P.Pavan Kumar

Crl.M.P No.231/2025 in

CC NO 26/2023 in

Dt.20.08.2025 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

MIRYALAGUDA

(Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025)

PRESENT: Sri. P. Pavan Kumar

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Miryalguda FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Miryalguda

Crl.M.P.No. 231 OF 202 5

IN

CC No. 26 OF 202 3

BETWEEN:-

1.Kukunuru Yadagiri Reddy, S/o Late Chandra Reddy, Age: 61 years, Occ: Rtd Employee,

2.Kukunuru Pushpa, W/o Yadagiri Reddy, Age: 58 years, Occ: Housewife,

3.Kukunuru Veena, D/o Yadagiri Reddy, Age: 30 years, Occ: Software employee

4.Kukunuru Prasoon Kumar Reddy, S/o Yadagiri Reddy, Age: 35 years, Occ: Software Employee, All are residents of H.No.1-1-538/1, Flat No.102, Sai Mayuri Residency, Gandhinagar, Near Hebron Church, Gandhi Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyd.

5.Chalamalla Laxma Reddy (Died in the year 2008)

6.Devulapally Sudhakar, S/o Dr. D.M.N Rao, Age: 75 years, Occ: Rtd. Employee, R/o H.No.40-295, Jawahar Nagar colony, Moulali, Hyderabad.

… Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 and 6

A N D

The state of Telangana through SHO, Miryalguda I , rep by its Assistant Public prosecutor, Miryalguda. … Respondent/Prosecution Smt. Kota Suvarna, W/o Late Kota Shekar Reddy, D/o Kukunuru Chandra Reddy, Age: 58 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.6-654, Ramnagar, Miryalguda town, Nalgonda District.

… Respondent/Defacto Complainant

This petition is coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri K. Rama Krishna Reddy counselfor Petitioners/accused No.1 to 4 and 6 and Assist Public Prosecutor counsel for Respondent/Complainant and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, the Court delivered the following :-

: : O R D E R : :

1.This is the Criminal Miscellaneous petition filed by petitioner/accused A1 to A4 and A6 with prayer to cancel the permission granted to defacto complainant to engage Sri. K. Narendar Reddy advocate to represent her and to assist Assistant

Crl.M.P No.231/2025 in

CC 26/2023

Dt.20.08.2025 2 Public Prosecutor(APP) vide Crl.M.P No.212/2024 . (Parties will be referred by their rank in calender case hereinafter)

2. The brief facts of the petition is as follows :-

Accused submit that while this case was posted to 10.04.2025 for the purpose of chief examination of Defacto Complainant, they had come up filing a memo before this court praying to cancel the permission granted to defacto complainant to engage the service of Sri. K. Narendar Reddy Advocate(Private Counsel/Victim counsel)), who is none other than her son to represent her and assist APP . On the next date of hearing, Private Counsel filed memo with certain allegations against the then APP, also against Accused No 1 personally, further on the counsel for accused. This court heard the matter and passed an observation in precise that no judicial orders can be passed upon memos, further had reminded Private Counsel not to step into shoe of

APP and not to make personal representation before the bench except for procedure and further observed that this court is determined to dispose this calendar case as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court and thus had ordered both sides to cooperate with the court. It is further submitted that in the process of making such observation, this court had expressed its concern that precious time of the court is wasted in consoling the counsel assisting APP and the counsel for accused. It is further submitted that accused counsel is always cooperating the court without causing any hindrance. In furtherance of such observations, accused had come up with this present petition for cancellation of permission granted to Private Counsel .

It is vehemently submitted the said Private Counsel is acting himself as APP as against the orders of the court. In the recent past, the said Private Counsel had filed petition seeking to receive several documents among with some were obtained through Right to Information Act. While marking the documents through /defacto complainant/PW1, an objection was taken by accused with regard to the admissibility of documents obtained under RTI Act. AT this juncture, Private

Counsel filed written arguments prepared by him further coming up with

Crl.M.P No.231/2025 in

CC 26/2023

Dt.20.08.2025 3 objectionable comments on A1, further by putting signature in the column earmarked for APP by simply obtaining the endorsement of the APP which clearly projects that the Private Counsel is leading prosecution having personal interest and is misusing his position.

2.1 On 11.02.2025, when the matter was called again, the said Private Counsel represented and asked the witness with regard to an aspect, further confused herself which goes to show that the said Private Counsel is showing his personal interest. That the Private Counsel is coming up time and again at the time of examination of witness and marking of documents and thereby causing inconvenience to the functioning of the court and he had went to the extent of representing before the court when the matter although not posted. Despite the warning given by the then Presiding Officer that not to make any representations when the matter is not posted, Private Counsel is not restricting himself and keep on venturing into the arena of prosecution and thus spoiling the court atmosphere, decency and decorum. Thus pleads to cancel the permission granted to Private

Counsel

3.Counterfiled by Private Counsel submitting that this petition is not maintainable in law. That without due respect to the orders of Hon’ble High Court of

Telangana in CRL.P No. 13941/2021 to finish the trial in 3 months, despite taking longer days by the petitioner counsel, and not swiftly filing the counters in the miscellaneous petitions, further seeking for the longer dates and wasting time of the court and thus had come up with the present petition to do fraud by colluding with the APP. That the APP never raised any objections for the delay in filing counter nor objected in taking longer dates despite the order of Hon’ble High Court nor had raised any objection while at PW1 examination when petitioner counsel was screaming and disturbing per-contra APP had raised objection on Private Counsel.

Admittedly if there is any mistake in signature column happened to sign by him

Crl.M.P No.231/2025 in

CC 26/2023

Dt.20.08.2025 4 which ought to be signed by APP, the learned APP would have corrected him. That public prosecutor should work together with Private Counsel and should correct him if he does any mistake. That he had joined with APP to do justice for a 68 year old women. APP should not collude with petitioner counsel and do injustice to 68 year old women. On 11.02.2025, petitioner counsel was screaming upon him that he should not utter a word and in this process, PW1 got confused. Further submits that at the time of marking of documents, Private Counsel was discussing with APP showing the documents which need to be marked and which were allowed.

Admittedly, he had approached the bench although the matter was not posted is only to see that the pending copy applications are cleared. He relies by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekha Murarka VS State of West Bengal and another.

Lastly submit that since APP denied to file counter and said to file counter by himself, what ever facts accused counsel did by colluding with APP was brought to the notice of Department of prosecution on 12.03.2025, thus prays to dismiss this petition.

4.The Leaned APP filed counter requesting the court to consider the counter filed by Private Counsel and prayed to dismiss this petition. Further to this counter filed by the present APP, when the objection was raised by accused counsel with regard to point no.5 of the counter, where the present APP had sought this court to consider the counter filed by Private Counsel, the APP came up with a memo submitting her intent is in seeing court to consider only important points that are mentioned there under.

5. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the conduct of Private

Counsel warrants to remove him as victim counsel and discard his

participation in this calender case ?

6. Point:-

Before comprehending the Law on his part, as was rightly relied by Private Counsel

to the decision of Honble Supreme court in Rekha Murarka VS State of West

Crl.M.P No.231/2025 in

CC 26/2023

Dt.20.08.2025 5 Bengal and Another, Criminal Appeal No.1727/2019 where the Hon’ble Supreme

Court had elaborately discussed the manner of representation and submissions that is possible on the part of one representing victim in the shoe of assist to APP.

I would like to extract point No.12.4 and 12.5 for better understanding.

12.4 In this regard, given that the modalities of each case are different, we find that the extent of assistance and the manner of giving it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Though we cannot detail and discuss all possible scenarios that may arise during a criminal prosecution, we find that a victim’s counsel should ordinarily not be given the right to make oral arguments or examine and cross examine witnesses. As stated in Section 301(2), the private party’s pleader is subject to the directions of the Public Prosecutor. In our considered opinion, the same principle should apply to the victim’s counsel under the proviso to

Section 24(8), as it adequately ensures that the interests of the victim are represented. If the victim’s counsel feels that a certain aspect has gone unaddressed in the examination of the witnesses or the arguments advanced by the

Public Prosecutor, he may route any questions or points through the Public Prosecutor himself. This would not only preserve the paramount position of the Public Prosecutor under the scheme of the

CrPC, but also ensure that there is no inconsistency between the case advanced by the

Public Prosecutor and the victim’s counsel.

12.5 However, even if there is a situation where the

Crl.M.P No.231/2025 in

CC 26/2023

Dt.20.08.2025 6 Public Prosecutor fails to highlight some issue of importance despite it having been suggested by the victim’s counsel, the victim’s counsel may still not be given the unbridled mantle of making oral arguments or examining witnesses. This is because in such cases, he still has a recourse by channelling his questions or arguments through the Judge first. For instance, if the victim’s counsel finds that the Public Prosecutor has not examined a witness properly and not incorporated his suggestions either, he may bring certain questions to the notice of the Court. If the Judge finds merit in them, he may take action accordingly by invoking his powers under Section 311 of the

CrPC or Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In this regard, we agree with the observations made by the Tripura High Court in

Smt. Uma Saha v. State of Tripura (supra) that the victim’s counsel has a limited right of assisting the prosecution, which may extend to suggesting questions to the Court or the prosecution, but not putting them by himself.

6.1 Thus from the point of Law which had been elaborated by Hon'ble Supreme

Court so far as this grey area further circumscribing limits of victim counsel/private counsel. In manifesting it whatever is vivid for us to understand is ordinarily victim counsel should not be given any right to make oral argument or examine or cross examine the witness and that he is subjected to directions of APP. To call it in simple terms, assist to PP works likewise of a Junior Counsel. Further that since much emphasis need to be given to the victimology, if that the victim counsel feels

Crl.M.P No.231/2025 in

CC 26/2023

Dt.20.08.2025 7 certain aspects went unaddressed, he may route such questions through the APP and if APP fails to highlight the same, nonetheless the victims counsel may bring it to the notice of the court and if there is anything found meritful, the court would invoke the powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C or under Section 165 of Cr.P.C. Thus the victims counsel has a limited right of assisting APP.

6.2 In understanding scheme of legislation putting prosecutors in such dominant position unlike leaving open victims to engage counsel of their choice is with divine ideology. Public prosecutors are not expected to be thirst of conviction when accused do not deserve it and vice versa too. The duty of public prosecutors are couched with fairness to bring true facts before the court irrespective of benefit which goes to accused in deserving cases. Even for suppose, if defence cousel fail to bring deserving facts which fastens benefit of doubt, such responsibility is casted of public prosecutor. Such duty of fairness one leading prosecution is not attached just to court or investigating agencies but with accused too. A private counsel if allowed to take shoe of prosecution in criminal cases representing victims broadly the state, would indeed dismantle such ideology and race towards conviction which is not the scheme of the legislation.

6.3 It is not out of place to mention that the victims counsel is none other than son of Defacto Complainant. Naturally that what runs through him is being victimized and often he is being swayed away emotionally to see that no stone left unturned in bringing true facts before the court. AT the same time, being an officer of the court, he should also not forget that in Criminal Jurisprudence, the guilt is not passed on accused unless proven beyond all reasonable doubts. The phrase "accused is innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental principle of law, meaning that a person is presumed to be not guilty of a crime until proven otherwise in a court of law. This principle is a cornerstone of criminal justice systems. It is is not to be

Crl.M.P No.231/2025 in

CC 26/2023

Dt.20.08.2025 8 forgotten that allowing free hands to victim counsel may hamper the prosecution duty and adversely impact the fairness of the trial. After all it is not the duty of prosecution to see that under all circumstances accused is punished but to see that the truth is put forth before this court and even to put forth the circumstances if prosecution believe that accuse is not guilty of the crime alleged.

6.4 The public prosecutors are not servant of the Government although appointed by the Government but works for the attainment of justice and in doing so it is their duty to work with integrity and there shall be no pressure or undue influences which otherwise would be hanging as swords of domacles in anticipating one or the other scurilous complainant by unscrupulous parties. Such should not be the justice orientation system. Such precious duty casted upon the public prosecutor cannot be diluted by allowing the victims counsel to step into the shoe of prosecution and examine the witness.

6.5 Having meticulously examined the record, what transpired before this court as can be manifested by the version of parties respectively, what simply can be understood is the perception of Victim counsel that his mother was cheated by her brother. Naturally such emotions he inherited and when he steps in the proceedings like victim counsel, he is going sensitive rather behaving himself as officer of the court thus often superseding the decorum, dignity and forbearance that is required to be maintained by any advocate. Perhaps it is also inexperience with which private counsel is couched with which is driving him to micromanage the proceedings which he shouldn’t. It is palpable from the counter filed by private counsel of passing mere accusations against the then prosecutor and also the petitioner counsel without any substance which cannot be countenanced. Such an accusations are unfounded.

6.6 The role of prosecutor as described above sometimes would be taken wrong by victim or their counsel perhaps for the reason them being naive of the role that is

Crl.M.P No.231/2025 in

CC 26/2023

Dt.20.08.2025 9 attached to public prosecutor often misconceived, further hurling baseless accusation is not desirable which the private counsel should be mindful.

6.7 Irrespective of what had been observed above, this court firmly believes that the private counsels maintain victim perception, which is driving him to sidetrack forebearance and sensitivity that he need to maintain, further swaying away emotionally which is expected not from the advocate representing victim.

6.8 This court firmly believes that admonishing private counsel to behave himself and strictly adhere to his role circumscribed as mentioned supra would suffice under the present circumstances. Any instance of him deviating from his role hereafter and passing unfounded accusations would be predicament for him which this court expects the private counsel to be mindful.

7. In the result, this petition is dismissed

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20 th day of August, 2025.

FAC: I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Miryalaguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: Nil For Respondent: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner : Nil For Respondent: Nil

FAC: I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Miryalaguda

CC 1220 of 2021

Dt: 25.02.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MIRYALAGUDA

Present: Sri. P. Pavan Kumar,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda

Dated this the 25thday of February, 2026

C.C. No. 1220 of 20 21

B E T W E E N:- The State of Telangana through S.H.O. P.S. Miryalguda II Town. …Complainant

AND

Pagidimarri Narsimha Chari, S/o Jaganaada Chari, Age: 39 yrs, Occ: Sree Venkateshwara Engineering work & welding shop, R/o H.No.18- 392, Shanthinagar of Miryalguda town.

…Accused

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecution for State and of Sri M. Uma Shanker Reddy, Advocate for the Accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

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

1) Accused is indicted for the offence punishable u/s 374 IPC and

Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986) on police filing the charge sheet with the following accusations.

2)Brief facts in charge sheet is as follows :

That accused was running Sri. Venkateshwara Engineering workshop and welding shop at Shanthi Nagar, Miryalguda close to

Bypass Road. On 09.07.2021, at about 12.25 PM, LW1 to LW3 (Sri.

CC 1220 of 2021

Dt: 25.02.2026

2

V. Sardar Naik, Sri. Salikanti Venkateshwarlu and Sri. Pokkula

Srikanth), PW1, PW2 and LW6 (Sri. Mandala Venkatasimha) raided the accused welding shop and found PW3 a minor boy was working in the shop. During enquiry, it was revealed by PW3 that accused had engaged him as daily labour for Rs.200/- per day. Thus accused is charged with above offences.

3)This court has taken cognizance basing on the charge sheet filed for the offence U/secs. 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and

Regulation Act, 1986) against accused and on appearance, copies of documents were furnished upon him in compliance with Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

4) Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986), accusations were read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) During the course of trial, prosecution had examined PW1 to

PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to P4.

CC 1220 of 2021

Dt: 25.02.2026

3

6) After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C., with incriminating evidence brought against him, for which he denied the truthfulness of it, yet submitted no defence evidence on his behalf.

7) Heard the arguments of both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Secs. 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation

Act, 1986) beyond all reasonable doubts?

9) Point :- In nutshell, it is the simple cae of prosecution that accused had engaged PW3 in hazardous work at this welding shop namely Sri. Venkateshwara Engineering works which is in contravention of the provisions of Law mentioned above.

10)To prove, prosecution had examined PW1 to PW5 as its witnesses.

10.1 PW1 testified that on 09.07.2021 as per the instructions of

LW1 she along with several other officials had proceeded to

Venkateshwara Engineering Work at Nandipahad Bypass and

CC 1220 of 2021

Dt: 25.02.2026

4 found one minor boy by name Malothu Sai was employed by accused. Further stated that accused is not present in the court.

10.2 PW2 testified like wise of PW1 except for identifying the accused in the court.

In the cross examination stated that there were two elder persons present at the workshop.

10.3 PW3 to PW5 turned hostile.

11)Thus from the prosecution version coupled with the evidence adduced, to the question of fact whether accused had engaged services of PW3 in his welding workshop, the evidence we have at hand of PW1 to PW5. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, what surfaces is PW1 and PW2 were part of Muskan team and they had raided one Venkateshwar Engineering workshop and found one Sri. Malothu Sai who is PW3 herein in the said shop. It is alleged that accused is the owner of the alleged shop and that he had engaged with minor boy. PW1 although stated in her chief examination that accused who is standing trial is not present in the court. However accused was called present on the said day which

CC 1220 of 2021

Dt: 25.02.2026

5 implies that there is issue of identification concerning the real perpetrator. PW2 although identify accused who was present in the court as the perpetrator. Howsoever the circumstances, it is difficult to proceed with the identification of accused that had transpired in the court through PW2 when it is not substantiated by any material document as found to be collected by the IO in fortifying that accused is the owner of the said Engineering workshop let alone PW1 testimony implies that accused might be planted. The victim i.e., PW3 himself turned hostile. It should not be forgotten that this case is filed suo moto by police officials.

11.1 Under said circumstances it is imperative on the part of prosecution and this court to be cautious enough to see that no stone should be left unturned by the IO in bringing home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In saying so, this court should be cautious enough in manifesting the evidence adduced. It is not out of place to mention that had really accused was the owner of the alleged welding workshop, IO was not less of resource to come up with any piece of document which would substantiate the ownership which would otherwise strengthen whether accused

CC 1220 of 2021

Dt: 25.02.2026

6 who is standing trial was the real owner or not. There is lacunae in the investigation. Such predicament need to be fastened on IO.

12)In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Secs. 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986). Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

(Typed on dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of February, 2026).

Prl. Junior Civil Judge- cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Miryalaguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution PW1: Smt. S. Kavitha PW2: Sri. G. Mahesh PW3: Sri. M. Sai PW4: Sri. P. Krishna PW5: Sri. Sk. Jamal

Defence: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution: Ex.P1: is signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P2: is signature of PW4 on rough sketch panchanama Ex.P3: is signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4: is signature of PW5 on rough sketch panchanama

Defence: Nil

Prl. Junior Civil Judge- cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda

CC 48 of 2021

Dt: 26.02.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MIRYALAGUDA

Present: Sri. P. Pavan Kumar,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda

Dated this the 26thday of February, 2026

C.C. No. 48 of 20 21

B E T W E E N:- The State of Telangana through S.H.O. P.S. Miryalguda II Town. …Complainant

AND

Nagoju Nagaraju, S/o Sathyanarayana, Age: 33 yrs, Occ: Carpenter, R/o H.No.7-1527, Bangarugadda of Miryalguda town.

…Accused

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecution for State and of Sri K. Venkanna, Advocate for the Accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

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

1) Accused is indicted for the offence punishable u/s 374 IPC and

Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986) on police filing the charge sheet with the following accusations.

2)Brief facts in charge sheet is as follows :

That accused was running a shop by name Sri. Lakshmi

Narasimha Wooden works at Sagar Road, Prakash Nagar of

Miryalguda town. As per the instructions of SP of police Nalgonda,

CC 48 of 2021

Dt: 26.02.2026

2 on 12.01.2021 at 11.00 AM in the morning, LW1, LW2, PW1, LW4 (Sri. Vaddepally Praveen) altogether had raided the shop of accused and found LW5 was working in the shop. Immediately LW1(Sri. V.

Sardar Naik) caused enquiry with LW5 (Kappala Banu Prakash) and their enquiry revealed that accused had engaged him as daily labour for Rs.200/- per day. That it is hazardous for a minor boy to work in the establishment of accused. Thus accused was charged with the above offences.

3)This court has taken cognizance basing on the charge sheet filed for the offence U/secs. 374 IPC and Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986) against accused and on appearance, copies of documents were furnished upon him in compliance with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4) Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 374 IPC and Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986), accusations were read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC 48 of 2021

Dt: 26.02.2026

3

5) During the course of trial, prosecution had examined PW1 &

PW2 and marked Ex.P1 & P2.

6) After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C., with incriminating evidence brought against him, for which he denied the truthfulness of it, yet submitted no defence evidence on his behalf.

7) Heard the arguments of both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Secs. 374 IPC and Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986) beyond all reasonable doubts?

9) Point :- In nutshell, it is the simple case of prosecution that accused had engaged LW5 (Kappala Banu Prakash) the victim herein allegedly a minor boy in his wooden work shop and thus had exposed minor to hazardous working atmosphere.

10)To prove, prosecution had examined PW1 & PW2 as its witnesses.

CC 48 of 2021

Dt: 26.02.2026

4 10.1 PW1 who is panch witness for scene of offence panchanama turned hostile.

10.2 PW2 is police official in the rank of Police constable testified that on 12.01.2021 as usual he along with LW1, 2, and 4 while were proceeding at Prakash Nagar had found minor boy working at Sri

Lakshmi Narasimha Wood works. Owner was also present at the shop. The minor boy revealed that he was engaged by accused as daily labour.

In the cross examination he admits that LW1 had not enquired ownership particulars of Sri. Lakshmi Narsimha Wood works.

11)Thus from the prosecution version coupled with the evidence adduced, to the question of fact whether accused is the owner of Sri

Lakshmi Narasimha wook works ? And whether accused had engaged services of LW5 in his wood work shop ?. To such question of facts, the evidence as was adduced by prosecution is of PW1 and

PW2. PW1 although turned hostile. PW2 who is police official in the rank of Police constable testified to have accompany LW1 who was heading operation Muskan. That he had found the victim boy i.e.,

LW5 at the wood work shop and accused was also present at the

CC 48 of 2021

Dt: 26.02.2026

5 shop. It is stated that accused is owner of the shop. However no where it is substantiated stating how the particulars of owner of the alleged shop was enquired upon much less he also testified in cross examination that LW1 had not enqui8red about the ownership particulars. PW2 although identify accused who was present in the court as the perpetrator. Howsoever the circumstances, it is difficult to proceed with the identification of accused that had transpired in the court through PW2 when it is not substantiated by any material document as found to be collected by the IO in fortifying that accused is the owner of the said Engineering workshop.

11.1 It should not be forgotten that this case is filed suo moto by police officials. Under said circumstances it is imperative on the part of prosecution and this court to be cautious enough to see that no stone should be left unturned by the IO in bringing home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In saying so, this court should be cautious enough in manifesting the evidence adduced. It is not out of place to mention that had really accused was the owner of the alleged wood workshop, IO was not less of resource to come up with any piece of document which would

CC 48 of 2021

Dt: 26.02.2026

6 substantiate the ownership which would otherwise strengthen whether accused who is standing trial was the real owner or not.

There is lacunae in the investigation. Such predicament need to be fastened on IO.

12)In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Secs. 374 IPC and Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986). Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under

Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

(Typed on my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 26th day of February, 2026).

Prl. Junior Civil Judge- cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Miryalaguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution PW1: Sri. G. Venkata Narsimha Chary PW2: Sri. P. Srikanth

Defence: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution: Ex.P1: is signature of PW1 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P2: is signature of PW1 on rough sketch panchanama Defence: Nil

Prl. Junior Civil Judge- cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda

CC 126 of 2021

Dt: 25.02.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MIRYALAGUDA

Present: Sri. P. Pavan Kumar,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda

Dated this the 25thday of February, 2026

C.C. No. 126 of 20 21

B E T W E E N:- The State of Telangana through S.H.O. P.S. Miryalguda II Town. …Complainant

AND

Jilla Karunakar Rao, S/o Prabhakar Rao, Age: 33 yrs, Occ: owner of JPR Cement Bricks, R/o H.No.18-1692, Hanumanpeta of Miryalguda town.

…Accused

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecution for State and of Sri J. Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

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

1) Accused is indicted for the offence punishable u/s 374 IPC and

Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986) on police filing the charge sheet with the following accusations.

2)Brief facts in charge sheet is as follows :

That accused is owner of J.P.S cement bricks company located at

Hanumanpeta of Miryalguda town. On 15.01.2021, LW1 to LW3 (Sri. V. Sardar Naik, Sri. Salikanti Venkatesham and Sri. Pokkula

CC 126 of 2021

Dt: 25.02.2026

2

Srikanth) when had raided the said J.P.S cement brick company had found PW1 and PW3 were working in a bike company. Later when caused enquiry, found that accused had employed them in a motorcycle work shop for daily wage of Rs.300/-. Thus accused was indicted for the offences charged above.

3)This court has taken cognizance basing on the charge sheet filed for the offence U/secs. 374 IPC and Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986) against accused and on appearance, copies of documents were furnished upon him in compliance with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4) Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 374 IPC and Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986), accusations were read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) During the course of trial, prosecution had examined PW1 to

PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to P6.

CC 126 of 2021

Dt: 25.02.2026

3

6) After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C., with incriminating evidence brought against him, for which he denied the truthfulness of it, yet submitted no defence evidence on his behalf.

7) Heard the arguments of both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Secs. 374 IPC and Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation Act, 1986) beyond all reasonable doubts?

9) Point :- Atthe outset, on perusal of charge sheet, especially the operative portion which is not certain to the facts as alleged. At once, IO submits that PW1 and PW3 who were cited as victims were employed by accused in a motorcycle work shop, on the other hand, to its contrary submitted accused had engaged PW1 and PW3 in his cement brick company. Perhaps IO was lackadaisical while filing the charge sheet howsoever the substance if can be manifested from the charge sheet, further as was submitted by Ln prosecution, it can be comprehended that the allegations put forth against accused is concerning him engaging PW1 and PW3

CC 126 of 2021

Dt: 25.02.2026

4 knowingly were minors in his cement brick company which is hazardous in nature.

10)To prove, prosecution had examined PW1 to PW5 as its witnesses.

10.1 PW1, PW3 who are cited as victims and PW5 who is witness panch for scene of offence panchanama turned hostile.

10.2 PW2 testified of the facts of issuing bonafide certificate of

PW3. Likewise PW4 testified of the fact of issuing bonafide certificate of PW1.

11)Thus from the prosecution version coupled with the evidence adduced, to the question of fact whether accused had engaged services of PW1 and PW3 in his cement brick workshop, the evidence we have at hand of PW1 to PW5 which does not even remotely surface any incriminating material. The evidence of PW2 and PW4 is relevant only to the extent of them issuing bonafide certificates of Pw1 and PW3. PW1 and PW3 themselves had come up testifying nothing against accused.

CC 126 of 2021

Dt: 25.02.2026

5 11.1 Under said circumstances, without there being any direct or circumstantial evidence, accused is entitled to be vindicated.

12)In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Secs. 374 IPC and Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986). Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under

Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

(Typed on dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of February, 2026).

Prl. Junior Civil Judge- cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Miryalaguda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution PW1: Sri. Bala Krishna PW2: Sri. Ippa Shanker PW3: Sri. Ch. Dinesh PW4: Sri. R. Ramachandraiah PW5: Sri. C. Laxman

Defence: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution: Ex.P1: is 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P2: is bonafide certificate Ex.P3: is 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P4: is bonafide certificate of PW1 Ex.P5: is signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6: is signature of PW5 on rough sketch panchanama Defence: Nil Prl. Junior Civil Judge- cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda