Smt. P. Ramadevi

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PONNUR

Present : - Smt. P. Ramadevi, Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur FAC. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur.

Friday, this the 29th day of December, 2023

Calendar Case No.487/2023

Between:

State Represented by Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Ponnur. … Complainant

And

Mallela Sesha Rao, S/o. Arjuna Rao, 52 yrs, R/o.Chinalingayapalem Village, Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District. … Accused.

This case has come before me on 26.12.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. P. Lakshmi- Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Magbul Baig, Learned Counsel for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Ponnur, had laid a charge sheet against the Accused concerned in

Cr.No.12/2023 for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise

Amendment Act, 2020 (Hereinafter referred to as “the act”).

02. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows :

On 02.05.2023, at 09.00 A.M on credible information,

P.W.2/L.W.3/M. Sukanya, Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, 2

Guntur along with her staff i.e., L.W.1/J. Venkateswara Rao and L.W2/B.

Subba Rao, Excise Constables were conducting raids to detect Excise offences at opposite of Government Veterinary Hospital towards from

Chinalingayapalem to Valluru road of Chinalingayapalem found the accused while carrying one white colour polythene bag in his right hand, tried to skulk away on seeing the Excise Police detained and P.W.2 had deputed one constable for securing mediators and he returned after some time that none came forward to act as mediators. Then, P.W.2 had opened bag and found 20 Nips (180 ml.) of Golden Pearl Whisky” company labels, seals and their Heal numbers are tearing out and it contained printed matter as “For sale in Andhra Pradesh only. P.W.2 identified that liquor bottles were duty paid liquor bottles. When questioned, accused had revealed his identity and stated that he has no bills or permit to have liquor bottles and he further stated that liquor bottles were purchased by him from Government retail outlets so as to sell the same for higher rates for his livelihood at his village. P.W.2 took one sample of 180 ml. for sending the same to chemical analysis and drafted special report/Ex.P1.

P.W.2 also affixed his seal and identity slips. After completing seizure,

PW.2 had brought the accused and case property along with

Ex.P1/special report to the police station. Then P.W.2, had registered

Ex.P1/Special Report as Ex.P2/FIR in Cr.No.12/2023, under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and sent the accused for judicial remand. During further investigation, P.W.2/M. Sukanya, had sent samples to Regional

Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Guntur through Enforcement

Superintendent, SEB, Guntur. After receipt of chemical analysis report/Ex.P3 wherein opined that the samples contain alcohol and it is 3 'Indian Liquor'. Sent the remaining liquor bottles to Deputy

Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, Nellore for issuing confiscation orders. After completion of investigation, L.W.3 had filed charge sheet as the accused was in illegal possession of liquor bottles which is an offence punishable U/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

03. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. On appearance, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C.

04. The accused examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. accused had denied the offence. A charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. In support of its case, prosecution had examined LW.1/J.

Venkateswara Rao, Excise Constable, SEB, as P.W.1 and L.W.3/M.

Sukanya, Excise Inspector as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P3 and

M.O.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of

L.W.2/ B. Venkateswara Rao.

06. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witness for which the accused denied the same and stated 4 that he did not commit any offence and reported no oral or documentary evidence to adduce on his behalf.

07. Heard both sides .

08.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

09.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.W.1/L.W.1/J.

Venkateswara Rao, Excise constable, Special Enforcement bureau testified that on 02.05.2023 at about 09:00 A.M., himself and

P.W.2/L.W.3/M. Sukanya, Excise Inspector and the staff members of

Excise proceeded to crime scene situated at Veterinary Hospital,

Chinalingayapalem Village, Kakumanu Mandal and thereat they noticed that the accused in possession of a White Polythene Cover containing 20

Nips of Golden Pearl Whisky Indian Made liquor bottles. L.W.3 had drawn one bottle as a sample for chemical analysis and P.w.2 questioned the accused about the license or permit, but he did not produce, whereupon, the liquor bottles were seized under the cover of

Ex.P1/Special Report with his signature. L.W.2 is the scribe of

Ex.P1/Special Report.

5

10.During cross-examination, P.W.1 has categorically stated that Bus stop is located at the crime scene and the crime scene is a busy locality and is surrounded by residential houses. The house is located at a distance of 10 feet from the crime scene. L.W.3 did not examine the independent witnesses. He denied that they framed false case for statistical purpose and L.W.3 violated the mandate of 100(4) Cr.P.C.

11.PW.2/LW.3/ M. Sukanya, Women Inspector of Police, Special

Enforcement Bureau, Ponnur had testified that on 02.05.2023 at 09.00 a.m., she, P.W.1 along with her staff i.e., L.W.2/B. Venkateswara Rao,

Excise Constable were conducting raid to detect Excise offences situated at Veterinary Hospital, Chinalingayapalem Village, Kakumanu Mandal found the accused while carrying plastic cover in his hand, tried to flee away on seeing them, detained with the help of staff, caused enquiry and found in possession of 20 Nips i.e. Golden Pearl Whisky 180 ml. for sale in Andhra Pradesh, without any bills or permit, seized the liquor bottles after drawing M.O.1/sample under Ex.P1/special report. Thereafter, brought the accused along with case property, registered a case under

Ex.P2/FIR in Cr.No.12/2023 u/s 34(a) of AP Excise Act and sent the accused for Judicial remand. After receipt of Ex.P3/Chemical Analysis report, after termination of investigation, she had laid charge sheet against the Accused.

12.During cross-examination, P.W.2 has categorically stated that Bus stop is located at the crime scene and the crime scene is a busy locality and is surrounded by residential houses. The house is located at a 6 distance of 10 feet from the crime scene. She did not examine the independent witnesses. She denied that they framed false case for statistical purpose and she violated the mandate of 100(4) Cr.P.C.

13. Coming to the evaluation of evidence available on record, it is evident from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not issue any summons to passersby to act as mediators. There was delay of 45 days in sending samples to RFSL,

Guntur for chemical analysis. The version of PW.2, she deputed one person through whom samples were sent to RFSL was not cited as witness in charge sheet.

14.On perusal of Ex.P1/Special report, accused was allegedly found at

Veterinary hospital, Chinalingayapalem Village. PW.2 had deputed

P.w.1/J. Venkateswara Rao, Excise Constable, Ponnur, for securing the persons to act as mediators, he returned after some time that none came forward. When the scene of offence is a busy locality, it is very easy for

Excise Officials to ask any responsible citizen in that vicinity to act as mediators for seizure and arrest in this case. If anybody refuses to act as mediators and did not aid the Excise officials, the officials have got ample power to issue summons to them to act as mediators. But there is no plausible explanation given by PW.2 why she could not secure mediators in the vicinity itself from the passersby Moreover, at 09.00 AM, the accused was allegedly found along with liquor bottles and it is not a night time.

7

15. It is mandatory duty of PW.2 being Excise official to secure independent witnesses at the scene of offence before seizing the property from the possession of the accused. Except the oral testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, there is no evidence to show that the accused was found in possession of liquor bottles so also there is no reliable evidence to show that the said property was seized from the possession of the accused under M.O.1. P.w.2 had drawn a sample for chemical analysis sent to

Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Guntur through Enforcement

Superintendent, Special Enforcement Bureau, Guntur. As per Ex.P3/

Chemical Analyst dated 28.06.2023, there was delay of 45 days. There is no plausible explanation from PW.2 in not sending samples without any delay. The evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2, Excise Officials who are the

Investigating Officer and who will naturally supports the case of the prosecution to see that accused be convicted, there is no other independent and corroborative piece of evidence to prove the version of the prosecution that the accused was allegedly found in possession of 20 nips including M.O.1/Sample.

16. Keeping such doubt in mind, this court feels that it is unsafe to base conviction on the testimony of PW.1 and P.W.2 without independent and corroborative evidence. The upshot of the discussion, this court is of the considering opinion that the prosecution has failed to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence charged under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

8

17. In the result, the accused is found not guiltyfor the Charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, and hence he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code.

M.O.1/Sample of Golden Pearl Whisky 180 ml. shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29 th day of December, 2023.

Sd/- P. Ramadevi

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR,

FAC. ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PONNUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: - For Defence: None.

P.W.1 : J. Venkateswara Rao

P.W.2 : M. Sukanya

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: - For Defence:- Nil

Ex.P1 : Special report

Ex.P2 : FIR

Ex.P3 : Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Sample bottle of 180ml Golden Pearl Whisky // // // /Sd/- P. Ramadevi /True//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR,

FAC. ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PONNUR.

1

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

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Present : Smt.P.Rama Devi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways,

FAC. Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

Thursday, this the 4 th day of July,2024.

C.C.No.2065 of 2024

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Disha Women PS, Gunur District .... Complainant.

AND 1.Chatla Pedda Bhagyaraju @ @ Pedda Bhagyareddy, S/o.Kanaka Raju, A/35 years.

2.Chatla Sowrajya Lakshmi, W/o. Kanaka Raju, A/59 years. (Both are R/o.Visakhapatnam.) …. Accused.

Deleted accused 1.Neelapu Lavanya, W/o.Sateesh, A/35 years. 2.Chatla Pavani, W/o.Ramesh

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing on 04.07.2024 in the presence of the learnedAssistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and accused are in persons, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police

Station, laid charge sheet against accused in crime No.211/2021 for the offences punishable under Secs.498-A of IPC,Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet as follows :

On 01.03.2017 the marriage of PW.1/Chatla Mounika was performed with

A1 and at the time of marriage, her parents presented an amount of Rs.18 lakhs, 32 sovereign of gold ornaments and two agricultural land and Rs.2 lakhs towards adapaduchu katnam to A1 and A2 towards dowry. Later, PW.1 joined with A1 at 2 her in-laws house to lead conjugal life. After some days, A2 started harassment on her both mentally and physically by commenting about her complexion and personality and also said that A1 had government job, that’s why A2 wants more dowry. Due to unbearable torture, PW.1 decided to commit suicide by drowning in sea, at last moment someone had rescued PW.1 and informed the same to PW.2 by talking father’s mobile number and dropped PW.1 at the house of A3. After some days, PW.1 went to the house of A2 but she did not change your attitude,

A2 locked PW.1 in one room and took her mobile. Then, PW.1 informed the same to her parents with the help of neighbours over phone. Then, A1 always went to the house of A2 and left PW.1 at Srikakulam alone whenever PW.1 questioned about the same, accused picked up quarrel with PW.1 and abused her and beat her and necked her out from the house by demanding her to bring

Rs.12 lakhs to buy new flat in connection with the subject matter.

On receipt of report given by P.W.1, L.W.8/Women Sub-Inspector of police has registered the same as case in Cr.No211 of 2021 for the offences under sections 498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act of Nallapadu PS, Guntur District.

During the course of investigation, L.W.8 examined the witnesses and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. As per the statements of LWs.4 to 7, the names of A3 and A4 are deleted from the list of charge sheet. Then, LW.8 released the accused on serving sec.41-

A Cr.P.C notices to the accused. After completion of the investigation, LW.8 filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2.

3.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Sec.498-A of

IPC, Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against accused A1 and A2.

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

5.Accused A1 and A2 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and on hearing, charges framed against A1 to A3 under sections 498-A of IPC, Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and 3 got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. The Learned APP given up the evidence of LWs2, 4 to 8 since the material witnesses i.e., PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

7. As there is no incriminating material appearing in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 against accused, this court dispensed with the examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9.The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of

Accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Secs.498-A

of IPC, Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act”?

10.POINT :-

a)The defacto-complainant examined as P.W.1 and stated that on 01.03.2017 her marriage was performed with A1 at Vizag as per the caste and customs and dowry was not given to A1 and A2. She went to Vizag to lead marital life with A1 and they lived happily. Due to misunderstanding between them, she filed this complaint. She further deposed that A1 and A2 never harassed her and never asked any additional dowry. She put her signature on some papers but she does not know the contents.

b) L.W.3/V.Vernkata Reddy r who is the father of P.W.1 examined as P.W.2 and stated that 01.03.2017 Pw.1 marriage was performed with A1 at Vizag as per the caste and customs and dowry was not given to A1 and A2. PW.1 went to Vizag to lead marital life with A1 and they lived happily. Due to misunderstanding between them, Pw.1 filed this complaint. He further deposed that A1 and A2 never harassed Pw.1 and never asked any additional dowry.

11.Due to hostility of witnesses, with the permission of the Court the learned

APP cross examined P.W.1 & P.W.2 and their 161 Cr.P.C statements were marked as Ex.P.2 and P.3 respectively. The learned APP could not elicit nothing from the cross examination evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 in favour of the case of prosecution.

4

12.From the above evidence, it is clear that there is no incriminating material against the accused and the ingredients necessary to be proved for the offences under Sec.498-A of IPC, Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act have not been proved. Further, in view of hostility of material witnesses such as P.W.1 and 2, the prosecution has given up the other witnesses including the evidence of investigating officer and so

Ex.P.2 and P.3 i.e, section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.W.1 and 2 could not be confronted to them. There is no evidence left on record to prove the guilt of accused under Sec.498-A of IPC Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. In such circumstances, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the accused are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

13.In the result, Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.498-A of IPC,Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and accordingly, they are acquittedunder Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period six months under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 4 th day of July,2024.

Sd/-P.Rama Devi

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

FAC SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : PW.1: Ch.Mounika. -NONE- PW.2: V.Venkata Reddy.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence :

Ex.P1 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1. --NIL-- Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2.

Material objects marked

-- NIL –

Sd/-P.Rama Devi

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

C.C.No.2065/2024

01. Date of offence: 18.08.2021

02. Date of Filing: 07.02.2023

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: --

04. Release on bail: --

05. Commencement of trial: 03.07.2024

06. Closure of trial: 03.07.2024

07. Date of Judgment : 04.07.2024

08. Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses.

09.Name of the complainant: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women P.S,Guntur District.

10. Name of the accused : 1.Chatla Pedda Bhagyaraju @ @ Pedda Bhagyareddy, S/o.Kanaka Raju, A/35 years.

2.Chatla Sowrajya Lakshmi, W/o. Kanaka Raju, A/59 years. (Both are R/o.Visakhapatnam.).

11. Offences : U/Sec.498-A of IPC. Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

12. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

13. Finding : Not guilty

14. Sentence : Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.498-A of IPC,Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and accordingly, they are acquittedunder Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period six months under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/-P.Rama Devi

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

6 7

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

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Present : Smt P.Rama Devi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways,

FAC Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

Monday, this the 8 th day of July,2024.

C.C.No.2086 of 2024

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nallapadu PS, Gunur District .... Complainant.

AND

1. Chennam Naveen Kumar, S/o.Sambasiva rao, A/31 years.

2. Chennam Seetham Ratnam, W/o.Sambasiva rao, A/56 years. (Both are R/o.D.No.16-12-312, near Anjaneyaswamy temple, Guntur) …. Accused.

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing on 04.07.2024 in the presence of the learnedAssistant Public Prosecutor for

Complainant/State and accused are in persons, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallapadu Police

Station, laid charge sheet against accused in crime No.367/2024 for the offences punishable under Secs.498-A of IPC,Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet as follows :

On 04.05.2017 the marriage of PW.1/Ch.Anusha was performed with A1 at Old Guntur in the presence of elders and at the time of marriage, on demand of both of them, her parents presented cash of

Rs.3,50,000/-, 15 cents of land to accsued towards dowry and also presented household articles worth of Rs. 1 lakh. After the marriage, she joined A1 to lead conjugal life at her in laws house and during wedlock, they blessed with one female child. Thereafter, both of them harassed her both mentally and physically to bring the money by selling away the land and sent her to her parents house saying that to sell away the land and give money. About three months ago, accused sent PW.1 away to her parents home, they threatened that to sell the land and taken money. As there is no other go, she went to Nallapadu PS against both of them.

On receipt of report given by P.W.1, L.W.5/Women Sub-Inspector of police has registered the same as case in Cr.No.367/2023 for the offences under section 498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act of Nallapadu PS,

Guntur District. During the course of investigation, L.W.5 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements. Then, LW.5 released the accused on serving sec.41-A Cr.P.C notices to the accused. After completion of the investigation, LW.5 filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2.

3.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offences under Sec.498-A of IPC, Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against accused A1 and

A2.

4.On appearance of accused A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.230 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

5.Accused A1 and A2 were examined under section 262 of BNSS., and on hearing, charges framed against A1 and A2 under sections 498-A of IPC,

Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. The Learned APP given up the evidence of LWs.3 to 5 since the material witnesses i.e., PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

7. As there is no incriminating material appearing in the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 against accused, this court dispensed with the examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9.The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt

of Accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under

Secs.498-A of IPC, Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act”?

10.POINT :-

a)The defacto-complainant examined as P.W.1 and stated that on 04.05.2017 her marriage was performed with A1 at Anjaneyaswamy

Temple as per the caste and customs and dowry was not given to A1 and

A2. She along with A1 went to conjugal life and during her wedlock, they blessed with one daughter. She further deposed that A1 and A2 never harassed her and never asked any additional dowry. She put her signature on some papers but she does not know the contents.

b) L.W.2/T.Srinivasa rao who is the father of P.W.1 examined as P.W.2 and stated that 04.05.2017 Pw.1 marriage was performed with A1 at

Anjaneyaswamy temple as per the caste and customs and dowry was not given to A1 and A2. PW.1 along with A1 went to conjugal life and during wedlock, they blessed with one daughter. He further deposed that A1 and

A2 never harassed Pw.1 and never asked any additional dowry.

11.Due to hostility of witnesses, with the permission of the Court the learned APP cross examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and their 161 Cr.P.C statements were marked as Ex.P.2 and P.3 respectively. The learned APP could not elicit nothing from the cross examination evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 in favour of the case of prosecution.

12.From the above evidence, it is clear that there is no incriminating material against the accused and the ingredients necessary to be proved for the offences under Sec.498-A of IPC, Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act have not been proved. Further, in view of hostility of material witnesses such as P.W.1 and 2, the prosecution has given up the other witnesses including the evidence of investigating officer and so Ex.P.2 and P.3 i.e, section 161

Cr.P.C statements of P.W.1 and 2 could not be confronted to them. There is no evidence left on record to prove the guilt of accused under Sec.498-A of

IPC Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. In such circumstances, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the accused are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

13.In the result, Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and accordingly, they are acquittedunder Sec. 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period six months under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 8 th day of July, 2024.

Sd/-P.Rama Devi

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

FAC SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : PW.1: Ch.Anusha. -NONE- PW.2: T.Srinivasa rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence :

Ex.P1 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1. --NIL-- Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2.

Material objects marked

-- NIL –

Sd/-P.Rama Devi

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

C.C.No.2086/2024

01. Date of offence: 02.05.2024

02. Date of Filing: 04.07.2024

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: --

04. Release on bail: --

05. Commencement of trial: 04.07.2024

06. Closure of trial: 04.07.2024

07. Date of Judgment : 08.07.2024

08. Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses.

09.Name of the complainant: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallapadu P.S,Guntur District.

10. Name of the accused :

1. Chennam Naveen Kumar, S/o.Sambasiva rao, A/31 years. 2.Chennam Seetham Ratnam, W/o.Sambasiva rao, A/56 years. (Both are R/o.D.No.16-12-312, near Anjaneyaswamy temple, Guntur)

11. Offences : U/Sec.498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

12. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

13. Finding : Not guilty

14. Sentence : Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.498-A of IPC,Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and accordingly, they are acquittedunder Sec. 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period six months under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/-P.Rama Devi

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to:l The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

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

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Present : Smt P.Rama Devi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways,

FAC Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 3 rd day of July,2024.

C.C.No.1015 of 2022

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nagarampalem PS, Gunur District .... Complainant.

AND Kota Pavani, W/o.Venkata Reddy, A/28 years, R/o.’0’ lane, Ramireddynagar, Guntur Urban. …. Accused.

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing on 02.07.2024 in the presence of the learnedAssistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and

Sri. T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem Police

Station, laid charge sheet against accused in crime No.608/2021 for the offence punishable under Sec. 323 of IPC.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet as follows :

Defacto-complainant/LW.1/Uppunuri Mary @ Mariyamma is running sundry shop infront of their house. In between 18.07.2020 and 19.07.2021, the defacto complainant/Lw.1 took an amount of Rs.30,000/- from accused for her family maintenance and paid the principle amount and interest to accused. At present LW.1 has no need to pay amount. On 20.07.2021 at about 10-00 p.m., one Venkata Ramireddy came to the house of LW.1, demanded that he has to pay amount to accused for which, she replied that she had paid the amount and she 2 has no debt. At that juncture, accused came to LW.1, abused her in filthy language, slapped on her left cheek forcibly, resulting which, she sustained swelling injury. On hearing the same, neighbours came there and accused and

LW.1 went away from the place. Thereafter, LW.1 informed the same to her husband/LW.2/U.Mariyadass. Later, LW.1 presented a written report in

Nagarampalem PS.

After obtaining permission from this court as the contents of report are non-cognizable offence, PW.4/Sub-Inspector of police has registered the same as case in Cr.No.608/2021 for the offences under section 323 of IPC of

Nagarampalem PS, Guntur Urban. During the course of investigation, PW.4 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Later, PW.4 served sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of the investigation, PW.4 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Sec.323 of

IPC against accused.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., for the offence under

Sec.323 of IPC and the substance of the accusation are read over to her in

Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. The evidence of LW.1/U.Mary & Mariyamma,

LW.2/U.Mariyadass and Lw.4/Sk.Meharunnisa was closed by this court basing on the memo as whereabouts are not known.

7. Accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9.The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of Accused for the offence punishable under Sec.323 of IPC”?

10.POINT :-

a)The LW.3 and Lw.5 examined as P.W.1/U.Subbulu and

PW.2/K.Aswini and stated that they do not know anything about the facts of this case.

Though, the learned APP cross-examined the said witness by seeking permission from the court to declare them as hostile witness to the case of prosecution, but nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution from the said cross-examination, except marking of their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P1 and P2 respectively.

b) PW.3 who examined PW.1 deposed that on 21.07.2021 at about 8.45 p.m., she examined LW.1/U.Mary @ Mariyamma and found the external injury i.e., pain on the left side of the head and loss of consciousness and conjunction of 4 left ear and she advised chest x-ray No.9432/21 normal study, C.T.Brain and CT skull are orbit, No.6550 were no bone injury and she is of the opinion that the injury is simple in nature and accordingly, she issued Ex.P3 wound certificate of

LW.1.

c) PW.4 deposed that on 07.08.2021, Lw.1 came to the police station and presented a Ex.P4/written report as the offence is non-cognizable, he submitted a letter to the court for permission and on 12.08.2021, after receiving of permission from court, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.608/2021 for the offence u/Secs.323 of IPC, submitted Ex.P5/original FIR to the Hon'ble court and copies of the same to all concerned officers, proceeded to the scene of offence situated at

Ramireddy nagar, ‘0’ line,Guntur and drafted Ex.P6/rough sketch, examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 and 2 and PWs.1 and 2. Then, he served

Sec.41A Cr.P.C notice to accused on 14.08.2021. After receipt of wound certificate and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused.

11.As seen from the prosecution case, the evidence of LWs.1 and 2 closed by this court basing on the memo filed by the police as whereabouts are not known.

PWs.1 and 2 who are neighbours present at the time of alleged occurrence did not support the case of prosecution. PW.3 doctor who treated LW.1 and issued Ex.P3 and in the circumstances the evidence of PW.4/investigation officer is not sufficient to believe the case of prosecution and to convict the accused. In the stated reasons, prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Thus, the accused is acquitted accordingly. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

5

12.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Sec.323 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period six months under Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 3 rd day of July,2024.

Sd/-P.Rama Devi

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

FAC SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : PW.1: U.Subbulu. -NONE- PW.2: K.Aswini. PW.3:Dr. B.Suneetha. PW.4:P.Subba rao, SI of police,Nagarampalem PS.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence :

Ex.P1 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1. --NIL-- Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2. Ex.P3 : Wound certificate of LW.1. Ex.P4 : Report given by Lw.1 to the police. Ex.P5 : FIR. Ex.P6 : Rough sketch.

Material objects marked

-- NIL –

Sd/-P.Rama Devi

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

C.C.No.1015/2022

01. Date of offence: 20.07.2021

02. Date of Filing: 16.03.2022

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: --

04. Release on bail: --

05. Commencement of trial: 18.06.2024

06. Closure of trial: 01.07.2024

07. Date of Judgment : 03.07.2024

08. Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses.

09.Name of the complainant: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem P.S,Guntur District.

10. Name of the accused : Kota Pavani, W/o.Venkata Reddy, A/28 years, R/o.’0’ lane, Ramireddynagar, Guntur Urban.

11. Offence : U/Sec.323 of IPC.

12. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

13. Finding : Not guilty

14. Sentence : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.323 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period six months under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/-P.Rama Devi

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to:l The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

7 8

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. P.Rama Devi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways,Guntur,

FAC. Special Mobile Court, Guntur

Thursday, this the 18 th day of July, 2024

P.R.C.No.71 of 2023

Between State: Inspector of police, Nagarampalem PS. … Complainant.

And

A1-Choudala Ramanamma, W/o.Gangi Reddy, A/42 years, R/o.D.No.92-25-1997, Chaitanya Nagar, 7th lane, AT Agraharam, Guntur Town … Accused. Deleted accused:- A2- Borugadda Pothuraju, S/o.Venkateswarlu, A/30 years, R/o.Pedakurapadu Irrigation Department,Sattenapalli.

A3- Kovelampati Anjaneyulu, S/o.Ananthaiah,A/36 years, r/o.12th lane, Nallakunta, Guntur Town.

This petition is coming for hearing before me in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri. G.Koteswara rao, learned counsel for accused A1 and upon perusing the material papers available on record and having stood over till this day, for consideration, this court made the following:

O R D E R

The State represented by Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem PS has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.124 of 2022 of

Nagarampalem Police Station for the offence punishable under Section.

370(A)(2) of IPC, Secs.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act.

02. The brief averments of the Charge Sheet are as follows:-

a) On 03.04.2022 at 4-00 p.m., on receipt of information, Lw.7 raided the brothel house of A1 along with search warrant with the assistance of LWs.1 to 5 and took the accused A1 to A3 into custody and interrogated them. On interrogation, they confessed the commission of offence and stated that A2 and A3 visited to the brothel house of A1 for the sake of prostitution and A1 collected cash of Rs.500/- each from A2 and A3 to have sex with LW.6/Sunkara Nagamani, seized cash of

Rs.1000/- and black colour nokia keypad mobile from the possession of

A1, black and red colour karbonn keypad mobile from the possession of

A3, one intens condoms, one nirodh condom from the room and also seized V1 tobacco-1900 packets, 2) mirage tobacco-180 packets, 3) M- scented tobacco-2500 packets, 4.Chaini khaini-510 packets, 5) Swagath gold-410 packets, 6)raja premium tobacco-700 packets and 7) blue bull- 765 packets which are being selling by the A1 under the cover of police proceedings.

b) Basing on the police proceedings, a case was registered by

LW.7/Inspector of police for the offence under Sec.370-A(2), 272, 273 of

IPC, Secs.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW.7 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 03.04.2022, LW.7 served notice under Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C to A2 and A3 as they are liable for punishment under Sec.5 of ITP Act. On 04.04.2022, LW.7 produced the A1 before this court and this court sent

A1 for judicial custody. LW.7 deleted A2 and A3 who are the paramours from the list of accused as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, AP at Amaravathi vide Crl.P.No.76/2022. As per the orders of Hon’ble High

Court of AP gutkha and tobacco products doesn’t come under the food products, LW.7 deleted Secs.272 and 273 of IPC from the existing 3 section of law. After completion of investigation, LW.7 filed charge sheet against the accused.

03.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/Secs. 370(A) (2) of IPC, Secs.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act against accused.

04.Accused A1 was furnished with copies of relevant documents relied upon by the prosecution for its case as required U/S 207 Cr.P.C.

05. Perused the F.I.R, charge sheet and other material papers enclosed thereto. I am satisfied that there is prima-facie material against the accused to try her for the offences U/Sec.370(A)(2) of IPC, Secs.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act, out of which, Sec.370(A)(2) of IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble Sessions Court. Hence, the case is committed to the court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Guntur U/S 209 (a) Cr.P.C.

06.Accused A1 was released on bail as per the orders vide

Crl.M.P.No.692/2022 dt.04.05.2022 of the Hon’ble Spl. Judge for Trial of

offences against woman-cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge’s court, Guntur, and she shall continue to be on bail till conclusion of trial before the

Hon'ble Sessions Court.

07.Accused A1 reported that she has sufficient means to engage a counsel before the Hon'ble Sessions Court.

08. The case record and property, if any, shall be submitted to the

Hon'ble Sessions Court U/S 209 (c) Cr.P.C. Commitment of this case

shall be intimated to the Public Prosecutor U/S 209 (d) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 18th day of July, 2024.

Sd/-P.Rama Devi.

FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.