Sri P.Paresh Kumar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Proh. and Excise Act at Eluru -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

PDJ Court Complex Eluru · West Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Sri P.Paresh Kumar, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Proh. and Excise Act at Eluru -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, is posted at PDJ Court Complex Eluru, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,434 court orders on record since 2020. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, DVC, STC cases.

1,434

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/80/2022 Acquitted

The SHO of Eluru III Town PS of W.G.Dist vs Challapalli Vijay Kumar

24 Apr 2023

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Paresh Kumar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) -cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2023

Calendar Case No.80 of 2022

Between:

State: State Sub Inspector of police, Eluru III Town police station Crime No.893/2021 …Complainant

and

1.Challapalli Vijaya Kumar, S/o Musalayya, Age 32 years, Rajaka, Southern Street, Eluru Town.

2.Gattam Madhubabu, S/o Rama Rao, Age 30 years, T.Kapu, Sivagopalapuram, Tangellamudi villag, Eluru Mandal.

3.Dasi Babu, S/o Parasuramayya, Age 38 years, SC Mala, Pddireddivari Street, Satrampadu village, Eluru Mandal.

4.Chidella Pavithra Kumar, S/o Bhima Rao, Age 34 years, Vysya, near Gandhi Statue, Kothuru village, Eluru III Town Mandal.

…A1 to A4

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 20.04.2023 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for complainant and of Sri N. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for Accused 1 to 4; and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station filed this case in Crime No.893/2021 of his station alleging that A1 to A4 have committed the offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Sec. Sec. 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 of Eluru III Town Police Station.

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that L.w.1 Katru Lurdu Raju is the complainant along with his staff L.w.2 to 5 who are officials from Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Eluru conducting ride on 06.12.2021 at about 8.30 a.m., at Padmavathi Super Market beside Neralla Show room, main road, Santhi Nagar, Eluru. There they found one auto loading with some tied bags and we stopped the same. On questioning the driver of auto who is A2, he confessed that as per instructions of his brother in law by name Ch.

Vijaya Kumar (A1) he came to load the PDS rice at Super Market. Further we entered into Super Market, then they questioned one Mr. Dasi Babu (A3) regarding the loading the bags in Auto, then he confessed that he is loading

PDS rice which were collected from card holders in and around the super market as per the request Ch. Pavitra Kumar (A4) for selling the same at higher price. On that we searched the Super Market and found some more rice bags in a room beside the super Market, then they counted the rice bags and found 20 bags in Auto bearing Reg.No. AP 16 TG 5643 and 57 bags in the room each weighing 25 Kgs. Then, L.W.4 opened the bags and found

PDS rice in those bags. For that effect he drafted Mediator report and obtained signatures of A2 and A3. t. Then, L.w.4 with the help of our staff shifted the seized rice and hand over the same for safe custody to Shop No.

69, I Town, Eluru. He taken into custody of A3 and A2 G. Madhu Babu who is driver of Auto and hand over them to III Town Police Station.

3. Basing on the Complaint, L.W.8 registered a case in Cr.No.893/2021 for the offence Under Sec.420 IPC, U.Sec. Sec. 7(1) of E.C. Act, 1955 on 06.12.2021 at 5.30 P.M. and investigated into, during the course of investigation, L.W.8 SI of police inspected the scene of offence and examined all the relevant witnesses at the scene and recorded their 3

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

statements and he served the notice under section 41(a) Cr.P.C. to the accused. After completion of investigation, LW8 SI of Police laid charge sheet against A1 to A4.

4. This Court has taken cognizance for the offence U/Sec.420 of IPC and

Sec. 7(A) of E.C. Act against A1 to A4. Copies of documents were supplied to

A1 to A4 U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. A1 to A4 are examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/Sec. 420 of IPC and Sec. 7(A) of EC Act. Charges has been framed, read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PW5 and marked Ex’s.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On behalf of A1 to A4 none were examined and no documents are marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 are examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material. They denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of all the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 420 of IPC and Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT :

The sum and substance of accusation made against A.1 to A.4 is that,

A1 to A4 was illegally stored PDS rice in 20 bags in Auto bearing Reg.No. AP 16 TG 5643 and 57 bags in the room each weighing 25 Kgs at Padmavathi

Super Market beside Neralla Show room, main road, Santhi Nagar, Eluru..

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

which is being supplied by the Government to the poor people and for selling it at higher price in contravention of Essential Commodities Act , with a dishonest intention and thereby cheated the Government and public attracting the ingredients of section 420 IPC and section 7(1) of Essential

Commodities Act, when they were asked to answer the said charge, they pleaded not guilty and as such, the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused and produced the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 coupled with Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.6. PW1 Sri K. Lurdhu Raju, VRO, PW2 Sri P. Ravi Kumar, Assistant

Registrar, P.W.3 P. Grace Kamala, P.W.4 V. Ranga Rao, Independent witness, P.W.5 S. Sankar, SI of police is Investigating Officer.

11. PW1 Sri K. Lurdhu Raju, VRO deposed in his evidence that on 06.12.2021 at about 8.30 a.m., he received a phone call from L.W.4 request to come to Village Secretary along with other VRO for the purpose of conducting ride regarding PDS rice, then he himself along with L.W.2 went to

Secretariat by 8.45 a.m. from there myself, L.W.2, L.W.4 along with some other staff went to scene of offence i.e., Padmavathi Super Market beside

Neralla Show room, main road, Santhi Nagar, Eluru. There they found one auto loading with some tied bags and we stopped the same. On questioning the driver of auto who is A2, he confessed that as per instructions of his brother in law by name Ch. Vijaya Kumar (A1) he came to load the PDS rice at Super Market. Further they entered into Super Market, then they questioned one Mr. Dasi Babu (A3) regarding the loading the bags in Auto, then he confessed that he is loading PDS rice which were collected from card holders in and around the super market as per the request Ch. Pavitra

Kumar (A4) for selling the same at higher price. On that they searched the

Super Market and found some more rice bags in a room beside the super

Market, then we counted the rice bags and found 20 bags in Auto bearing

Reg.No. AP 16 TG 5643 and 57 bags in the room each weighing 25 Kgs.

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

Then, L.W.4 opened the bags and found PDS rice in those bags. For that effect he drafted Mediator report and obtained signatures of A2 and A3.

Further he taken into custody of A3 and A2 G. Madhu Babu who is driver of

Auto and hand over them to III Town Police Station. During cross examination of P.W.1, he did not receive written requisition either from

CSDT or Vigilance Department to act as mediator in this case. Further he admitted that Goods will transported from wholesale merchants to retail merchants and no license is required. No stencil marks appeared on the bags we seized. Further he admitted that PDS rice bags stencil marks will be appeared on it. Further he admitted that he did not obtain written permission from MRO to act as mediator in the present case. Further he admitted that the rice is exempted from the purview of EC Act and he know

Central Government issued G.O. about exemption and basing on the said

G.O. the State government also issued another G.O.Ms.No. 79, in the year 2005 to exempt the rice from the purview of EC Act and he admitted that he know for transporting of rice, no permission is required from any authorities in the purview of EC Act. Further he admitted that if the card holder of PDS rice misuse the card in any form he is liable to cancel the card. Further he admitted that they did not send the PDS rice neither to FSSAI nor to FSL to conclude whether the seized rice is PDS rice or normal rice. Further he admitted that the police did not examine any cardholders of the seized rice from whom accused picked the rice.

12. PW2 P. Ravi Kumar, Assistant Registrar deposed in the same lines as stated by P.W.1 apart from he hand over the vhicle, stock and A2,

A3 to L.W.4 for further action. During Cross examination of P.W.2, he admitted that the rice is exempted from the purview of EC Act and he know

Central Government issued G.O. about exemption and basing on the said

G.O. the State government also issued another G.O.Ms.No. 79, in the year 6

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

2005 to exempt the rice from the purview of EC Act. Further he admitted that if the card holder of PDS rice misuse the card in any form he is liable to cancel the card. Further he admitted that the vigilance officials did not send the PDS rice neither to FSSAI nor to FSL to conclude whether the seized rice is PDS rice or normal rice. Further he admitted that the police did not examine any cardholders of the seized rice from whom accused picked the rice. Further he admitted that he did not receive any written proceedings from MRO for participating in this ride.

13. P.W.3 P. Grace Kamala, Ration Dealer deposed that on 06.12.2021,

P.W.2, L.W.4 came to his shop and hand over him the seized PDS rice of 77 packets each weighing about 25 kgs from Padmavathi Super Markert, Santhi

Nagar, for that effect he issued a receipt to them. Further he admitted that the PDS rice containing Stencil marks.

14. PW4 (Sri V. Ranga Rao), who is independent witness did not speak any incriminating material and he turned hostile to the case of prosecution and his statement is marked as in Ex.P.3.

15. The evidence of L.W.2 Nara Tarkesh, L.W.3 K. Venkateswara Rao and

Sri K. Ramesh Kumar are given up by learned APP.

16. PW.5 Sri S. Sankar SI of police who is the investigating officer deposed in his evidence that and basing on Ex.P.1, he registered a case in

Crime No. 893/2021, U.Sec. 420 R/w 34 IPC and U.Sec. 7 (1) of EC Act and issued Ex.P.4 FIR and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.5 and examined witnesses and recorded their statements and he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

Notice to A1 to A.4 and released them on obtaining their personal bonds, and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against A1 to A4.

During the cross examination of P.W.5, he registered many cases U.Sec. 7 of

EC act after assuming his charge as SHO at Eluru III Town , he cannot say 7

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

exactly which are the food grains come under purview of E.C. Act, that he admitted that he did not investigate anything in this case

17. As could be seen from the material brought on record, it appears that, basing on Ex.P.1 mediators report said to have been prepared, where under

PW1 having noticed that, the load contains is of PDS rice which is stored at rice mill. PW5 Sub-Inspector of police registered Ex.P.4 FIR, for the offence u/section 420 r/w 34 IPC and section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act and took up investigation. Two points would emerge in the case at hand, for bringing home their guilt, (1) whether accused have got any dishonest intention of cheating the Government and public by way of transportation of

PDS rice attracting the ingredients of section 420 IPC? and; (2) Whether they have committed the offence of diversion of food grains of 77 rice bags which is meant for distribution to the public at fair price shops attracting the ingredients of section 7 of Essential Commodities Act?

18. In so far as the first point is concerned, for attracting the offence under section 420 IPC and make any person liable the prosecution is required to prove that, accused have made misrepresentation and in pursuance of such misrepresentation, the other party is induced to part with from immovable property or any other property, but here in this case police did not examine the card holders from whom the accused have purchased the PDS rice.

Without examining the card holders, it is impossible to prove that the alleged offence committed by the accused is satisfying the ingredients of Sec 420 of IPC and how the prosecution proves that the alleged accused cheated and dishonestly induced the card holders and deceived to deliver the PDS rice.

19. In the case at hand, the recitals under Ex.P.1 mediators report, clearly would indicate that, on the enquiry made by them, A1 to A4 was illegally stored PDS rice of 1925 KGs at Padmavathi Super Market beside Neralla

Show room, main road, Santhi Nagar, Eluru, which is being supplied by the 8

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

Government to the poor people and for selling it at higher price in contravention of Essential Commodities Act , with a dishonest intention and thereby cheated the Government and public attracting the ingredients of section 420 IPC and section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, in the meanwhile the police caught hold the A1 to A4. However, PW5 did not support the case of prosecution and he resiled from the previous contents and he was declared hostile by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

20. Thus, apparently from the very contents of Ex.P.1 Mediator’s report that, the investigating officer did not examine any of the said public to know whether there was any inducement, for purchasing the rice from them, the property in question as contended by prosecution. If that could be so, it is for the investigating agency to investigate on those lines by examining the concerned persons to know whether the material in question comes under

PDS Scheme or the rice alone is being transported, for the reason as was admitted by the witnesses that transportation of rice is not an offence.

Except the alleged confession of A1 covered by Ex.P.1, no other independent evidence fixing liability of A1 to A4 is brought on record by prosecution. The investigating officer PW4 ought to have recorded the confession of A1 to A4 separately in order to fix them within the definition of section 420 IPC for coming to the conclusion that, they have got dishonest intention from the inception. However, for the reasons best known to prosecution it could not have any measures or equipment to identify whether the seized rice is government rice or normal rice.

21. In regard to the offence under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act is concerned, no doubt the evidence on record indicates that, the team of officers have checked the Super Market and on verification of Rice Mill in the presence of PW1 and PW2 , it is revealed that, It contains rice. It is the claim of the officers who inspected the super market and found the rice that, 9

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

it is PDS rice. Further, PW4 who is the independent witness did not depose any incriminating material to support the case of prosecution. Admittedly, the investigating officer did not examine the owner of Super market and there is no corroboration in the evidence regarding the evidentiary of getting permission from either MRO or from collector or from Joint Collector for seizing the paddy as per the G.O.No.29.

22. The counsel for accused argued that so far as the seizure of rice is not disputed by the accused. The main point for consideration is whether the case under Section 7(1) of E.C. Act is maintainable against the accused in respect of rice. In this regard the accused humbly submit that the rice is exempted from E.C.Act with effect from 30th September, 2014 by

Government of India. So for the present to purchase, sell, transport and store the rice, no license is required. The fact is conceded by the P.w.1 in his evidence.

23. Previously also the rice is exempted from Essential Commodities Act with effect from 15.02.2002 till 11.08.2008. During that period when a case is registered against the F.P. Shop dealer who was possession of Food for work Rice under Sect 6A of E.C. Act it went upto High Court. Their Lordships of HOnble High Court upheld that no case is maintainable in respect of rcie under Section 6A of E.C. Act even if the seized rice is P.D.S. rice as the rice is no longer Essential commodity. The said decision is reported in 2006(2)

L.S. at page 438. Again from 12.08.2008 to the rice is included in E.C.Act till it is exempted from the purview of E.C. Act on 30th September, 2014. So the above cited decision is applicable to the present case. When once the case under section 6A is not maintainable Section 7(1) of E.C. Act also is not applicable. So the above case is not maintainable against the accused and they are liable to be discharge from the said offence.

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

24. Apart from legal position coming to the facts of the case the prosecution failed to prove whether the stock in transit is PDS rice or not.

Except the alleged confession made by A1 to A4 there is no independence evidence to prove that the rice is transit, the rice purchased from the card holders. The alleged confession recorded by the investigation officers is not admissible in evidence and the admissibility of such confession recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is the evidence of Prosecution witnesses that one cannot rice is PDS or other rice. The P.W.1 clearly conceded the exemption of rice from the purview of E.C. Act.

25. Coming to the offence under Section 420 IPC the same is not applicable to the present case as it is the case of the prosecution that they purchased the rice from the card holders. When the purchased the rice

Section 420 has no application. The another important fact that in this case is that the Vigilance and Enforcement Authority has no power or sanction to seize any of the Food Grains without prior permission in writing from the

Joint Collector of District Collector as per the provisions is mandatory. But no such permission is obtained by the Vigilance and Enforcement authority in the present case. As per the provisions of E.C. Act the office not below the rank of Sub Inspector of Police is empower to conduct raids and seize the food grains. But in the present case it is the Head Constable who left the team. These irregularities in the search and seizure vitiates and entire proceedings.

26. The main contention of accused is that, only on suspicion that, the load contains PDS rice, the team of officers checked rice mill and there is no evidence to show that, the property contains PDS rice and even otherwise rice is exempted from the separation of Essential Commodities Act and as such, Section 7 (1) of Essential Commodities Act have no application to the 11

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

case on hand. PW1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 in their cross examination have admitted that, they had no idea whether the seized rice is PDS or not. PW5 in his cross examination he also admitted that he has no measures or equipment whether the seized rice is PDS or normal rice and further P.W.1,

P.W2, P.W.5 admitted that they know the rice is exempted from the category of essential categories from April, 2015. Therefore, the evidence of

PW1, PW2 and P.W.5 is not much helpful to the prosecution, for arriving at a definite conclusion that, the property in question comes under PDS scheme without there being any substantive piece of evidence. At this juncture this court relied on a decision reported in M/S. SRI SAI TRADERS &

ANOTHER, VIJAYAWADA VS. THE ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICER,

VIJAYAWADA & OTHERS 1 wherein it was categorically stated that, rice is not liable for seizure on suspicion that, it is meant for PDS rice. Admittedly, in the case at hand the prosecution could not place any legal and acceptable evidence to show that, the rice under seizure will come under the category of PDS rice. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the allegation made against the accused under the provisions of Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act are not based on sound material. Therefore, placing reliance on such unreliable and inconsistent evidence which is not based on sound principles of law, it is highly unsafe to connect the accused on this count.

27. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that, the prosecution failed to establish the allegations made against the accused on both the counts and as such, A1 to A4 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

28. In the result, I find that, A.1 to A.4 are not guilty for the offences punishable under section 420 r/w 34 IPC and section 7(1) of Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused 1 to 4, if 12

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

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

Cr.P.C. The unmarked Case property i.e., Auto bearing No. AP 16 TG 5643 which was given in Crl.M.P.No. 398/2021, dated 31.12.2021, towards interim custody to the owner of the property shall be retained with him on the same conditions imposed earlier till the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/ Sri P.Paresh Kumar

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: NIL PW.1: Sri K. Lurdhu Raju, VRO PW.2: Sri P. Ravi Kumar, Assistant Registrar, APFU

PW.3: Sri P. Grace Kamala, Ration Dealer

PW.4: Sri V. Ranga Rao, Coolie

PW.5: Sri S. Sankar, S.I police

Documents Marked For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P1: Mediators report. Ex.P2: Custodian Report Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P4: FIR in Cr.No 893/2021 Ex.P5: Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P6: is the Medaitor’s report for releasing crime vehicle.

Material Objects Marked

--NIL--

Sd/ Sri P.Paresh Kumar

SJMFC(M)-CUM-III AJCJ

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.80/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, (MOBILE), ELURU.

DATE OF

Offence Complaint or ApprehenRelease Commence-Close of Order of report sion on bail ment of trial trial sentence of accused 06.12.2021 06.12.2021 Sec. 41-A -- 02.11.2022 20.04.2023 24.04.2023 Cr.P.C.

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Complainant : State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station. Crime No.893 of 2021

S.No. Name of the Father’s name Age Religion Sex Calling Village Mandal Accused

1.Challapalli Vijaya Kumar, S/o Musalayya, Age 32 years, Rajaka, Southern Street, Eluru Town.

2.Gattam Madhubabu, S/o Rama Rao, Age 30 years, T.Kapu, Sivagopalapuram, Tangellamudi villag, Eluru Mandal.

3.Dasi Babu, S/o Parasuramayya, Age 38 years, SC Mala, Pddireddivari Street, Satrampadu village, Eluru Mandal.

4.Chidella Pavithra Kumar, S/o Bhima Rao, Age 34 years, Vysya, near Gandhi Statue, Kothuru village, Eluru III Town Mandal. A1 to A4

Offence: Under Section 420 of IPC and section 7(1) of E.C.Act.

Crime No. 893 of 2021

Finding : Found Not guilty.

RESULT::

In the result, I find that, A.1 to A.4 are not guilty for the offences punishable under section 420 r/w 34 IPC and section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused 1 to 4, if any, shall be in force 14

Date:: 24.04.2023 CC No.80 of 2022

for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked

Case property i.e., Auto bearing No. AP 16 TG 5643 which was given in

Crl.M.P.No. 398/2021, dated 31.12.2021, towards interim custody to the

owner of the property shall be retained with him on the same conditions imposed earlier till the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/ Sri P.Paresh Kumar

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

Seal: Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.

CC/572/2022 Acquitted

The SHO pedapadu Ps vs Vegireddy Ramamohan Rao

24 Apr 2023

CC No.572 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Paresh Kumar,

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) -cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2023

C. C. No.764 of 2022

Between: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station. …. Complainant -Vs-

1. Vegireddi Ramamohan Rao, S/o Venkatarao, Age 25 years, K. Velma, Gandicheruvu Gattu, Pedapadu Mandal, Driver of Bolero Pick Up Van No. AP 39 TN 7860.

2. Sri Chittibommala Nagaraju, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 50 years, C/ K. Velama, Vasanthawada, Pedapadu.

3. Jayamangala Rangababu, S/o Ramulu, Age 35 years, C/Vaddilu, Vaddigudem, Pedapadu Mandal.

…. A1 to A3

This case coming before me for final hearing on 20.04.2023 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri P. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for A1 to A.3 and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station filed this case in

Crime No.202/2022 of his station alleging that A1 to A3 have committed the offences punishable under Section 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 of the

Indian Penal Code of Pedapadu Police Station.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 28.05.2022 at about 11.30

A.M., on credible information, L.W.6. ASI of Police, Pedapadu Police Station, along with his staff and mediators i.e., L.W.1 and L.W.2 went to scene of offence i.e., at the Fish tank of A3 at Vaddigudem village, Pedapadu Mandal, that on conducting vehicle checking by L.W.6, they found Bolero Pick up van 2

CC No.572 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023 bearing No. AP 39 TN 7860 approaching them and LW6 with the help of his staff stopped the vehicle and checked the same, bad smell coming from the vehicle and on suspicion, LW6 questioned the driver of the vehicle by name,

Vegireddi Rama Mohana Rao (A1), so that he stated his name and identity particulars, further confessed that he is the driver of the vehicle and he is working under Chittibommala Nagaraju (A2) who is the owner of the said vehicle. He further confessed that as per instructions of A2, he collected the chicken waste surroundings of Hyderabad chicken shops and transported the same to the fish tanks of J. Rangababu (A3) for the purpose of fish feed, then LW6 SI of Police secured the custody of A1 and seized the said van along with load. Then L.w.1 drafted the mediator report.

3. On the strength of the Mediator’s report, a case was registered in

Cr.No.202/2022 u/Secs.269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, again L.W.7 visited the scene of offence, prepared the rough sketch and examined all the charge sheeted witnesses, that L.W.7 served the notices to the accused U.S. 41-A

Cr.P.C to the accused and after completion of investigation, LW.7 laid charge sheet against A1 to A3.

4. This Court has taken cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A3. Copies of documents were supplied to A1 to A3 U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. A1 to A3 are examined under section 251

Cr.P.C. for the offence under sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 IPC, and whereupon, the accusation was read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, they denied to have committed the offence and claimed to be tried.

CC No.572 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023

5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex’s.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked. On behalf of the A1 to A3 none were examined and no documents are marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 are examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material. They denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt that A1 to A3 committed the offences punishable under

***sections* 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 *of I.P.C, as alleged by***

the prosecution?

9. P O I N T

The prosecution has cited as many as 7 witnesses and examined 3 witnesses. PW.1 is the VRO, P.Ws. 2 is independent witnesses. P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer.

10. P.W.1 Smt. N. Baby Rani, Village Revenue Officer, deposes in her evidence that on 28.05.2022 at about 11.30 A.M., She received phone call from L.W.6 ASI of Police, Pedapadu Police Station and then she herself and

L.W.2 went to police station and then she herself, L.W.6 along with his staff

PCs L.Ws 3 and 4 went to scene of offence i.e., at the Fish tank of A3 at

Vaddigudem village, Pedapadu Mandal, that on conducting vehicle checking by L.W.6, they found Bolero Pick up van bearing No. AP 39 TN 7860 approaching them and LW6 with the help of his staff stopped the vehicle and checked the same, bad smell coming from the vehicle and on suspicion, LW6 questioned the driver of the vehicle by name, Vegireddi Rama Mohana Rao (A1), so that he stated his name and identity particulars, further confessed that he is the driver of the vehicle and he is working under Chittibommala

Nagaraju (A2) who is the owner of the said vehicle. He further confessed 4

CC No.572 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023 that as per instructions of A2, he collected the chicken waste surroundings of

Hyderabad chicken shops and transported the same to the fish tanks of J.

Rangababu (A3) for the purpose of fish feed, then LW6 ASI of Police secured the custody of A1 and seized the said van along with load. Then she drafted the mediator report as Ex.A1. She herself, L.W.7, SI of police and driver have signed on it. On the same day at about 2.00 PM on the request of

L.W.7, she herself and LW.2 to act as mediators for the destruction of chicken waste, that as per the instructions of Tahasildar, Pedapadu they destructed the seized load i.e., chicken waste under a cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. PW.1 further deposed that she along with LW.2 acted as mediators for releasing of vehicle as per the directions of Honble court,

L.W.7 returned crime vehicle to owner of the vehicle i.e., A.2.

11. During the cross examination of P.W.1, she admitted that she did not mention about her moment in the Moment Register on the date of incident.

Further she admitted that place of offence is located at the middle of village.

Further she admitted that she did not obtain the signatures of Police constable who were present at the time of preparing Ex.P.1. Further she admitted that she never received any information regarding transportation of chicken waste from public. Police did not take samples from the seized load for the purpose of chemical examination. Further she admitted that no one can say whether the chicken waste material or not without conducting chemical analysis. Further she admitted that she never received destruction proceedings from his MRO. Further she admitted that she did not collect the signatures of Proclainer operators who destructed the said load. Further she admitted that she did not remember how much time spent for destruction proceedings.

12. P.W.2 who is independent witness did not speak any incriminating material and he turned hostile to the case of prosecution and his statements is marked as in Ex.P.4.

CC No.572 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023

13. The evidences of L.W.2 Sri Vemuri Daveedu Raju, VRA, L.W.3 K.

Nagaraju, PC 2126, L.w.4 B. Yesubabu, 2085 and L.W.7 Sri B. Nagababu, SI of police are given-up by APP.

14. P.W.3 B. Srinivasa Rao, ASI of police Pedapadu Police Station who is the investigating officer deposes his line of investigation corroborating the evidence of P.w.1 and basing on Ex.P.1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.202/2022 U.Sec. 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w 34 IPC and examined witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch and he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to A1 to A.3 and released them on obtaining their personal bonds. Further he obtained the letter from veterinary Doctor to confirm the seized material is chicken waste as Ex.P.9. On the same day they have obtained destructions proceedings from Tahsildar of Pedapadu mandal and on the same day they destructed the chicken waste in the presence of PW1 and L.W.2., as per the instructions of the Hon’ble court he returned the crime vehicle to its original owner and after completion of investigation L.w.8 laid charge sheet against the accused.

15. During cross examination of P.W.3, he admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. Further he admitted that he did not send the samples to Pollution Control board. Further he admitted that he did not obtain signatures of his constables in Ex.P.1. Further he admitted that he did not mention the description of cement bags in Ex.P.2. Further he admitted that one cannot say whether transported item it is waste item or useful without conducting chemical analysis.

CC No.572 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023 infections. The said poul smell polluted the fresh air. The said material was used for the purpose of feeding the fish. As such, the investigating officer seized the said vehicle, basing on the confession made by A1 under a cover of Ex.P1 mediator report and proceeded further and filed charge sheet against A1 to A.3.

17. As per the version of PW.3 immediately after seizure of the waste material from the possession of accused, a requisition was made before

Indira Gandhi, Tahsildar & Executive Magistrate of Pedpadu Mandal to issue destruction proceedings. Basing on the requisition, she issued proceedings for destruction of the said waste material. But she did not insist the police for production of any photographs or any evidence to show with regard to the seizure of the said waste material. Basing on the sole requisition made by the police, she blindly issued proceedings without conducting proper enquiry. It clearly shows that she was not properly discharged her official duties. At the same time, the requisition made before her was not exhibited

before the Court during the course of evidence. After receiving the

proceedings, the said waste material was destroyed by PW.1 and L.W.2 in the presence of police under a cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. But, Ex.P2 did not contain the signatures of any coolies or the driver of proclainer who buried the same by digging a pit. PW.1 and LW.2/Sri V. Daveedu Raju-VRA are only signed on the said mediator report. It also creates a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the preparation of Ex.P2 at the scene of offence. There is every possibility to prepare the said report in the police station and PW.1 and other witness might have signed on it to honour the request of police. Though Exs.P1 and P2 taken into consideration, the prosecution must establish the seizure of said material from the possession of the accused by placing cogent evidence before the Court.

18. At the same time, it is an admitted fact that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality. During the course of evidence the Investigating 7

CC No.572 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023 Officer secured the independent eye witness at scene of offence, but the independent eye witness (Pw.2) turned hostile to the case of prosecution and he did not support the case of prosecution. As per the evidence of

PWs.1 and 3, on the same day the seized chicken waste material was destroyed in the presence of PW.1 and LW.2 under a cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. The said mediator report also contains the signatures of

PW.1 and LW.2 only. By the time also the investigating officer did not make any effort to obtain the signatures of any coolies or the driver of proclainer and same was correctly pointed out by the counsel for the accused during the course of cross examination. If really the said material was destroyed in the presence of coolies and driver of proclainer, there is every possibility to obtain the signatures on it. The above referred circumstance clearly goes to show that Exs.P1 and P2 were prepared in the police station itself without visiting the respective scene of offences. The entire cross examination of

PWs.1 and 4 clearly goes to show that no sample was drawn from the seized chicken waste material, in order to send the same for analysis. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to believe the evidence of

PWs.1 and 4 with regard to their visit to the scene of offence and seizure of chicken waste material from the possession of accused.

19. As per the case of prosecution, the seized waste material was brought by A1 to the fish tanks of A3. Admittedly, there is no iota of evidence before the Court, to show that A3 is the owner of the fish tank in question. During the course of investigation, PW.3 did not make any attempt to secure the ownership particulars of the fish tank of A3. Even he did not choose to examine any of the revenue officials to know about the particulars of fish tank situated in that locality. Without securing any document, it cannot be said that the said waste material was meant for the fish tanks of A3. All the above referred circumstances clearly go to show that the police failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences leveled against them.

CC No.572 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023

20. The other important aspect to be considered in this case is, that the very cause of seizure of said waste material by the police, that it was emanating bad smell and also injurious to the human health. The poul smell emanating from the said waste material also spoiled the health of inhabitants in that locality. That it will be also polluted the atmosphere and created environmental problems. Except the above said bold allegations in

Ex.P1 mediator report, there is no iota of evidence before the Court to show that the said material causes the above referred damages. Even as per the evidence of PW.3, he did not receive any complaint from the nearby inhabitants in that locality by complaining about the bad smell emanating from the waste material. The investigating officer did not secure any document from the Environmental Authorities to know about the damage going to be caused by the waste material. Without any document showing the future consequences of the seized waste material, it cannot be said that it was injurious to the human health and it will spread viral infections.

Further, the investigating officer failed to follow the guidelines issued by the

Government in GOMS.No.56 dated 04.11.2016. As per the above said GO, immediately after seizure of any chicken waste material the investigating officer has to conduct panchanama in the presence of members of the committee, as referred in the GO. But in this case, the investigating officer did not follow the rules and regulations as contemplated in the above said

GO. He did not inform the seizure of waste material to all the stakeholders, as referred in the above said GO. As such, it can safely conclude that the alleged seizure from the possession of accused was contrary to the rules and regulations as contemplated in the above said GO. Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the said material from the possession of accused, in order to tag them for the offences leveled against them. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of A.1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the 9

CC No.572 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023 benefit of doubt certainly goes in favour of A1 to A3. Accordingly, Point is answered.

21. In the result, I find that A.1 to A3 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences under section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 if any, shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked vehicle i.e., Bolero

Pick Up van bearing No. AP 39 TN 7860 which was returned to owner of the vehicle as per orders of Hon’ble Court in Crl.M.P.No. 455/2022 dated 01.07.2022 shall be retained with him on the same conditions imposed earlier till the expiry of appeal time.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and

pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/ Sri P.Paresh Kumar

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW1: Smt. G. Koteswaramma, VRO - NIL – PW2: Sri A. Srinivasa Rao, Independent witness PW3: Sri V. Venkateswara Rao, Independent witness. PW4: Sri B. Nagababu, SI of police.

EXHBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Defence: Ex.P.1: is the Mediator Report - NIL – Ex.P.2: is the Mediator report for destruction of Chicken Waste Ex.P.3: is the Mediator report for releasing crime vehicle. Ex.P.4: is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.5: is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.6: is the FIR in Cr.No.202/2022 of Pedapadu P.S. Ex.P.7: is the Rough Sketch. Ex.P.8: is the Veterinary Doctor letter Ex.P.9: is the Destruction orders. MOS marked:

Nil Sd/ Sri P.P.K.

J.F.C.M. SMC,

Eluru 10

CC No.572 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO:572 of 2022 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SPECIAL MOBILE COURT::

W.G.,ELURU

Date of

Offence Complaint ApprehenRelease Commence-Close of Sentence or report sion of on bail ment of trial of Order accused trial 28.05.2022 28.05.2022 U.Sec. -- 16.02.2023 20.04.23 24.04.23 41-A Cr.P.C.

Explanation for delay: ---- Cr.NO : 202/2022 of Pedapadu Police Station Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station. Offence : Under sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 IPC

Name of the accused:

1. Vegireddi Ramamohan Rao, S/o Venkatarao, Age 25 years, K. Velma, Gandicheruvu Gattu, Pedapadu Mandal, Driver of Bolero Pick Up Van No. AP 39 TN 7860.

2. Sri Chittibommala Nagaraju, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 50 years, C/ K. Velama, Vasanthawada, Pedapadu.

3. Jayamangala Rangababu, S/o Ramulu, Age 35 years, C/Vaddilu, Vaddigudem, Pedapadu Mandal. …. A1 to A3

Finding: Found not guilty Result: In the result, I find that A.1 to A3 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences under section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 if any, shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked vehicle i.e., Bolero

Pick Up van bearing No. AP 39 TN 7860 which was returned to owner of the vehicle as per orders of HOnble High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 455 of 2022 dated 01.07.2022 shall be retained with him on the same conditions imposed earlier till the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/Sri P. Paresh Kumar

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

CC/752/2022 Acquitted

The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Katuri.Manikanta

24 Apr 2023

CC No. 752 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Paresh Kumar,

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) -cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2023

C. C. No.752 of 2022

Between: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station. …. Complainant -Vs-

1. Sri Katuri Manikanta, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 25 years, K. Velama, Eluru.

2. Mogga Durga Rao, S/o Ramana, Age 24 years, kapu, Eluru.

3. Siddabattina Naveen Kumar, S/o Kanthayya, Age 20 years, SC Mala, Naidugudem village of Pedapadu Mandal.

4. Siddabattina Prem Kumar, S/o Raju, Age 45 years, SC Mala, Naidugudem village of Pedapadu Mandal.

…. A1 to A4

This case coming before me for final hearing on 20.04.2023 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri M. Ramesh Babu, Advocate for A1 to A4 and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station filed this case in

Crime No.292/2022 of his station alleging that A1 to A4 have committed the offences punishable under Section 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 of the

Indian Penal Code of Pedapadu Police Station.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on reliable information on 10.08.2022 at about 3.00 P.M. LW7 Smt. B. Vijaya Lakshmi, ASI of police, along with his staff i.e., L.W.3 and 4 and Mediators L.Ws. 1 and 2 went 2

CC No. 752 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023 scene of offence i.e, at Outskirts of Vasanthavada village, Pedapadu mandal, while they conducting vehicle checking by L.W.7, they found one Eicher Van bearing Reg. No. AP 16 TH 7886 and checked the same, bad smell coming from the vehicles and on suspicion, LW7 questioned the owner of the vehicle, by name Katuri Manikanta (A1), so that he confessed that he is working as driver under S. Prem Kumar (A4), on the instructions of A4, A1 to A3 (A2 who is another driver of said vehicle and A3 who is clearner of said vehicle) collected the chicken waste surroundings of Hyderabad and transported the same to in and around villages of Pedapadu for the purpose of fish tank of A4. On enquiry A2 and A3, they deposed the same as stated by A1. Then he secured custody into A1 to A3 and seized the said vehicle along with load. Then L.W.1 drafted Mediator’s report.

3. On the strength of the Mediator’s report, a case was registered in

Cr.No.292/2022 u/Secs.269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, again L.W.7 visited the scene of offence, prepared the rough sketch and examined all the charge sheeted witnesses, that L.W.7 served the notices to the accused U.S. 41-A

Cr.P.C to the accused and after completion of investigation, LW.8 laid charge sheet against A1 to A4.

4. This Court has taken cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A4. Copies of documents were supplied to A1 to A4 U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. A1 to A4 are examined under section 251

Cr.P.C. for the offence under sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 IPC, and whereupon, the accusation was read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, they denied to have committed the offence and claimed to be tried.

CC No. 752 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023

5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex’s.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked. On behalf of the A1 to A4 none were examined and no documents are marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 are examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material. They denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

8. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt that A1 to A4 committed the offences punishable under

***sections* 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 *of I.P.C, as alleged by***

the prosecution?

9. P O I N T

The prosecution has cited as many as 8 witnesses and examined 3witnesses. PW.1 is the defacto complainant and VRO, PW.2 is the independent witness. P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer.

10. P.W.1 Ms. G. Koteswaramma, Village Revenue Officer, deposes in her evidence that on 10.08.2022 at about 3.00 P.M., she received phone call from L.W.7 ASI of Police, Pedapadu Police Station and then she herself and L.W.2 went to scene of offence i.e., Outskirts of Vasanthavada village,

Pedapadu mandal, while they conducting vehicle checking by L.W.7, they found one Eicher Van bearing Reg. No. AP 16 TH 7886 and checked the same, bad smell coming from the vehicles and on suspicion, LW7 questioned the owner of the vehicle, by name Katuri Manikanta (A1), so that he confessed that he is working as driver under S. Prem Kumar (A4), on the instructions of A4, A1 to A3 (A2 who is another driver of said vehicle and

A3 who is clearner of said vehicle) collected the chicken waste surroundings of Hyderabad and transported the same to in and around villages of 4

CC No. 752 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023

Pedapadu for the purpose of fish tank of A4. On enquiry A2 and A3, they deposed the same as stated by A1.. Then she drafted the mediator report as Ex.P1. She herself, L.W.2, ASI of police and driver have signed on it. On the same day at about 4.00 PM on the request of L.W.7, she herself and

LW.2 to act as mediators for the destruction of chicken waste, that as per the instructions of Tahasildar, Pedapadu they destructed the seized load i.e., chicken waste under a cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. PW.1 further deposed that she along with LW.2 acted as mediators for releasing of vehicles as per the directions of Honble court, L.W.8 returned crime vehicles to owner of the vehicles under the cover of Mediator reports Ex.P.3.

11. During the cross examination of P.W.1, she admitted that she did not mention about her moment in the Moment Register on the date of incident. Further she admitted that place of offence is located at the middle of village. Further she admitted that she did not obtain the signatures of

Police constable who were present at the time of preparing Ex.P.1. Further she admitted that she never received any information regarding transportation of chicken waste from public. Police did not take samples from the seized load for the purpose of chemical examination. Further she admitted that no one can say whether the chicken waste material or not without conducting chemical analysis. Further she admitted that she never received destruction proceedings from her MRO. Further she admitted that she did not collect the signatures of Proclainer operators who destructed the said load. Further she admitted that she did not remember how much time spent for destruction proceedings.

12. P.Ws.2 who is independent witness did not speak any incriminating material and he turned hostile to the case of prosecution and his statement is marked as in Ex.P.4.

CC No. 752 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023

13. The evidences of L.W.2 V. Daveedu Raju, VRA Pedapadu, L.W.3 G.

Venkaetswara Rao, PC 2398, L.W.4 P.V. Satyanarayana PC 2399, L.W.8 Sri

B. Nagababu, SI of police are given-up by APP. The evidence of L.W.5

Sambangi Sarveswara Rao is closed.

14. P.W.3 Smt. B. Vijaya Lakshmi, ASI of police Pedapadu Police Station who is the investigating officer deposes her line of investigation corroborating the evidence of P.w.1 and basing on Ex.P.1, she registered a case in Cr.No.292/2022 U.Sec. 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w 34 IPC and examined witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch and he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to A1 to A.4 and released them on obtaining their personal bonds. Further she obtained the letter from veterinary Doctor to confirm the seized material is chicken waste as Ex.P.7.

On the same day they have obtained destructions proceedings from

Tahsildar of Pedapadu mandal and on the same day they destructed the chicken waste in the presence of PW1 and L.W.2., as per the instructions of the hon’ble court she returned the crime vehicles to its original owners and after completion of investigation she laid charge sheet against the accused.

15. During cross examination of P.W.3, she admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. Further she admitted that they did not secure independent witnesses from the scene of offence. Further she admitted that she did not send the samples to Pollution Control board. Further she admitted that she did not mention the description of cement bags in Ex.P.2.

Further she admitted that one cannot say whether transported item it is waste item or useful without conducting chemical analysis.

16. On summing up the entire evidence and documents available on record, the case of the prosecution is that A1 to A3 were transporting the chicken waste material in vehicles, who supplied the said material to the fish tanks of A4. The said material was emanating poul smell and polluted the 6

CC No. 752 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023 atmosphere in that locality, thereby, spreading the viral infections. The said poul smell polluted the fresh air. The said material was used for the purpose of feeding the fish. As such, the investigating officer seized the said vehicle, basing on the confession made by A1 to A4 under a cover of Ex.P1 mediator report and proceeded further and filed charge sheet against A1 to A.4.

17. As per the version of PW.4 immediately after seizure of the waste material from the possession of accused, a requisition was made before

before the Court during the course of evidence. After receiving the

proceedings, the said waste material was destroyed by PW.1 and L.W.2 in the presence of police under a cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. But, Ex.P2 did not contain the signatures of any coolies or the driver of proclainer who buried the same by digging a pit. PW.1 and LW.2 are only signed on the said mediator report. It also creates a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the preparation of Ex.P2 at the scene of offence. There is every possibility to prepare the said report in the police station and PW.1 and other witness might have signed on it to honour the request of police. Though Exs.P1 and

P2 taken into consideration, the prosecution must establish the seizure of said material from the possession of the accused by placing cogent evidence

before the Court.

CC No. 752 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023

18. At the same time, it is an admitted fact that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality. During the course of evidence the Investigating

Officer secured the independent eye witness at scene of offence, but the independent eye witnesses (Pw.2) turned hostile to the case of prosecution and they did not support the case of prosecution. As per the evidence of

PWs.1 and 3 clearly goes to show that no sample was drawn from the seized chicken waste material, in order to send the same for analysis. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to believe the evidence of

PWs.1 and 3 with regard to their visit to the scene of offence and seizure of chicken waste material from the possession of accused.

19. As per the case of prosecution, the seized waste material was brought by Accused to the fish tanks of A4. Admittedly, there is no iota of evidence

before the Court, to show that A4 is the owner of the fish tank in question.

During the course of investigation, PW.3 did not make any attempt to secure the ownership particulars of the fish tanks of A4. Even he did not choose to examine any of the revenue officials to know about the particulars of fish 8

CC No. 752 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023 tank situated in that locality. Without securing any document, it cannot be said that the said waste material was meant for the fish tanks of A4. All the above referred circumstances clearly go to show that the police failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences leveled against them.

Further, the investigating officer failed to follow the guidelines issued by the

GO. He did not inform the seizure of waste material to all the stakeholders, as referred in the above said GO. As such, it can safely conclude that the 9

CC No. 752 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023 alleged seizure from the possession of accused was contrary to the rules and regulations as contemplated in the above said GO. Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the said material from the possession of accused, in order to tag them for the offences leveled against them. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of A.1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favour of A1 to A4. Accordingly, Point is answered.

21. In the result, I find that A.1 to A4 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences under section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C... The unmarked vehicle i.e., Eiecher van bearing NO. AP 16 TH 7886 which was returned to owner of the vehicle as per orders of Hon’ble Court in Crl.M.P.No. 479/2022 dated 24.08.2022 shall be retained with him on the same conditions imposed earlier till the expiry of appeal time.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and

pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/Sri P.Paredsh Kumar

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW1: Smt. G. Koteswaramma, VRO - NIL –

PW2: Sri A. Yesubabu, Independent witness.

PW3: Smt. B. Vijaya Lakshmi, ASI 10

CC No. 752 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023

EXHBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P.1: is the Mediator Report - NIL –

Ex.P.2:is the Mediator report for destruction of Chicken Waste

Ex.P.3: is the Mediator report for releasing crime vehicle.

Ex.P.4: is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.5: is the FIR in Cr.No.292/2022 of Pedapadu P.S.

Ex.P.6: is the Rough Sketch.

Ex.P.7: is the Veterinary Doctor Letter.

Ex.P.8: is the Destruction orders.

MOS marked:

Nil Sd/Sri P.P.K.

J.F.C.M. SMC,

Eluru 11

CC No. 752 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru dt.24.04.2023

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO:752 of 2022 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SPECIAL MOBILE COURT::

W.G.,ELURU

Date of

Offence Complaint ApprehenRelease Commence-Close of Sentence or report sion of on bail ment of trial of Order accused trial 10.08.2022 10.08.2022 U.Sec. 41--- 02.02.2023 20.04.23 24.04.23 A Cr.P.C.

Explanation for delay: ---- Cr.NO : 292/2022 of Pedapadu Police Station Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station. Offence : Under sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 IPC Name of the accused:

1. Sri Katuri Manikanta, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 25 years, K. Velama, Eluru.

2. Mogga Durga Rao, S/o Ramana, Age 24 years, kapu, Eluru.

3. Siddabattina Naveen Kumar, S/o Kanthayya, Age 20 years, SC Mala, Naidugudem village of Pedapadu Mandal.

4. Siddabattina Prem Kumar, S/o Raju, Age 45 years, SC Mala, Naidugudem village of Pedapadu Mandal.

Finding: Found not guilty Result: In the result, I find that A.1 to A4 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C... The unmarked vehicle i.e., Eiecher van bearing NO. AP 16 TH 7886 which was returned to owner of the vehicle as per orders of Hon’ble Court in Crl.M.P.No. 479/2022 dated 24.08.2022 shall be retained with him on the same conditions imposed earlier till the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/ Sri P. Paresh Kumar

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

CC/788/2022 Acquitted

The SHO pedapadu PS vs Kurma Pramodh

24 Apr 2023

CC No. 788 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Paresh Kumar,

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) -cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2023

C. C. No.788 of 2022

Between: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station. …. Complainant -Vs-

1. Sri Kurma Pramodh, S/o Ramesh, Age 20 years, SC Mala, Naidugudem village, Pedapadu mandal.

2. Vegireddy Rammohan Rao, S/o Venkatarao, Age 26 years, K. Velama, Gandicheruvu Gattu, Pedapadu Mandal, …. A1 and A2

This case coming before me for final hearing on 20.04.2023 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri P. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for A1 and A2 and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station filed this case in

Crime No.344/2022 of his station alleging that A1 and A2 have committed the offences punishable under Section 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code of Pedapadu Police Station.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 22.10.2022 at about 6.00

A.M, on credible information when L.W.7 SI of Pedapadu along with his staff L.w.3 and 4 and Mediators L.Ws 1 and 2 were conducting vehicle checking at Rajupeta road, Vasanthawada village, Pedapadu Mandal, on conducting vehicle checking, they found one TATA Yoda van bearing No. AP 39 UG 0755 approaching them, then LW7 with the help of his staff stopped the vehicle and checked the same, bad smell coming from the vehicle and on suspicion, LW7 questioned the driver of the vehicle by name, Kurma 2

CC No. 788 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

Pramodh (A1), so that he (A1) stated his name and identity particulars, further confessed that he is the driver cum owner of the vehicle. On the instructions of A2, A1 collected the chicken waste surroundings of Hyderabad

Chicken Shops and transporting the same to fish tanks of A2 for the purpose of fish feed. Then L.W.1 drafted Mediator report.

3. Basing on report, a case was registered by L.W.7 in Cr.No.344/2022 u/Secs.269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, again L.W.7 visited the scene of offence, prepared the rough sketch and examined all the charge sheeted witnesses, that L.W.7 served the notices to the accused U.S. 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and after completion of investigation, L.W.7 S.I. of police laid charge sheet against A1 and A2.

4. This Court has taken cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2. Copies of documents were supplied to A1 and A2 U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. A.1 and A2 are examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence under sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 IPC, and whereupon, the accusation was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied to have committed the offence and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ex’s.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked. On behalf of the A1 and A2 none were examined and no documents are marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 are examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material. They denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

CC No. 788 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

8. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt that A1 and A2 committed the offences punishable under

***sections* 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 *of I.P.C, as alleged by***

the prosecution?

9. P O I N T

The prosecution has cited as many as 7 witnesses and examined 4 witnesses. PW.1 is VRO, P.Ws. 2 and 3 are independent witnesses. P.W.4 is the Investigating Officer.

10. P.W.1 Ms. G. Koteswaramma, Village Revenue Officer, deposes in her evidence that on 22.10.2022 at about 6.00 A.M., She received phone call from L.W.7 SI of Police, Pedapadu Police Station and then she herself and L.W.2 went to police station and then she herself, L.W.7 along with his staff PCs L.Ws 1 and 2 went to scene of offence at Rajupeta road,

Vasanthawada village, Pedapadu Mandal, on conducting vehicle checking, they found one TATA Yoda van bearing No. AP 39 UG 0755 approaching them, then LW7 with the help of his staff stopped the vehicle and checked the same, bad smell coming from the vehicle and on suspicion, LW7 questioned the driver of the vehicle by name, Kurma Pramodh (A1), so that he (A1) stated his name and identity particulars, further confessed that he is the driver cum owner of the vehicle. On the instructions of A2, A1 collected the chicken waste surroundings of Hyderabad Chicken Shops and transporting the same to fish tanks of A2 for the purpose of fish feed, then

LW7 SI of Police secured the custody of A1 and seized the said van along with load. Then she drafted the mediator report as Ex.A1. She herself,

L.W.7, SI of police and driver have signed on it. On the same day at about 4.00 PM on the request of L.W.7, she herself and LW.2 to act as mediators for the destruction of chicken waste, that as per the instructions of

Tahasildar, Pedapadu they destructed the seized load i.e., chicken waste under a cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. PW.1 further deposed that she along 4

CC No. 788 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

with LW.2 acted as mediators for releasing of vehicle as per the directions of

Honble court, L.W.7 returned crime vehicle to owner of the vehicle i.e., A.2.

11. During the cross examination of P.W.1, she admitted that she did not mention about her moment in the Moment Register on the date of incident.

Further she admitted that place of offence is located at the middle of village.

12. P.Ws.2 and P.Ws. 3 who are independent witnesses did not speak any incriminating material and they turned hostile to the case of prosecution and their statements are marked as in Ex.P.4 and 5.

13. The evidences of Lw.2 Vemuri Daveedu Raju, L.W.3 D. Suvarnaraju,

HC 1962, L.W.4 V. Naresh Kumar, PC 2507 are given-up by APP.

14. P.W.4 Sri B. Nagababu, SI of Police, Pedapadu Police Station who is the investigating officer deposes his line of investigation corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 and basing on Ex.P.1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.344/2022 U.Sec. 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w 34 IPC and examined witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch and he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to A1 and A.2 and released them on obtaining their personal bonds. On the same day they have obtained 5

CC No. 788 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

destructions proceedings from Tahsildar of Pedapadu mandal and on the same day they destructed the chicken waste in as per the instructions of the

hon’ble court he returned the crime vehicle to its original owner and after

completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused.

15. During cross examination of P.W.4, he admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. Further he admitted that he did not send the samples to Pollution Control board. Further he admitted that he did not mention the description of cement bags in Mediator report. Further he admitted that one cannot say whether transported item it is waste item or useful without conducting chemical analysis.

16. On summing up the entire evidence and documents available on record, the case of the prosecution is that A1 was transporting the chicken waste material in Van who is the owner of A1, who supplied the said material to the fish tanks of A2. The said material was emanating poul smell and polluted the atmosphere in that locality, thereby, spreading the viral infections. The said poul smell polluted the fresh air. The said material was used for the purpose of feeding the fish. As such, the investigating officer seized the said vehicle, basing on the confession made by A1 under a cover of Ex.P1 mediator report and proceeded further and filed charge sheet against A1 and A2

17. As per the version of PW.4. immediately after seizure of the waste material from the possession of accused, a requisition was made before

CC No. 788 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

by the police, she blindly issued proceedings without conducting proper enquiry. It clearly shows that she was not properly discharged her official duties. At the same time, the requisition made before her was not exhibited

before the Court during the course of evidence. After receiving the

proceedings, the said waste material was destroyed by PW.1 and L.W.2 in the presence of police under a cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. But, Ex.P2 did not contain the signatures of any coolies or the driver of proclainer who buried the same by digging a pit. PW.1 and LW.2 are only signed on the said mediator report. It also creates a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the preparation of Ex.P2 at the scene of offence. There is every possibility to prepare the said report in the police station and PW.1 and other witness might have signed on it to honour the request of police. Though Exs.P1 and

P2 taken into consideration, the prosecution must establish the seizure of said material from the possession of the accused by placing cogent evidence

before the Court.

18. At the same time, it is an admitted fact that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality. During the course of evidence the Investigating

Officer secured the independent eye witnesses at scene of offence, but the independent eye witnesses (Pws.2 and 3) turned hostile to the case of prosecution and they did not support the case of prosecution. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, on the same day the seized chicken waste material was destroyed in the presence of PW.1 and LW.2 under a cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. The said mediator report also contains the signatures of

CC No. 788 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

obtain the signatures on it. The above referred circumstance clearly goes to show that Exs.P1 and P2 were prepared in the police station itself without visiting the respective scene of offences. The entire cross examination of

PWs.1 and 4 with regard to their visit to the scene of offence and seizure of chicken waste material from the possession of accused.

19. As per the case of prosecution, the seized waste material was brought by A1 to the fish tanks of A2. Admittedly, there is no iota of evidence before the Court, to show that A2 is the owner of the fish tank in question. During the course of investigation, PW.3 did not make any attempt to secure the ownership particulars of the fish tank of A2. Even he did not choose to examine any of the revenue officials to know about the particulars of fish tank situated in that locality. Without securing any document, it cannot be said that the said waste material was meant for the fish tanks of A2. All the above referred circumstances clearly go to show that the police failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences leveled against them.

Ex.P1 mediator report, there is no iota of evidence before the Court to show that the said material causes the above referred damages. Even as per the evidence of PW.4, he did not receive any complaint from the nearby inhabitants in that locality by complaining about the bad smell emanating 8

CC No. 788 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

from the waste material. The investigating officer did not secure any document from the Environmental Authorities to know about the damage going to be caused by the waste material. Without any document showing the future consequences of the seized waste material, it cannot be said that it was injurious to the human health and it will spread viral infections.

Further, the investigating officer failed to follow the guidelines issued by the

21. In the result, I find that A.1 and A2 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences under section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 if any, shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked vehicle i.e.,

Eiecher van bearing REg.No. AP 39 UG 0755 which was returned to owner of the vehicle as per orders of Hon’ble Court in in Crl.M.P.695/2022 dated 9

CC No. 788 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

28.10.2022 shall be retained with him on the same conditions imposed earlier till the expiry of appeal time.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and

pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/Sri P.Paredsh Kumar

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW1: Ms. G. Koteswaramma, VRO - NIL –

PW2: Sri M. Syam Sundar, Independent witness.

PW3: Sri Deevi Anil Kumar, Independent witness.

PW4: Sri B. Nagababu, SI of police.

EXHBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P.1: is the Mediator Report - NIL –

Ex.P.2:is the Mediator report for destruction of Chicken Waste

Ex.P.3: is the Mediator report for releasing crime vehicle.

Ex.P.4: is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.5: is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.6: is the FIR in Cr.No.344/2022 of Pedapadu P.S.

Ex.P.7: is the Rough Sketch.

Ex.P.8: is the Veterinary Doctor Letter.

Ex.P.9: is the Destruction orders.

MOS marked:

Nil Sd/Sri P.P.K. J.F.C.M. SMC, Eluru 10

CC No. 788 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO: 788 of 2022 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SPECIAL MOBILE COURT::

W.G.,ELURU

Date of

Offence Complaint ApprehenRelease Commence-Close of Sentence or report sion of on bail ment of trial of Order accused trial 22.10.2022 22.10.2022 U.Sec. -- 23.02.2023 20.04.23 24.04.23 41-A Cr.P.C.

Explanation for delay: ----

Cr.NO : 344/2022 of Pedapadu Police Station

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station.

Offence : Under sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 IPC

Name of the accused:

1. Sri Kurma Pramodh, S/o Ramesh, Age 20 years, SC Mala, Naidugudem village, Pedapadu mandal.

2. Vegireddy Rammohan Rao, S/o Venkatarao, Age 26 years, K. Velama, Gandicheruvu Gattu, Pedapadu Mandal, …. A1 and A2

Finding: Found not guilty. Result . In the result, I find that A.1 and A2 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences under section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 if any, shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked vehicle i.e.,

Eiecher van bearing REg.No. AP 39 UG 0755 which was returned to owner of the vehicle as per orders of Hon’ble Court in in Crl.M.P.695/2022 dated 28.10.2022 shall be retained with him on the same conditions imposed earlier till the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/Sri P. Paresh Kumar

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

CC/697/2022 Acquitted

The SHO pedapadu PS vs Nagumalli Acchiah

24 Apr 2023

CC No. 697 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Paresh Kumar,

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) -cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2023

C. C. No.697 of 2022

Between: Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station. …. Complainant -Vs-

1. Sri Nagumalli Acchaiah, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Age 35 years, Balija, Edara Village, Mulamuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Sri Saidu Ramesh, S/o Ramakrishna, Age 37 years, Vaddilu, Vaddila Street, MMPuram, Pulla village, Bhimadole Mandal.

…. A1 and A2

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station filed this case in

Crime No.231/2022 of his station alleging that A1 and A2 have committed the offences punishable under Section 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code of Pedapadu Police Station.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 27.06.2022 at about 11.30

A.M, on credible information when L.W.7 along with his staff L.w.1 and 2 and

Mediators L.Ws 1 and 2 were conducting vehicle checking at near Generic

Medical Shop, Pedapadu village and Mandal, on conducting vehicle checking, they found one Eiecher Van bearing Reg.No. AP 07 TF 6660 approaching them, then LW7 with the help of his staff stopped the vehicle and checked the same, bad smell coming from the vehicle and on suspicion, LW7 2

CC No. 697 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

questioned the driver of the vehicle by name, Nagumalli Acchaiah (A1), so that he (A1) stated his name and identity particulars, further confessed that he is the driver of the vehicle, so he confessed that he is working under A2 who is the owner of A2, as per instructions of A2, he collected the chicken waste surroundings of Hyderabad Chicken Shops and transporting the same to fish tanks of A2. Then L.W.1 drafted Mediator report.

3. Basing on report, a case was registered by L.W.7 in Cr.No.231/2022 u/Secs.269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, again L.W.7 visited the scene of offence, prepared the rough sketch and examined all the charge sheeted witnesses, that L.W.7 served the notices to the accused U.S. 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and after completion of investigation, L.W.7 S.I. of police laid charge sheet against A1 and A2.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ex’s.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked. On behalf of the A1 and A2 none were examined and no documents are marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 are examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material. They denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

CC No. 697 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

7. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

8. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt that A1 and A2 committed the offences punishable under

***sections* 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 *of I.P.C, as alleged by***

the prosecution?

9. P O I N T

The prosecution has cited as many as 7witnesses and examined 4 witnesses. PW.1 is the Fishery Development Officer, P.Ws. 2 and 3 are independent witnesses. P.W.4 is the Investigating Officer.

10. P.W.1 K.N. Das, Village Revenue Officer, deposes in his evidence that on 27.06.2022 at about 11.30 a.M., he received phone call from L.W.7 SI of

Police, Pedapadu Police Station and then he himself and L.W.2 went to police station and then he himself, L.W.2, L.W.7 along with his staff PCs L.Ws 3 and 4 went to scene of offence i.e., near Generic Medical Shop, Pedapadu village and Mandal, on conducting vehicle checking, they found one Eiecher

Van bearing Reg.No. AP 07 TF 6660 approaching them, then LW7 with the help of his staff stopped the vehicle and checked the same, bad smell coming from the vehicle and on suspicion, LW7 questioned the driver of the vehicle by name, Nagumalli Acchaiah (A1), so that he (A1) stated his name and identity particulars, further confessed that he is the driver of the vehicle, so he confessed that he is working under A2 who is the owner of A2, as per instructions of A2, he collected the chicken waste surroundings of Hyderabad

Chicken Shops and transporting the same to fish tanks of A2. Then he drafted the mediator report as Ex.A1. He himself, L.W.2, SI of police and driver have signed on it. On the same day at about 3.00 PM on the request of L.W.7, he himself and LW.2 to act as mediators for the destruction of chicken waste, that as per the instructions of Tahasildar, Pedapadu they 4

CC No. 697 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

destructed the seized load i.e., chicken waste under a cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. PW.1 further deposed that he along with LW.2 acted as mediators for releasing of vehicle as per the directions of Honble court,

L.W.7 returned crime vehicle to owner of the vehicle i.e., A.1.

11. During the cross examination of P.W.1, he admitted that he did not mention about his moment in the Moment Register on the date of incident.

Further he admitted that place of offence is located at the middle of village.

Further he admitted that he did not obtain the signatures of Police constable who were present at the time of preparing Ex.P.1. Further he admitted that he never received any information regarding transportation of chicken waste from public. Police did not take samples from the seized load for the purpose of chemical examination. Further he admitted that no one can say whether the chicken waste material or not without conducting chemical analysis.

Further he admitted that he never received destruction proceedings from his

MRO. Further he admitted that he did not collect the signatures of Proclainer operators who destructed the said load. Further he admitted that he did not remember how much time spent for destruction proceedings.

12. P.Ws.2 and P.W.3 who are independent witness did not speak any incriminating material and they turned hostile to the case of prosecution and their statements are marked as in Ex.P.3 and 4.

13. The evidences of Lw.2 Vemuri Daveedu Raju, L.W.3 G. Venkateswara

Rao, PC 2398, L.W.4 D. Pradeep, PC 2406 are given-up by APP.

14. P.W.4 Sri B. Nagababu, SI of police, Pedapadu Police Station who is the investigating officer deposes his line of investigation corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 and basing on Ex.P.1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.231/2022 U.Sec. 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w 34 IPC and examined witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch and he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to A1 and A.2 and released them on 5

CC No. 697 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

obtaining their personal bonds. On the same day they have obtained destructions proceedings from Tahsildar of Pedapadu mandal and on the same day they destructed the chicken waste in as per the instructions of the

hon’ble court I returned the crime vehicle to its original owner and after

completion of investigation L.W.7 laid charge sheet against the accused.

16. On summing up the entire evidence and documents available on record, the case of the prosecution is that A1 was transporting the chicken waste material in Van who is the owner of A2, who supplied the said material to the fish tanks of A2. The said material was emanating poul smell and polluted the atmosphere in that locality, thereby, spreading the viral infections. The said poul smell polluted the fresh air. The said material was used for the purpose of feeding the fish. As such, the investigating officer seized the said vehicle, basing on the confession made by A1 under a cover of Ex.P1 mediator report and proceeded further and filed charge sheet against A1 and A2

17. As per the version of PW.4 immediately after seizure of the waste material from the possession of accused, a requisition was made before

CC No. 697 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

the seizure of the said waste material. Basing on the sole requisition made by the police, she blindly issued proceedings without conducting proper enquiry. It clearly shows that she was not properly discharged her official duties. At the same time, the requisition made before her was not exhibited

before the Court during the course of evidence. After receiving the

proceedings, the said waste material was destroyed by PW.1 and L.W.2 in the presence of police under a cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. But, Ex.P2 did not contain the signatures of any coolies or the driver of proclainer who buried the same by digging a pit. PW.1 and LW.2 are only signed on the said mediator report. It also creates a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the preparation of Ex.P2 at the scene of offence. There is every possibility to prepare the said report in the police station and PW.1 and other witness might have signed on it to honour the request of police. Though Exs.P1 and

P2 taken into consideration, the prosecution must establish the seizure of said material from the possession of the accused by placing cogent evidence

before the Court.

18. At the same time, it is an admitted fact that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality. During the course of evidence the Investigating

Officer secured the independent eye witnesses at scene of offence, but the independent eye witnesses (Pw.2and 3) turned hostile to the case of prosecution and they did not support the case of prosecution. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, on the same day the seized chicken waste material was destroyed in the presence of PW.1 and LW.2 under a cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. The said mediator report also contains the signatures of

CC No. 697 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

the presence of coolies and driver of proclainer, there is every possibility to obtain the signatures on it. The above referred circumstance clearly goes to show that Exs.P1 and P2 were prepared in the police station itself without visiting the respective scene of offences. The entire cross examination of

PWs.1 and 4 with regard to their visit to the scene of offence and seizure of chicken waste material from the possession of accused.

19. As per the case of prosecution, the seized waste material was brought by A1 to the fish tanks of A2. Admittedly, there is no iota of evidence before the Court, to show that A2 is the owner of the fish tank in question. During the course of investigation, PW.4 did not make any attempt to secure the ownership particulars of the fish tank of A2. Even he did not choose to examine any of the revenue officials to know about the particulars of fish tank situated in that locality. Without securing any document, it cannot be said that the said waste material was meant for the fish tanks of A2. All the above referred circumstances clearly go to show that the police failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences leveled against them.

CC No. 697 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

inhabitants in that locality by complaining about the bad smell emanating from the waste material. The investigating officer did not secure any document from the Environmental Authorities to know about the damage going to be caused by the waste material. Without any document showing the future consequences of the seized waste material, it cannot be said that it was injurious to the human health and it will spread viral infections.

Further, the investigating officer failed to follow the guidelines issued by the

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 if any, shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked vehicle i.e.,

Eiecher van bearing REg.No. AP 07 TF 6660 which was returned to owner of 9

CC No. 697 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

the vehicle as per orders of Hon’ble Court shall be retained with him on the same conditions imposed earlier till the expiry of appeal time.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and

pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/Sri P.Paredsh Kumar

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW1: Sri K.N. Das, VRO - NIL –

PW2: D. Rama Krishna, Independent witness.

PW3: K. Satya, Independent witness.

PW4: Sri B. Nagababu, SI of police.

EXHBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P.1: is the Mediator Report - NIL –

Ex.P.2:is the Mediator report for destruction of Chicken Waste

Ex.P.3: is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.4: is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.5: is the FIR in Cr.No.231/2022 of Pedapadu P.S.

Ex.P.6: is the Rough Sketch.

Ex.P.7: is the Veterinary Doctor Letter.

Ex.P.8: is the Destruction orders.

Ex.P.9: is the Mediator report for releasing crime vehicle.

MOS marked:

Nil Sd/Sri P.P.K. J.F.C.M. SMC, Eluru 10

CC No. 697 of 2022

Spl. Mobile, Eluru

Dt 24-04-2023

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO:697 of 2022 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SPECIAL MOBILE COURT::

W.G.,ELURU

Date of

Offence Complaint ApprehenRelease Commence-Close of Sentence or report sion of on bail ment of trial of Order accused trial 27.06.2022 27.06.2022 U.Sec. -- 09.02.2023 20.04.23 24.04.23 41-A Cr.P.C.

Explanation for delay: ----

Cr.NO : 231/2022 of Pedapadu Police Station

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station.

Offence : Under sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r.w. 34 IPC

Name of the accused:

1. Sri Nagumalli Acchaiah, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Age 35 years, Balija, Edara Village, Mulamuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Sri Saidu Ramesh, S/o Ramakrishna, Age 37 years, Vaddilu, Vaddila Street, MMPuram, Pulla village, Bhimadole Mandal. …. A1 and A2

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 if any, shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked vehicle i.e.,

Eiecher van bearing REg.No. AP 07 TF 6660 which was returned to owner of the vehicle as per orders of Hon’ble Court shall be retained with him on the same conditions imposed earlier till the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/Sri P. Paresh Kumar

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

Order Record 1,418 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/80/2022	The SHO of Eluru III Town PS of W.G.Dist vs Challapalli Vijay Kumar	24 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/572/2022	The SHO pedapadu Ps vs Vegireddy Ramamohan Rao	24 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/697/2022	The SHO pedapadu PS vs Nagumalli Acchiah	24 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/752/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Katuri.Manikanta	24 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/788/2022	The SHO pedapadu PS vs Kurma Pramodh	24 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/931/2022	Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu vs Mendem Pavan	24 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/932/2022	Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu vs Gujjala Nithin KUmar	24 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/933/2022	Sub Inspector of Pollice, Pedapadu vs Gorji Naveen	24 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/934/2022	Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu vs Bantumilli Naga Malleswara Rao	24 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/60/2022	Midatha Umadevi vs Midatha Ramesh	20 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/574/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Gudipudi Naresh Sekhar	18 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/42/2019	Smt.Srikakulapu Bhargavi Naga Venkata Satyavani vs Srikakulapu Ullakkki Nga Venkata Rama Kishore	12 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/97/2023	Penmatsa Surya Subrahmanya Kamaraju vs Bommaganti Srinivasa Rao	11 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/570/2022	Bale Rahelu vs Mungara Vishnu	11 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/100225/2019	M/S.Shriram Chit Fund Private Limited,Rep.by its Branch Managa, Dasari Venkata Basava Taraka Siva N vs Sri. Gummadi Ravindra Babu	10 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/423/2022	Ampajala Rameshbabu vs Kondapalli Izac	04 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/836/2022	The SHO Eluru III Town PS vs Veeranki Ramesh	04 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/843/2021	The SHO Eluru III Town PS vs Marsety Gopi Raju	04 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/845/2021	The SHO Eluru III Town PS vs Koyyuru Sindu	04 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/100050/2017	Palli Sudha vs Palli Nageawara rao	04 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/887/2022	Ampajala Ramesh Babu vs Manikonda Prakash Raju	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/462/2020	Poricha Sankar Patnaik vs Eluru Anjaneyulu	29 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/874/2021	Mallimogala Madhusudana Rao vs Penmatsa Venkata Kota Satya Sai Hanuma Subba Raju	29 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/598/2022	Katta Sukhalu vs Chilakanti Mangayya Dasu	28 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/764/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Pappula Ravi Kiran	28 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/864/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Tungana Venkateswara Rao	28 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/10154/2019	Mandapalli Abraham Palus vs Kondapaneni Shivaji	28 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/100081/2019	Gayathri Aqua Sea Food Exports Pvt Ltd. vs Avula Manohar Reddy	28 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/100268/2018	Vanimireddi Ravi Rama Thyaga Raju vs Boda Syamson	28 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/365/2020	Kadayala Usha Rani vs Balumuri Venugopala Rao	27 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/648/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Addagarla Satyanarayana	27 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/651/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Chigurupati Mahesh	27 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/770/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Battu Rajesh	27 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
STC/30/2023	Penmatsa Surya Subrahmanya Kamraju vs Bommaganti Srinivasa Rao	27 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/416/2022	Tammineni Kondala Rao vs Kolli Vani	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Decree	—
OS/462/2022	Kota Sarojini vs Deva Srinivas @ Srinivasa Rao	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/787/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Gujjala Prem Kumar	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/499/2022	Karuturi Gowri Vara Prasad vs Talluri Ramesh	21 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/434/2020	Pathana Koteswara Rao vs Pamarthi Venkata Lakshmi Narayana	21 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
PRC/1/2023	The SHO of Eluru III Town P.s of W.G.District. vs Velagala Jyothi	21 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
STC/10/2022	Diddi.Venkata surya ranga mohana raju vs Shaik.Nagamma	20 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
DVC/100062/2018	Smt Rayapati Ratnavalli vs Rayapati Srinivasa Rao	18 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/100366/2016	Eluru I Town PS vs Dasari Suresh	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200292/2017	ABBISETI SUBBA RAO vs PILLI RAJA KUMAR ROY ALIAS RAJ KUMAR	14 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
DVC/100018/2019	Smt cholla Pallavi Sravya vs Cholla Subhash Chandra Bose	14 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/762/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Bokkinala Vamsi Krishna	13 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/766/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Silarapu Prabhudeva	13 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/789/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Kolli Ramesh	13 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
STC/257/2022	Taadi Venkata Reddy vs Kothapalli Jithendra	13 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/496/2020	Mareedu Chintaiah vs Kesana Satyanarayana	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/499/2022	Karuturi Gowri Vara Prasad vs Talluri Ramesh	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/503/2022	Vaka Naga Raju vs Datti Vara Lakshmi	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/790/2022	The SHO Pedapadu pS vs Chinaboina Sanjeeva Kumar	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/274/2022	SHO, Eluru III Town Police Station vs Adagalla Subhashini	07 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
PRC/4/2023	The SHO of Eluru III Town PS of W.G.District. vs Illa Appala Raju	07 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
PRC/9/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Jangam Anand Babu	07 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/317/2020	Bollina Anandh Kumar vs Maddukuri Srinivasa Rao	06 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/700/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Mungara Madhu Deepak	06 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100239/2016	Medipalli Tejo Venkata Manikya Ratnakar vs Kone Sunil Kumar	06 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100349/2018	Manukonda Sai baba vs Malli Ramesh Kumar	06 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
STC/314/2022	Jasti Vijaya Lakshmi vs Erranki Sai Srinivasu	06 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/863/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Ganta Siva Kumar	01 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/881/2021	The SHO Eluru III Town PS vs Perabattula Jaideep	01 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/918/2021	The SHO Eluru III Town PS vs Neelirothu Bala Sai Kumar	01 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
STC/15/2023	Kosuri Mallikharjuna Rao vs Budda Jagadeesh Babu	01 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/98/2021	Alapati Venkata Subba Rao vs Smt. Neelam Sujatha	28 Feb 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/690/2022	The SHO Pedapadu ps vs Peruboina Raju	28 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/848/2021	The SHO Eluru III Town PS vs Natta Laksmana Rao	28 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100206/2019	Kothamasu Thrimurthulu vs Thota Raju	28 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
PRC/3/2023	The SHO of Eluru III Town PS of W.G.District. vs Gudipati Sushma @ Sushma Chowdary	28 Feb 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/583/2021	The SHO of Eluru III Town PS of W.G.Dist. vs Aregela Suresh	27 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100130/2019	Mathi Durga Mahesh vs Jakkampudi Ajay	27 Feb 2023	Copy of Order	—
DVC/54/2022	Rachaprolu Vijaya vs Rachaprolu Srinivasa Rao	27 Feb 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/54/2021	Eluru III Town P.S vs Pyla Shankar	23 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100135/2019	Kolapalli Uma Shankar vs Tirlangi Prasad	23 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/122/2022	Songa.Sanyasi Rao vs Sayala.Rambabu	17 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/485/2021	Mathe Durga Mahesh vs Sanam Vijaya Ganesh	17 Feb 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/486/2021	Mukkupala Naga Raju vs Korukonda Trinadh Yesu	17 Feb 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/1038/2021	Vutukuri Venkata Badari Narayana vs Muttinti Venugopal Rao	17 Feb 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/81/2022	The SHO of Eluru III Town PS of W.G.Dist vs Kancherla Novahu	16 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/117/2022	Challa Kanakayya vs Naladhi Murthy	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/296/2021	Yanamadala Gandhi vs Jaliparthi Samrajyam	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/25/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Janyavula Sudhakar	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/107/2022	M.Indira Gandhi vs Talasila.Leela Krishna	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/239/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Thota Ravi Kumar	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/489/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Addagarla satyanarayana	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/524/2022	Pedapadu Police Station vs Chittibomma Mahesh Babu	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/554/2021	The SHO of Pedapadu PS of W.G.Dist. vs Dola Siva Kumar	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/597/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Parise Naga Bhushanam	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/598/2022	The SHO pedapadu PS vs Bokinala Vamsi Kumar	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/649/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Devarapu Ratna Kumar	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/653/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Bezawada Daveedu	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/692/2022	The SHO Pedapadu PS vs Katari Sai Kumar	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/849/2021	The SHO Eluru III Town PS vs Arepalli Ratalu	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1081/2021	The SHO of Eluru III Town PS of W.G.Dist. vs Kothaguntal Radha Krishna	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100049/2019	shaik subhani vs Shaik sulthan basha	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Order	—
DVC/75/2022	Motru Florence vs Motru Praveen	15 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100080/2017	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town L and O, P.S. vs Gurivelli Srinivas	13 Feb 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100184/2019	Smt.Rangu Sunitha vs Kakarla Surya Prakash	13 Feb 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/100239/2019	Sri pattipati Naga Vigneswara Rao vs Munduru Pavan Teja	13 Feb 2023	Copy of Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,418 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2023		21
Mar 2023		44
Feb 2023		97
Jan 2023		43
Dec 2022		64
Nov 2022		150
Oct 2022		52
Sep 2022		85
Aug 2022		97
Jul 2022		50
Jun 2022		215
May 2022		64

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri P.Paresh Kumar handled?

Sri P.Paresh Kumar has handled 1434 court orders since 2020 at PDJ Court Complex Eluru. The average disposal rate is 63 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri P.Paresh Kumar hear?

Based on available records, Sri P.Paresh Kumar primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at PDJ Court Complex Eluru.

Where is Sri P.Paresh Kumar currently posted?

Sri P.Paresh Kumar is posted as Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Proh. and Excise Act at Eluru -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru at PDJ Court Complex Eluru, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri P.Paresh Kumar available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Sri P.Paresh Kumar are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri P.Paresh Kumar dispose cases?

Sri P.Paresh Kumar disposes approximately 63 cases per month, based on 1434 orders handled over their tenure at PDJ Court Complex Eluru.

Since when is Sri P.Paresh Kumar serving?

Sri P.Paresh Kumar has been serving at PDJ Court Complex Eluru since 2020.

Case Types

CC 67%

DVC 13%

STC 10%

OS 8%

PRC 2%

MC 1%

A 0%

Posting History

May 2022 — Jun 2022

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Proh. and Excise Act at Eluru -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru
May 2022 — Jun 2022

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Bhimadole · 30 orders
Jul 2021 — Aug 2021

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru
Jul 2020 — Apr 2023

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru -cum- III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru · 1,404 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 10

Other Judges at this Court

Smt S Sree Devi

Principal District And Sessions Judge, Eluru

515 orders

Smt.U.Indira Priyadarshini

I Additional District And Session Judge Eluru

24 orders

Smt.M.Meena Devi

II Additional District And Sessions Judge Eluru

6 orders

R V V S Murali Krishna

V Additional District And Session Judge cum Specia...

452 orders

I Srinivasa Murthy

VIII Additional District And Session Judge-SCST El...

361 orders

Dr Yeedu Srinivasa Rao

Judge, Family court-cum-VII Addl. District Judge

734 orders

M. Prameela Rani

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru

10 orders

Sri P S V B Krishna Sai Teja

Additional Senior Civil Judge,Eluru

374 orders

Dr. Sk Md Abutalib Parveez

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistr...

760 orders

Rachana Bandi

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Addition...

313 orders

Smt Kolla Spandana

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for tri...

791 orders

Nokku Mary

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile...

504 orders

Smt B. Vani Sree

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional...

0 orders

← View all judges at PDJ Court Complex Eluru

Sri P.Paresh Kumar

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Paresh Kumar

Calendar Case No.80 of 2022

JUDGMENT

ANOTHER, VIJAYAWADA VS. THE ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICER,

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Material Objects Marked

--NIL--

SJMFC(M)-CUM-III AJCJ

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DATE OF

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Paresh Kumar,

C. C. No.764 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt that A1 to A3 committed the offences punishable under

sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 of I.P.C, as alleged by

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

EXHBITS MARKED

J.F.C.M. SMC,

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

W.G.,ELURU

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Paresh Kumar,

C. C. No.752 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt that A1 to A4 committed the offences punishable under

sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 of I.P.C, as alleged by

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

EXHBITS MARKED

J.F.C.M. SMC,

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

W.G.,ELURU

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Paresh Kumar,

C. C. No.788 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable

doubt that A1 and A2 committed the offences punishable under

sections 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 of I.P.C, as alleged by

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

EXHBITS MARKED

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

W.G.,ELURU

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III AJCJ, ELURU.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE)-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Paresh Kumar,

C. C. No.697 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

***sections* 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 *of I.P.C, as alleged by***

***sections* 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 *of I.P.C, as alleged by***

***sections* 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 *of I.P.C, as alleged by***

***sections* 269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 *of I.P.C, as alleged by***