on 23.2.2012 at 11.40 am and opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to head injury.

6 20The investigating officer PW9 deposed in his chief examination on the lines of charge sheet. Though he stated that he has seized the crime bike bearing No.AP 10 AF 2068 in the presence of PW6 and one Praveen, he failed to produce the same before the court and his chief examination was deferrd for producing the seized bike and he failed to produce the same and thereafter he could not appear bfore the court as he failed to bed sick.

Thus, the seized crime bike was not produced before the court and the learned defence counsel could not cross examine the investigating officer.

21The above detailed evidence of prosecution witnesses reveals that the prosecution could prove the death of the Nityanand @ Nithin @ Nitya in an accident due to head injury and the scene of offence is also established through the evidence of PW3 but the prosecution failed to elicit any incriminating evidence against the accused in connection with the accident complained of. Thus, it fails to prove that the accident leading to the death of Nitin was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused with the crime bike. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

22In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec.304-A IPC and Secs.181 and 196 of MV Act and he is acquitted for the said offence in terms of Sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30th day of January, 2018.

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

PW1. Sri A.Narsimha Rao, complainant PW2. Sri K.V.Swamy, eye witness 7

PW3. Sri T.Shankar, panch witness for scene of offence observation panchanama PW4. Sri C.Narsing Rao, panch witness for inquest PW5. Sri M.Yerri Swamy, AMVI, issued MVI report PW6. Sri M.Madhusudhan, panch witness for seizure panchanama PW7. Sri M.Ramesh, PC 6187 Gandhinagar PS, apprehended the accused PW8. Dr.Vikrammaditya, issued PME report PW9. Sri V.Ranganna, SI of Police, Gandhi Nagar PS, investigating officer]

DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: Ex.P1. Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P2. Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3. Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4. Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P5. Inquest report Ex.P6. MVI report Ex.P7. Signature of PW6 on seizure report Ex.P8. PME report Ex.P9. Complaint Ex.P10.First Information Report Ex.P11.Alteration Memo Ex.P12.Seizure report

DEFENCE: NIL MOs MARKED

NIL

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

AT SECUNDERABAD.

PRESENT : P.MUKTHIDA,

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

C.C. NO. 1056 OF 2015

Between:-

The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.….COMPLAINANT.

AND 1)M.Ashok, s/o Antaiah, aged 33 years, Occ:Sentring work, r/o H.No.12-10-587/75, Medibavi, Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad.

*2)K.Ramesh, s/o K.Yellaiah, aged 30 years, Occ:Plumber, r/o H.No.12-10-587/95/3/1, Medibavi, Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad.

*3)C.Sudhakar, s/o Babu Rao, aged 33 years, Occ:Driver, r/o H.No.12-10-586/1/2/3, Medibavi, Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad.

*4)D.Ganesh, s/o Ramaswamy, aged 32 years, Occ:Labour, r/o H.No.11-10-94, Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad.

*5)K.Raju, s/o Balaiah, aged 30 years, Occ:Vegetable vendor, r/o H.No.12-10-334/3, Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad.

*6)C.Sekhar, s/o Babu Rao, aged 26 years, Occ:Salesman, r/o H.No.12-10-586/1/2/3, Medibavi, Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad.

*7)M.Srinivas, s/o Rama Rao, aged 40 years, Occ:Moulding Worker, r/o H.No.12-10-586/B/4, Indira Nagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

*8)A.Srinivas, s/o Lingaiah, aged 39 years, Occ:Pvt job, r/o H.No.12-10-587/83/A, Medibavi, Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad. ACCUSED Nos.1 to 8.

2 *(Accused No.2 to 8 pleaded guilty and this case proceeded against accused No.1 only)

This case is coming on 7.2.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Sujana, Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and of M/s.A.C.Srinivas, learned counsel for accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court has delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a case filed by the Sub Inspector of Police of Chilkalguda police station in Cr.No. 52/2012 for the offences U/Secs. 3 and 4 of AP

Gaming Act 1974.

2The case of the prosecution as could be seen from the charge sheet filed in brief is as follows:

On 26.1.2012 in the evening at 9.30 pm , the Sub Inspector of

Police, Chilkalguda Police station received credible information that three cards gambling which is a game of chance is being organized in the premises bearing No. 12-10-587/75, Medibavi, Seethaphalmandi,

Secunderabad by M.Ashok (A1) and believing such information as true and authentic he informed same to his superior officer and secured presence of two mediators Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr.R.Pavan Kumar (LW-5 and LW-6) and informed about proposed raid and he prepared search proceedings U/s 165 Cr.P.C as any delay in obtaining search warrant from court may cause disappearance of accused persons as well as material evidence. Then he along with panch witnesses and staff conducted raid in the said premises at 10.20 pm and found 8 persons are playing three cards game. He entered into the said premises and disclosed his identity. Accused No.1 disclosed his identify and voluntarily confessed that he is the owner of the said premises and organizing three cards gaming and allowing players and collecting kitty 3 amount from every person ranging from Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- depending on the strength of players and earning easy money. On being question

Accused No.2 to 8 disclosed their identity. Then he apprehended all accused, served search proceedings on Accused No.1 and recorded confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses and seized Rs.25,830/- along with playing cards and their cellphones and he brought all the accused to the police station along with seized amount, playing cards and produced before station house officer.

3The Sub Inspector of Police of Chilkalguda Police Station (Lw-7) received the complaint and registered in Cr. No. 52/2012 U/secs 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act and handed over the case record to another Sub

Inspector of Police (LW-7) for further investigation.

4 During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined witnesses (Lw-1 to 4) and recorded their statements and he took the custody of the all accused and interrogated thoroughly and he affected arrest of all the accused and got produced before court for remand. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

5 My learned Predecessor had taken cognizance for the offences

U/secs. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act.

6When Accused No.1 to 8 appeared before this court, copies of documents on which prosecution intends to rely upon were furnished in terms of Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

7Accused No.1 to 8 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offences under Secs.3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act. Accused No.2 to 8 pleaded guilty for the offence under Sec.3 of AP Gaming Act and accused No.1 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were 4 examined though they cited 8 witnesses in the charge sheet. Ex.P1 to

Ex.P10 and M.Os 1 to 3 were marked.

9The accused No.1 was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating material against him and he denied it. However, the accused reported no defence evidence.

10Point for determination: Whether the conduct of Accused No.1 falls within the ambit of Secs. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11It is the case of the prosecution that Accused No.2 to 8 were found gambling in a common gaming house run by Accused No.1 by collecting commission from said punters and the place of offence is a house bearing door No.12-11-587/75, Medibavi, Seethaphalmandi,

Secunderabad.

12PW4 is the complainant and investigating officer and he deposed on the lines of charge sheet in his chief examination. It was elicited in his cross examination that he did not collect identity particulars of accused No.1 and further not collected any document to show that accused No.1 is the owner of the raided premises. He categorically admitted that he did not examine neighbours of the raided place nor mentioned the denomination of currency seized so also not mentioned the cell numbers in the seizure report and denied all other suggestions put to him.

13PW1 is the police constable who accompanied PW1 and he deposed about conducting raid and apprehension of accused and seizure of material objects from the possession of accused.

14PW2 is the panch witness and he stated that in the year 2012 5 during night time at about 10 p.m., when he went to Chilkalguda police station on his person work, the Sub Inspector of Police asked him to sign as a witness and obtained his signatures on some written papers.

He further stated that he did not go through the contents of the paper on which he has signed and that nothing was seized in his presence and no panchanama was prepared in his presence and his signatures on confession cum seizure panchanama are marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P5.

He was declared hostile by the prosecution and during the cross examination by the learned APP, he denied all the suggestions that he was present during the panchahnama.

15PW3 is the investigating officer and he registered case based on complaint given by PW4 and issued Ex.P7 FIR. Nothing worthwhile elicited in his cross examination except admitting that he did not obtain signature of PW4 on FIR.

16To prove the offences alleged against the accused, the prosecution has to establish that Accused No.1 is running a common gaming house by allowing punters Accused No.2 to 8 to play three cards game by betting money.

17PW1 is the constable who accompanied PW4 in the raid and both the witnesses said that they visited the raided premises on the alleged date and found all the accused inside it and Accused No.1 disclosed his name and said that he owns that house and allowed the premises for common gaming house by collecting commission commission from

Accused No.2 to 8.

18The evidence of PW1 is that when they entered into the house, he found all the accused playing 3 cards game and the police party arrested the accused and seized MO1 Cash of Rs.25,830/-, MO2 6 cell phones and MO3 52 playing cards. These material objects were exhibited 6 during the evidence of PW4. Ex.P6 is the complaint lodged by PW4 and

Ex.P7 is FIR. In these documents also, there is clear mention that when these witnesses entered into premises, these accused are found playing 3 cards game.

19Ex.P10 is the panchanama prepared at the scene of offence in the presence of PW2 and another panch witness for seizure of MO1 to MO3 from the possession of accused which were used for gaming purpose by betting by accused. The prosecution failed to examine another mediator for the seizure of material objects inspite of granting several opportunities. The main material witness PW2 not supported the version of prosecution regarding identification of accused and seizure material objects from the possession of the accused on the alleged date of incident. The evidence of PW1 and PW4 and documents relied on by them is consistent with regard to accused engaged in playing 3 cards game by betting money, but the version of independent mediator

PW2 is not supporting the contention of prosecution regarding the role of accused to connect with the alleged offences. PW4 failed to collect any document to show that either accused No.1 is the owner or tenant of the premises where common gaming was organized by him and allowed the premises for gaming purpose by employing punters

Accused No.2 to 8. PW1 and 4 are official witnesses and their evidence is not corroborating with the evidence of the independent mediator regarding Ex.P10 panchanama.

20In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, this court of the considered view that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences alleged him and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

21In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences 7 under Secs.3 and 4 of A.P.Gaming Act and he is acquitted for the said offences under Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. MO1 cash of Rs.25,830/- converted to FDR

No.0067831 drawn on Indian Bank, Marredpally shall be confiscated to the State and MO2 6 cellphones shall be returned to the respective accused as per confession cum seizure panchanama and MO3 playing cards shall be destroyed after appeal time expires.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 8th day of

February, 2018.

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO.OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTIONDEFENCE

P.W.1. J.Chandraiah, PC5071 of Chilkalguda PS, assisted investigating officer -NIL- P.W.2. R.Pavan Kumar, panch Witness P.W.3. B.Pandary, Sub Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda PS, registered case P.W.4. E.Raghuveer Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakalguda PS, complainant &investigating officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1. Signature of PW2 on search proceedings Ex.P2. Signature of PW2 on 1st page of confession cum Seizure Panchnama Ex.P3. Signature of PW2 on 2nd page of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P4. Signature of PW2 on 3rd page of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P5. Signature of PW2 on 4th page of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P6. Complaint Ex.P7. First Information Report Ex.P8. Memo issued by Asst. Commissioner of Police, Gopalapuram Division Ex.P9. Search proceedings. Ex.P10. Confession cum seizure panchanama of Accused.

DEFENCE:NIL 8

M.Os.MARKED

PROSECUTION

M.O-1: Cash of Rs.25,830/- converted to FDR No.0067831, Indian Bank, Marredpally M.O-2: 6 cell phones M.O-3: 52 playing cards.

DEFENCE:NIL

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

AT SECUNDERABAD.

PRESENT : P.MUKTHIDA,

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

C.C. NO. 301 OF 2012

Between:-

The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.….COMPLAINANT.

AND

1) Mohd Hussain S/o: Md. Yakub, Aged 43 years, Occ: Fruits Business, R/o: H.No. 12-11-557, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

2)Syed Ahsan, S/o: late Syed Hassan, aged 32 years, Occ: Cloths Business, R/o H.No.1-4-277, Bholakpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

3. Harish Kumar, S/o: Vijay Kumar, Age: 30 years, Occ: Medical Representative, R/o: H.No. 18-3-754/3/8/7, Shalibanda, Hyderabad.

4.Abdul Aziz, S/o: Mohd Saber, Age: 42 years, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o: H.No. 20-4-899, Chowk Kasaratta, Hyderabad.

5. Mohd Thaskin, S/o: Md. Misken, Age: 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.20-4-934, Charminar Chowk, Hyderabad.

6. Syed Abdul Mazeed, S/o: Syed Abdul Mazeed, Age: 40 years, Occ: Salesman, R/o: H.No. 12-11-784, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

7. Syed pasha, S/o: Rasheed, Age: 33 years, Occ: Denting, R/o: H.No. near 12-11-656, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

8. Mohd Hussain, S/o: M.A.Rasool, Age: 48 years, Occ: Sales Man Pvt. Job, R/o: H.no. 12-11-665, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

9. Akthar Hussain, S/o: Syed Hussain, Age: 49 years, Occ: Painter, R/o:H.No. 12-11-712, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.… ACCUSED Nos.1 to 9.

2

This case is coming on 8.8.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of smt. Sujana, Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri B. Rajashekar & others, learned counsel for accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court has delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a case filed by Sub Inspector of Police of Chilkalguda police station in Cr.No. 105/2012 for the offences U/Secs. 3 and 4 of AP

Gaming Act 1974.

2The case of the prosecution as could be seen from the charge sheet filed in brief is as follows:

On 21-02-2012 during morning time at 6-15 a.m., the Sub

Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda Police station received credible information that the three cards gaming which is a game of chance is being organized in the premises bearing No. 12-11-557, Warasiguda, by

Mohd Hussain (A1) and believing such information as true and authentic he informed same to his superior officer and secured presence of two mediators Mr. Naveen and Mr. K. Raju (Lw-4 and LW-5) and informed about proposed raid she prepared search proceedings U/s 165 Cr.P.C as any delay in obtaining search warrant from court may cause disappearance of accused persons as well as material evidence.

Then he along with panch witnesses and staff conducted raid in the premises bearing No. 12-11-557, Warasiguda, Secunderabad at 7.10 a.m. and found 9 persons are playing three cards game. He entered into the said premises and disclosed his identity. Accused No.1 disclosed his identify and voluntarily confessed that he is the owner of the said premises and organizing three cards gaming and allowing players and collecting kitty amount from every person ranging to 3

Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- depending upon the strength of players and earning easy money. On being question Accused No.2 to 9 disclosed their identity. Then he apprehended all accused, served search proceedings on Accused No.1 and recorded confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses and seized Rs.47,120/-(Rupees forty seven thousand one hundred and twenty only) along with playing cards and their cellphones and he brought all the accused to the police station along with seized amount, playing cards and produced before station house officer.

3The Sub Inspector of Police of Chilkalguda Police Station (Lw-6) received the complaint and registered in Cr. No. 105/2012 U/secs 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act and handed over the case record to another

Sub Inspector of Police (LW-7) for further investigation.

4 During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined witnesses (Lw-1 to 3) and recorded their statements and he took the custody of the all accused and interrogated thoroughly and he affected arrest of all the accused and got produced before court for remand. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

5 My learned Predecessor had taken cognizance for the offences

U/secs. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act.

6When Accused No.1 to 9 appeared before this court, copies of documents on which prosecution intends to rely upon were furnished in terms of Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

7Accused No.1 to 9 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offences under Secs.3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act. Having understood they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 were 4 examined though they cited 7 witnesses in the charge sheet. Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6 and M.Os 1 to 3 were marked.

9 A1 to A9 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. They denied it.

10 Accused did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence.

11Both sides advanced their oral arguments.

12Point for determination: Whether the conduct of A1 to A9 falls within the ambit of Secs. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

13It is the case of the prosecution that Accused No.2 to 9 were found gambling in a common gaming house run by Accused No.1 by collecting commission from said punters and the place of offence is a house bearing door No.12-11-557 in Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

14PW3 is the complainant and investigating officer and he deposed on the lines of charge sheet in his chief examination. It was elicited from him that he did not mention mode of information received by him and not collected any document to show that the Accused No.1 is the owner of premises where he conducted raid. He specifically admitted that he did not examine neighbours of the locality and denied all other suggestions put to him.

15 PW1 is the police constable accompanied PW1 and he deposed about conducting raid and apprehension of accused and seizure of material objects from the possession of accused.

16A panch witness is testified as PW2. He admitted his signature/Ex.P1 on seizure panchanama/Ex.P4. He further said that he saw playing cards, mobiles and cash but not identified the accused is the person from whom material objects seized and not supported the 5 version of the prosecution and turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

17To prove the offences alleged against accused, the prosecution has to establish that Accused No.1 is running a common gaming house by allowing punters Accused No.2 to 9 to play three cards game by betting money.

18PW1 is the constable who accompanied PW3 in the raid and both the witnesses said that on 21.2.2012 they visited that the house and found all the accused inside it and Accused No.1 disclosed his name and said that he owns that house and allowed the premises for common gaming house by collecting commission commission from

Accused No.2 to 9.

19The evidence of PW1 is that when they entered into the house, he found all the accused playing 3 cards game and the police party arrested the accused and seized MO1 cash of Rs.47,120/- and MO3 playing cards are 52 in number and nine mobile phones marked as

MO2. These material objects were exhibited during the evidence of

PW3. Ex.P5 is the complaint lodged by PW3 and Ex.P6 is FIR. In these documents also, there is clear mention that when these witnesses entered into premises, these accused are found playing 3 cards gaming.

20Ex.P4 is the panchanama prepared at the scene of offence in the presence of PW2 and another panch witness for seizure of material objects MO1 to MO3 from the possession of accused which were used in the game by betting by accused. The main material witness PW2 not supported the version of prosecution regarding identification of accused and seizure material objects from the possession of the 6 accused on the alleged date of incident. The evidence of PW1 and PW3 and documents relied on by them is consistent with regard to accused engaged in playing 3 cards game by betting money, but the version of independent mediator PW2 is not supporting the contention of prosecution regarding the role of accused to connect with the alleged offences. PW3 failed to collect any document to show that either accused No.1 is the owner or tenant of the premises where common gaming was organized by him and allowed the premises for gaming purpose by employing punters Accused No.2 to 9. PW1 and 3 are official witnesses and their evidence is not corroborating with the evidence of the independent mediator regarding Ex.P4 panchanama.

21In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, this court of the considered view that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences alleged them and accused are entitled for acquittal.

22In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 9 are found not guilty for the offences U/Secs.3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act and they are acquitted for the said offences in terms of Sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. MO1 cash of Rs.47,120/- shall be confiscated to the State and MO2 cellphones 9 Nos. shall be returned to respective accused No.1 to 9 as per their confession cum seizure panchanama and MO3 playing cards shall be destroyed after appeal time expires.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30th day of

January, 2018.

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO.OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTIONDEFENCE

P.W.1.J. Chandraiah, assisted investigating officer -NIL- P.W.2. K.Naveen, panch Witness P.W.3. M. Laxma Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, PS Chilakalguda, complainant &investigating officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1. Signature of Pw-2 on Confession cum Seizure Panchnama Ex.P2. Memo issued by Asst. Commissioner of Police to conduct raid. Ex.P3. Search proceedings. Ex.P4. Confession cum seizure panchanama of Accused. Ex.P5. Complaint. Ex.P6. FIR in Cr.No.105/2012.

DEFENCE:NIL M.Os.MARKED

PROSECUTION

M.O-1: Cash of Rs. 47,120/- M.O-2: 9 cell phones M.O-3: 52 playing cards.

DEFENCE:NIL

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

AT SECUNDERABAD.

PRESENT: P.MUKTHIDA,

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

CC.No.98 of 2008

Between:-

The State through Sub Inspector of Police,

PS Chilkalguda, Secunderabad...Complainant

AND

Lellela Meeresh Kumar, s/o L.Narasimha, aged 31 years, Occ:Owner of Tirumala Music World, Plot No.936, Padmarao Nagar Colony, Secunderabad, r/o H.No.1-4-64/36,

Bholakpur, Musheerabad...Accused

This case is coming on 24.1.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Sujana, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s.A.C.Srinivas, counsel appearing for the accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda police station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.429 of 2006 for the offences under Secs.52-A(1), 63, 68 of Copy Right Act and Sec.292 IPC.

2The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are

That on 5.7.2006 at l8 pm the complainant, Sri Ch.Kushalkar,

Sub Inspector of Police, North Zone Task Force lodged a report stating that on 5.7.2006 at about 5 pm while he was in Task Force office,

Secunderabad received credible information from Sri Md.Mahaboob

Pasha, Team member, Super Cassettes Ltd stating that the management of Tirumala Video world, Plot No.936, opposite Sai Kiran

Apartments, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad indulged in possession 2 and circulation of pirated VCDs of different languages. Believing the said information true and authentic, he informed the same to superior officers, drafted search proceedings in the presence of panch witnesses, Sri B.Gokul Kumar and D.Vijay and then along with

Coordinator, staff and panchas conducted raid on the shop and found accused in the shop and served search proceedings on him and he disclosed his identity particulars and recorded his confessional statement cum seizsure panchanama and seized 5 porno CDs, pirated VCDs of 144 discs of 120 English movies, 8 DVDs 151 discs 70

Hindi movies, 3 DVDs and 226 discs of 99 Telougu movies from his possession and brought him to police station along with the seized property. Based on the report, police registered a case in Cr.No.429 of 2006 under Sec.52A(1), 63, 68 of Copy Right Act and Sec.292 IPC.

During the course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of the complainant and the accused confessed his guilt and after arrest, he was produced before the court for judicial custody. Thus, facts and evidence collected prima facie establish a case against the accused for the offences alleged against him. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against accused.

3My learned predecessor in office had taken cognizance for the offences U/secs.52-A(1), 63, 68 of Copy Right Act and Sec.292 IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents, on which prosecution intended to rely upon were furnished in terms of Sec. 207

Cr.P.C.

5The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and charges under sec.52(A) read with Sec.68, 63 of Copy Right Act and 3

Sec.292 IPC were framed and read over and explained to the accused. Having understood he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PW1 to PW3 were examined though 5 witnesses were cited in the charge sheet and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO1. Inspite of granting sufficient times, police concerned failed to produce remaining witnesses, hence this court closed their evidence.

7The accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating material against him and he denied it. However, the accused reported no defence evidence.

8Both sides advanced their oral arguments.

9Point for determination is: Whether the conduct of the accused falls within the ambit of sec.52(A) read with Sec.68, Sec.63 of Copy

Right Act and Sec.292 IPC and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10It is the case of the prosecution that the accused herein is running a VCD shop by name Tirumala Music world at Padmaraonagar and circulating porno CDs and pirated VCDs to the needy customers on cheaper rates and thereby he was apprehended along with the property and liable for the offences alleged against him.

11PW1 is the task force official and he is the complainant and he deposed on the lines of his complaint under Ex.P1. It was elicited from him that he did not collect authorisation from Mr.Mahboob Pasha representing Super Cassettes Ltd and did not collect any trade mark of the movies seized by him nor collected originals of CDs or DVDs 4 from the company. He admitted that panch witnesses are stock witnesses in other cases and they are not local residents. He admitted that he did not collect any document to show that the accused is the owner of Tirumala Video shop and he did not compare

MO1 with original CDs and DVDs and admitted that he did not obtain signatures of panch witnesses on separate slips and pasted them to each CDs. He admitted that he seized MO1 as the authorised person identified them as pirated.

12PW2 is the panch witness and he deposed that on 5.7.2006 at 7 pm while he was at pushcart at Uppal bus stop and police called came and asked him to come to Task Force office, Secunderabad and from there himself and SI of Police and constables went to Tirumala

Video shop at Padmaraonagar and in his presence police seized CDs of Telugu, English and Hindi Movies and he signed on Ex.P1 seizure proceedings and Ex.P2 panchanama along with another panch witness. He failed to identify the accused in the court hall from CDs and VCDs were seized and not supported the version of prosecution regarding possession by accused and its seizure from him.

13PW3 is the investigating officer and he deposed that on 5.7.2006 PW1 produced the accused and lodged Ex.P3 complaint, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.429/2006 under Sec.62A, 673, 68 of Copy Right Act and Sec.292 IPC and issued Ex.P4 FIR, recorded the statement of PW1 and Mahboob Pasha (LW2) and after arrest, the accused was produced before the court for judicial custody along with case property before the court and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet. It was elicited from him that he did not receive any complaints from residents of

Padmaraonagar against the accused and he did not collect any 5 document to show that accused is the owner of the shop nor collected any document from Mahaboob Pasha is the member of

Super Cassettes Ltd. He emphatically admitted that even before registration of FIR, part of investigation was completed by PW1 and did not compare the seized 244 plus 5 CDs with original CDs collect any documents to show that DVDs and VCDs are pirated.

14The accused is charged to have committed offences under sec.52(A) read with Sec.68, 63 of Copy Right Act and Sec.292 IPC. A complaint has been lodged by the task force official PW1 based on the information received from the authorized member of Super

Cassetees Ltd but no document is marked by the prosecution to show his status as such. That apart, the complainant himself has prepared confession cum seizure panchanama even before the FIR was issued.

Above all, as admitted by the investigating officer, no document is collected from the company and filed to show that seized MO1 are pirated and some are porn movies and no certificate is filed by competent authority that they are pirated without getting VCDs examined by the appropriate authority. Even the way in which they were found to be pirated or how the authorized person came to the conclusion that MO1 are pirated has not been stated either in the complaint or in the statements of witnesses or in the charge sheet or in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and no certificate is collected from authorized person to show that MO1 are pirated.

Merely seizing MO1 from the possession of the accused even if supported by panch witnesses to the said panchanama, it is not suffice to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences in the absence of showing to whom the copy right has been granted and how copy right was violated and how the accused has been found 6 in possession of pirated VCDs. Moreover, PW2 failed to identify the accused in the court hall from whom MO1 were seized by the investigating officer. No customer is examined by the investigating officer from the locality where the accused running his shop to show that the accused indulged in circulation of MO1. Apparently there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged seizure of pirated VCDs and porn CDs from his possession and also to prove that the accused indulged in circulation of MO1.

15In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against him.

16In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec.52(A) read with Sec.68, Sec.63 of Copy Right Act and Sec.292

IPC and he is acquitted for the said charge in terms of Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. MO1 shall be destroyed after appeal time expires.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29th day of January, 2018.

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

PW1. Sri Ch.Kushalkar, Sub Inspector of Police, North Zone Force, Secunderabad, complainant PW2. Sri B.Gokul Kumar, panch witness PW3. Sri V.Narahari, SI of Police, Chilkalguda PS, investigating officer

DEFENCE: NIL 7

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: Ex.P1. Search proceedings Ex.P2. Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3. Complaint Ex.P4. First Information Report

DEFENCE: NIL

MOs MARKED

PROSECUTION: MO1. 222 Nos. CDs, VCDs and DVDs

DEFENCE: NIL

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

AT SECUNDERABAD.

PRESENT: P.MUKTHIDA,

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

CC.No.79 of 2008

Between:-

The State through Sub Inspector of Police,

PS Marredpally, Secunderabad...Complainant

AND *1)Gollu Rama Appala Naidu, s/o G.Prabhakar Rao, aged 30 years, r/o H.No.5-5-7, near Sushma Theatre, Vanasthalipuram, R.R.District, n/o Laxmipuram(v), Jama(M), Vizianagaram District.

2)Putta Ramulu, s/o late Chinna Narsimha, aged 36 years, n/o Kondrapally(v), Koderu (M), Kollapur(Tq),

Mehboobnagar District... Accused

*(Case against Accused No.1 abated on 25.5.2017 and this case proceeded against Accused No.2 only)

This case is coming on 11.1.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Sujana, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Pandu Ranga, learned counsel appearing for accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Marredpally police station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.179 of 2006 for the offence under Sec.25(1(a) of Arms Act.

2The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are 2

That on 18.9.2006 at 9 pm Sri Ch.Kushalkar, Sub Inspector of

Police, North Zone, Task Force, Secunderabad lodged report stating that on 18.9.2006 at 1230 hours on receipt of credible information along with his team apprehended accused No.1 and 2 near

Marredpally check post, Secunderabad and seized two country made fire arms ie one 8 mm Tapancha with two live rounds and one country made 7.65 mm revolver with three 3 live round while they are carrying those weapons and were offering for sale illegally. Based on the report, a case in Cr.No.176/2006 under Sec.25(1) (a) of Arms Act was registered by the police. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer perused the complaint and recorded the confessional statements of accused wherein they confessed that they procured from Delhi from one Sandeep Kataria and were waiting for disposal to one Mr.Prasad near Marredpally check post and caught by police and seized weapons were sent to FSL for examination along with letter of advice and collected expert opinion and obtained sanction proceedings from the Commission of Police for prosecution of accused

No.1 and 2. Thus, facts and evidence collected prima facie establish a case against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence alleged against them.

After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against accused.

3My learned predecessor in office had taken cognizance for the offence U/sec.25(1)(a) of Arms Act against accused No.1 and 2.

Subsequently before commencement of trial, accused No.1 reported died by police and case against him abated on 25.5.2017 and this case is proceeded against accused No.2 only.

3

4.On appearance of Accused No.2, copies of documents, on which prosecution intended to rely upon were furnished in terms of Sec. 207

Cr.P.C.

5Accused No.2 was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and charge under Sec.25(1)(a) of Arms Act was framed and read over and explained to the accused. Having understood he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PW1 was examined though 8 witnesses were cited in the charge sheet. Inspite of granting sufficient time, police concerned failed to produce remaining witnesses, hence this court closed their evidence. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and

MO1 and MO2 were marked.

7Accused No.2 was examined U/s/ 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating material against him and he denied it. However, the accused reported no defence evidence.

8Both sides advanced their oral arguments.

9Point for determination is: Whether the conduct of the accused

No.2 falls within the ambit of Sec.25(1)(a) of Arms Act and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.9.2006 at 1230 hours near Marredpally check post, Secunderabad accused No.1 and 2 were found in possession two country made fire arms ie one 8 mm Tapancha 4 with two live rounds and one country made 7.65 mm revolver with three 3 live round and were offering for sale illegally and apprehended by the complainant and the seized the weapons.

11To prove its case, the prosecution though cited 8 witnesses, only

PW1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and MO1 and

MO2.

12PW1 is the task force official and complainant and he set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1 complaint and he reiterated the contents of his complaint. It was elicited from PW1 that panch witnesses are not local persons of Marredpally and he did not obtain signatures of accused on confession cum seizure panchanama.

13To prove the offence under Sec.25(1)(a) of Arms Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused No.1 and 2 were found in possession of MO1 and MO2 without valid licence or permission from the competenty authority and were offering for sale illegally prohibited by the government.

14The evidence of PW1 shows that he apprehended accused No.1 and 2 upon receipt of information at his task force office but he failed to disclose source of information leading to arrest of accused. Though he seized MO1 and MO2 under Ex.P2 panchanama from the possession of accused, yet prosecution failed to substantiate the seizure by examining panch witnesses regarding possession of material objects by accused on the alleged date of incident. No gazette notification is marked by prosecution to enlighten this court that material objects seized from the possession of accused falls under prohibited arms.

15It is the version of the prosecution that alleged material objects were seized the possession of Accused No.1 and 2 in the presence of panch witnesses under Ex.P2 panchanama but prosecution failed to examine panch witnesses inspite of granting sufficient time and filed a 5 memo stating whereabouts are not known and hence their evidence was closed. On perusal of whole evidence of PW1, apparently there is no iota of evidence against accused that they possessed fire arms and were offering for sale illegaly contravening Sec.25(1)(a) of Arms Act on the alleged date of incident.

15By overall consideration of the entire evidence of PW1, absolutely, there is no iota of evidence available against accused on trial to show that he possessed material objects illegally and was offering for sale and even the alleged confession under Ex.P2 given to

PW1 by accused is hit by Sec.27 of Evidence Act unless it leads to recovery. PW1 is the official witness and the complainant and he categorically admitted that he did not obtain the signatures of accused on Ex.P2 panchanama and alleged panch witnesses are not local residents. Therefore, the authenticity of Ex.P2 panchanama prepared by PW1 pertaining to the accused regarding confession and seizure of material objects from the possession of accused on the alleged date of incident is doubtful and prosecution failed to connect the accused with the alleged offence with cogent and convincing evidence. The evidence of PW1 is suffering with latches and infirmities with regard to manner of investigation conducted by him to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence alleged against him.

16In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered view that prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

17In the result, Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the charge under Sec.25(1)(a) of Arms Act and he is acquitted for the said charge in terms of Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand 6 cancelled. MO1 and 2 shall be sent to CAR headquarters, Petlaburj for preservation after appeal time expires.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30th day of January, 2018.

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: PW1. Sri Ch.Kushalkar, Sub Inspector ofPolice, North Zone Task Force, Marredpally, complainant

DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: Ex.P1. Complaint Ex.P2. Confession cum seizure panchanama of accused

DEFENCE: NIL MOs MARKED

PROSECUTION: MO1. Country made Tapancha MO2. Country made revolver along with 3 live rounds

DEFENCE: NIL

X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.