Smt. P. Vijaya Durga

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, the 28th day of March, 2014

Present: Smt.P.Vijaya Durga,

Judicial Magistrate of first class

Special Mobile court, Mahabubnagar.

C.C.No.702 of 2009

Between:

The State represented through the Sub- Inspector of police, II-Town, Police Station, Mahabubnagar.

… Complainant.

And

Abdul Jalees, S/o. M.A. Ghani, aged 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.8-2-5/1, Behind Govt. Hospital, Mahabubnagar.

... Accused

Nature of offence : Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery.

Section of law : U/Secs.420 and 465 of IPC.

Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the court : Found not guilty.

Sentence or order : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.420, 465 of IPC and acquitted U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

* * * This case is having come before me for final hearing on 06-03-2014 in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri.

A. Srinivasa Chary, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

2

JUDGMENT

The Accused is appeared before this court for the offence U/Secs.420 and 465 of IPC.

2. The Sub-Inspector of police, II-Town Police Station,

Mahabubnagar District has filed a report U/Sec.173 Cr.P.C with the following averments in brief:-

The case of the prosecution is that complainant

P. Pavan Kumar and accused are close friends on believe that accused is the owner of the house bearing No.8-2-5/1 situated at

Government Hospital Mahabubnagar. Accordingly complainant entered to an agreement of sale with accused on 28-07-2007 on total sale consideration and paid advance of Rs.95,000/-, earnest money and complainant agreed to pay balance amount within three months, whereupon accused agreed to execute sale deed after collecting of the required documents. The agreement dated 28-07-2007 was drafted in English language which was prepared by the accused, copy of which was also not furnished to the complainant. When the linked documents are pursued the house number is not tallied with the present number as accused had purchased the part of the house from his vendor Smt. Sabera

Begum through private sale deed and upon insisting by the complainant Smt. Sabera Begum also joined as a vendor in the sale deed to be executed, on such demand accused prepared another agreement of sale dated 14-08-2006 with the consent of his vendor Smt. Sabera Begum, on which the complainant paid

additional amount of Rs.5,000/- and paid total amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- to accused and agreed to pay balance amount of

Rs.5,55,000/- within three months of agreement. The said Sabera 3

Begum also signed in the said agreement of sale wherein it was clearly mentioned that the house earlier agreed to be sold bearing No.8-2-5/1 was wrongly written and its number has changed as 8-2-5/2 due to the sale of extent by Smt. Sabera

Begum in favour of accused. The accused is vendor agreed to sale the property the documents also executed in the presence of

LWs 2 and 3 Thirupathaiah and Ramprasad. The complainant asked the accused to get certificate from municipality to the effect that the house number is changed from 8-2-5/1 to 8-2- 5/2. Thus the agreement dated 20-07-2006 is cancelled and agreement dated 14-08-2006 it is brought in force by accused in the month of September 2006 the accused approached to the complainant and requested to give the agreement of sale dated 14-08-2006 so as to take a Xerox copy thereof, the accused took it from complainant made material alterations in the agreement so as to defeat the purpose of agreement of sale i.e., changed the date of document from 14-08-2006 to 20-07-2006 and also changed the various dates in the agreement and also added a note and inserted forfeiture clause but fortunately accused initiated on such corrections and returned the agreement of sale

dated 14-08-2006 to the complainant. The complainant noticed

such tampering by accused for default clause to which complainant gave a reply. The complainant did not agree to pay

additional pay of Rs.75,000/- for execution of the sale deed

accused resorted tosuch tampering and cheating.

3.On receipt of the complainant, LW-5 N. Lingaiah, S.I. of

Police II-Town police station Mahabubnagar district has registered 4 a case in Cr.No.141/2007, U/Secs.420 and 465 of IPC and took the cognizance.

4. Upon perusal of the record, the above charge sheet has taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable

U/Secs.420 and 465 of IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mahabubnagar. Later on it has been numbered as

C.C.No.728/08 on the file of said court Consequent upon transfer of the crime record to this court it has been re-numbered as

C.C. No.702/09 on the file of this court.

5. On appearance of the accused, they were furnished with the documents as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., and later on 239

Cr.P.C., examination has been conducted. Accusation of the charge, constituting the offence U/Secs.420 and 465 of IPC was read over to the accused for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the prosecution case prosecution examined

PWs 1 to 4 and Exs P1 to P6, Exs D1 to D3, and Exs C1 to C4 are marked.

7. After closure of evidence of prosecution the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses has con- templated U/Sec.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

5

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Secs.420 and 465 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point:- The evidence of PW-1 discloses that accused is his classmate, due to the acquaintance with accused, approached him and stated that he intended to sell one house near Government Hospital bearing No.8-2-5/1 and also stated that the said house is in his name. PW-1 agreed to purchase the said house for sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/-. On 20-01- 2006 agreement of sale was executed in between PW-1 and accused in the presence of PW-3 in respect of the property bearing No.8-2-5/1 and paid advance amount of Rs.95,000/- and agreed to pay remaining balance amount within three months i.e., on the date of registration of the sale deed. PW-1 came to know that the said house is not in the name of accused, it is in the name of Sabera Begum. On 22-07-2006 accused executed an agreement of sale in favor of PW-1 and he informed that as per the records the house property is in the name of Smt. Sabera Begum. Accused replied that himself and

Sabera Begum will execute the agreement in his name.

Accordingly on 14-08-2006 they executed agreement of sale (Ex-

P2). At that time he paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- to accused towards consideration in the presence of PW-2 and Thirupathaiah.

Later accused changed the house number as 8-2-5/2 in municipal records and accused is hand over one certificate which was obtained from the municipal authorities about the changed house number. In the second week of September 2006 accused came to his house and requested for original agreement (Ex-P2) and informed that Sabera Begum wants to Xerox copy of agreement.

6

Accordingly he hand over the original agreement of sale (Ex-P2) to accused after two days accused return back the agreement (Ex-P2) to him. On that day he did not verify the documents and kept the same in almyrah. On 21-09-2006 he received notice from the accused advocate. Immediately he verified the Ex-P2 and found that the agreement was manipulated. The date which was mentioned as 14-08-2006 was struck of and written as 20- 07-2006 and also made a note on second page of agreement “if unable to pay the balance amount within two months or amount will be forfeited”. Immediately he issued a reply notice on 16-11- 2006.

11.PW-2 evidence discloses that he know PW-1 and accused, PW-1 intended to purchase house bearing No.8-2-5/1 situated at Government Hospital Mahabubnagar belongs to accused. In that connection PW-1 and accused executed an agreement of sale dated 20-07-2006 for sale consideration of

Rs.6,50,000/-. On the same day PW-1 paid advance amount of

Rs.95,000/- and agreed to pay balance amount within two or three months. On 14-08-2006 PW-1 approached the accused and paid amount of Rs.5,000/-. In the meanwhile PW-1 approached the municipal authorities that on enquiry he came to know that the house bearing No.8-2-5/1 in the name of Smt. Sabera

Begum. Immediately PW-1 asked the accused about the ownership, he informed that he purchased the property from Smt.

Sabera Begum, but the property was not transferred in his name.

He promised that, he will pay amount if any loan on the house property and he will transfer the property in the name of PW-1.

On 14-08-2006 PW-1 and accused executed an agreement of 7 sale. PW-2 signed as a witness on agreement. One

Thirupathaiah was attestor of the agreement. The said agreement (Ex-P2) written in Telugu. No corrections in Ex-P2 when he signed on it. Two weeks thereafter PW-1 informed to him that accused came to his house and taken away Ex-P2 sale agreement to get the Xerox copy. Accused returned back the original documents under Ex-P2. On 21-09-2006 PW-1 received a legal notice from the accused through counsel alleging that the agreement was cancelled due to non payment of balance sale consideration by PW-1 within stipulated period as mentioned in the first agreement.

12.PW-3 evidence discloses that he knew the PW-1 and accused. On 29-07-2006 PW-1 informed that he purchased the house from his friend for Rs.6,50,000/- and requested to come along with him to the house of accused. He accompanied PW-1 to the house of accused. In his presence PW-1 given an amount of Rs.95,000/- to the accused towards advance. Accused and PW- 1 signed in a written paper towards advance amount and also signed on written papers. No corrections in the said written papers. After two months he came to know through PW-1 that, the said property is not in the name of accused. He cheated the

PW-1. Later PW-2 Thirupathaiah, PW-1 went to the house of accused and executed another document for purchase of the house property after execution of the document accused approached the PW-1 and taken away the said document to get

Xerox copy. Later accused return back the original documents to

PW-1. After receipt of the notice from the accused PW-1 verified the documents and found some corrections.

8

13.For the offence U/Sec.420 of IPC:- “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the home or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable on being convert get a valuable security shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine.”

14.For the offence U/Sec.465 IPC punishment for forgery:- “Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend 2 years or with fine or with both.”

15.Definition of forgery U/Sec.463 IPC:- “Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of documents or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property or to enter any impress or imply contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be commits forgery.”

16.In this case the prosecution case is that complainant and accused entered into an agreement on 28-07-2007 in English in respect of the property bearing No.8-2-5/1 situated at

Government Hospital Mahabubnagar. Later complainant (PW-1) 9 came to know that, on records the said property in the name of one Smt. Sabera Begum. Later within the understanding between the parties they entered into an another agreement of sale (Ex-

P2) on 14-08-2006 with the consent of Smt. Sabera Begum. At the time of first agreement the complainant paid an amount of

Rs.95,000/- as earnest advance. At the time of second agreement complainant paid an amount of Rs.5,000/-. Further contended that at the time of second agreement under Ex-P2 the complainant agree to pay balance amount of Rs.5,55,000/- within three months of agreement. The house number of the property also changed under Ex-P2 as 8-2-5/2 instead of 8-2-5/1.

Further contended that in the month of September, 2006 accused taken away agreement of sale dated 14-08-2006 to get the

Xerox copy. Later accused return back the agreement.

Subsequently complainant (PW-1) received legal notice under Ex-

P3 from accused stating that “agreement was executed on 28- 07-2006 for purchasing the house for total sale consideration of

Rs.6,50,000/- and paid Rs.95,000/- towards advance in the said agreement sale the advance amount was written as Rs.1,00,000/- and agree to give the balance sale consideration within 2 months from the date of said agreement, consequent to the failure in payment of balance sale consideration within stipulated time in agreement both parties are agree to forgo and forfeit the advance amount”. He further stated first Ex-P3 (agreement of sale dated 20-07-2006) was got written in English. Thereafter the said agreement prepared in Telugu language and obtained the signature of the accused in order to note the substance of the agreement which was written in English. Due to the non payment of the amount (balance sale consideration) with in time by 19-09- 10 2006, the accused terminated the agreement of sale dated 20- 07-2006 and forfeited the amount of Rs.95,000/-. After the receipt of the said notice complainant (PW-1) issued a reply notice under Ex-P4 and denied allegations mentioned in the Ex-

P3.

17.On behalf of the defense CW-1 Assistant

Commissioner of Municipality Mahabubnagar was examined as

CW-1 and marked documents under Exs C1 to C4. His evidence discloses that as per the directions of the Court he produced the document i.e., Ex-C1 is the property tax for the first half year 2013-14 relating property bearing No.8-2-5/2 paid by accused.

Ex-C2 is demand notice of Ex-C1. Ex-C3 is the ownership certificate of property bearing No.8-2-5/2 is stands in the name of accused in municipal records. The prosecution did not cross- examine the CW-1. PW-1 also admitted in cross-examination that on 24-07-2006 he paid a tax in respect of the disputed property under Ex-D2. As per the Ex-D2 accused is the owner of the property. On 30-03-2010 accused paid the tax in respect of the disputed property in the year 2006 to March 2010 under Ex-D3.

As per the above documents disclose that accused is owner of the disputed property. He further stated that due to the friendship, on the request of the accused as he was suffering with

TB he paid property tax in the year 2006 under Ex-D2. As per the admissions of PW-1 and evidence of CW-1 establishes that the property bearing No.8-2-5/2 in the name of the accused. The name of accused was entered in the municipal records in the year 2001 basing on the Xerox copy of the sale deed and application filed by the accused. It discloses that since 2001 the property 11 bearing No.8-2-5/2 is in the name of accused in Municipal

Records. The defense establishes that accused purchased the property bearing No.8-2-5/2 from Smt. Sabera Begum and the said property was transferred in the name of the accused in the year 2001. With regard to the title of the property, the accused is not filed any documents to show that he got title in respect of the disputed property 8-2-5/2.

18.The evidence of PW-3 discloses that he was present at the time of execution of agreement which was written in English and advance payment of Rs.95,000/- to the accused by PW-1. He stated in cross-examination that he knew the contents of the documents where he signed and knew the terms and conditions of the said document, as per the conditions the remaining consideration should be paid within 2 months if PW-1 fails to pay the balance sale consideration amount within stipulated time, the advance amount will not be repaid to PW-1. He further stated that he do not know the second document and he is not eye witness to the second document i.e., disputed agreement of sale

Ex-P2 (14-08-2006). PW-2 he stated in the evidence that on 14-08-2006 PW-1 brought the accused and paid amount of

Rs.5,000/- on the same day PW-1 and accused entered into another agreement he signed on agreement as a witness.

Thirupathaiah (LW-2) also attested on second sale agreement which was written in Telugu. There are no corrections in the said document. He admitted his signature on disputed agreement (Ex-P2). He stated in cross-examination that he has not seen the first agreement dated 20-07-2006. PW-1 also not informed about the conditions mentioned in the first document dated 20- 12 07-2006. Ex-P2 was executed basing on terms and conditions mentioned in first agreement dated 20-07-2006. As per the first agreement (Ex-D1) PW-1 has to pay the balance consideration within 2 months from the date of agreement, in case of default in payment remaining balance amount which was paid as earnest money shall be forfeited. At the time of execution of Ex-P2 PW-2,

Thirupathaiah, accused, Shamsunder Reddy, Sabera Begum were present. After completion of the procedure, accused handed over

Ex-P2 to PW-1. PW-1 also admits in cross-examination that basing on the first agreement (Ex-D1) the second agreement under Ex-P2 was executed. As per the evidence of PW-2 the terms and conditions imposed on Ex-D1 reflected in Ex-P2 sale agreement. There is no evidence on record to show that accused tampered or forged the Ex-P2 document. Prosecution failed to establish that accused cheated PW-1. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/Secs.420, 465 IPC.

Result:-

19. The accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Secs.420, 465 of IPC and acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 28th day of March, 2014.

Judicial Magistrate of first class,

Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar 13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: P. Pavan Kumar -None-

PW-2: Ramprasad

PW-3: Shamsunder Reddy

PW-4: N. Lingaiah

FOR COURT:

CW-1: R. Venkanna

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1: Complaint of PW-1

Ex-P2: Original sale agreement dt.14-08-2006

Ex-P3: Legal notice, dt.21-09-2006.

Ex-P4: Reply notice, dt.16-11-2006.

Ex-P5: Acknowledgement

Ex-P6: F.I.R.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex-D1: Agreement of sale agreement, dt.20-07-2006.

Ex-D2: Receipt of property tax, Rs.4,352/-

Ex-D3: Receipt of property tax, Rs.3,332/-

FOR COURT:

Ex-C1: Original property tax receipt for the first half year 2013-14 relating to property bearing No.8-2-5/2 paid by Abdul Zalees. Ex-C2: Demand notice relating to Ex-C1.

Ex-C3: Ownership certificate of property bearing No.8-2-5/2 stands in the name of Abdul Zalees.

Ex-C4: Property tax abstract relating to property bearing No.8-2-5/2.

Judicial Magistrate of first class,

Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar.

14

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT: MAHABUBNAGAR

TABULAR FORM

Calendar Case Number: 702 of 2009

Name of the Police Station: II-Town Police Station, Mahabubnagar

FIR/Cr. No.: 141/2007

Section of law: U/Secs. 420 and 465 of IPC

Description of the accused:

Abdul Jalees, S/o. M.A. Ghani, aged 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.8-2-5/1, Behind Govt. Hospital, Mahabubnagar.

Date of : Occurrence: September, 2006 Report or complaint: 25-09-2007 Appearance/Apprehension: -- Released of accused : -- Commencement of trial: 19-12-2012 Close of trial: 10-09-2013 Sentence or order: 28-03-2014

Explanation for delay: No delay

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class

Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar

To

The Hon'ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar

Remarks: No property in this case to pass the order.

Dis. No.

IN THE COURT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Friday, the 8st day of May, 2015.

Present: Smt P.Vijaya Durga, Chairman-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for Juvenile Cases, MAHABUBNAGAR.

Members: 1. Peddibotla Nagalakshmi,

2. M.Galanna,

J.C.C.No.10 of 2014

Between: State of A.P. rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, PS.Amangal. Cr.No.130 of 2013 of PS.Amangal. … Complainant. A n d

1.Dudurk Shankar s/o Lachiram, age 16 yrs, occ: Dhabha Hotel Worker, r/o Gurramgutta, Amangal village.

2.Revally Mahesh @ Chhinna s/o Kistaiah, age 13 yrs, occ: Student, r/o Gurramgutta, Amangal village. … Juvenile in conflict with laws No.1 and 2.

Section of Law:U/Sec.457 and 380 IPC

Plea of JCLs:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of Board:Set at liberty.

Sentence or Order:The accusation leveled against the Juvenile in conflict with laws No.1 and 2 for the offences U/Sec.457 and 380 IPC are not proved and accordingly they are set at liberty for the same under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The relevant bonds of JCLs No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled. MOs1 to 5 i.e., aluminum bowl (20 KGs), aluminum bowl (15 KGs), aluminum cooker (20 KGs), Steel framed drum big size and small size brace framed drum were already given to PW1 on interim custody and the same shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

This case came before me for final hearing on 24-4-2015 in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri C.Rajeev Kumar, Advocate for Juvenile in conflict with laws No.1 and 2. Upon hearing and perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the Board delivered the following:-

2

FINAL ORDER

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, PS.Amangal has filed Final report against the

Juvenile in conflict with laws No.1 and 2 in Cr.No.130 of 2013 for the offences under section 457 and 380 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 22-6-2013 the complainant

H.Shanker Rao, GHM of ZP High School in routine manner locked the school building doors. On 24-6-2013 at 1000 hours while he was returned to the school, found that some unknown offenders gained entered into School Kitchen room and break open the door lock and committed theft of school kitchen articles i.e., one 20 KG of vessel, two 15 KGs of aluminum vessel, 20 liters aluminum cooker and one band set all worth Rs.40,000/-.

1. Approximately 50 days back i.e., on 23-6-2013 midnight JCLs No.1 and 2 are went to ZPHS (Bus Stand) Amangal and jumped compound wall and break open the lock of kitchen room and entered into school kitchen room and committed theft of school vessels i.e., 1) one 20 KG capacity of vessel, 2) two 15 KG capacity of vessels of aluminum, 3) 20 liters capacity of aluminum cooker and 4) one band set. Band set kept in the hut of JCL-1 and remaining property kept in a pit which is dogged for latrine house of Dundurk Jangaiah for safe custody. The said property in Cr.No.130/2013 of PS.Amangal.

2.On 10-8-2013 midnight JCLs-1 and 2 entered into the Primary School, Amangal by broke open the lock of store room and committed theft of vessels i.e., 1) one 20 KG capacity of aluminum vessel, 2) one 15 KG capacity of vessel, 3) two 10 KG capacity of vessels, 4) 8 KG capacity of vessel, 5) two big size aluminum pressure cooker, 6) one small and big school band set and the same were kept in the house of JCL-2. The said property in Cr.No.175/2013 of PS.Amangal.

3.After two days of the above offence i.e., 12-8-2013 at midnight the JCLs-1 and 2 gain entered into the store room of Vignana Grammer School, Amangal by break open the lock and committed theft of

1) Home Theatre, 2) Amplifier, 3) School band set (One small and big drums) and the same was hidden in the hut of JCL-1 at Amangal. The said property in Cr.No.178/2013 of PS.Amangal.

3

Basing on the complaint, LW8 registered a case and investigated. During investigation, they confessed the offence and basing on their confession he apprehended the juveniles and produced them before the Juvenile Justice Board.

3.This final report was taken on file for the offences U/Sec.457 and 380 alternatively 411 IPC against the Juvenile in conflict with laws.

4. After appearance of the Juvenile in conflict with laws copies of documents furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Later the Juvenile in conflict with laws No.1 and 2 were examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation for the offences U/Sec.457 and 380 alternatively 411 IPC are read over and explained to them in Telugu by the members of Board for which they denied and claimed to be enquired.

6.To prove the prosecution case, PWs1 to 5 are examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P7 and MOs.1 to 5 are got marked. The learned APP had given up the evidence of

LW3 Thandra Vidhyader, LW4 Smt Uppanamoni Padma and LW6 Veldanda Pradeep.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence the Juvenile in conflict with laws No.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by putting them the incriminating substance appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution proved the accusation leveled against the Juvenile in conflict with laws No.1 and 2 for the offences U/Sec.457 and 380 alternatively 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:-

4

In this case, the complainant examined himself as PW1 his evidence discloses that on 19-3-2014 he along with his son went to Shadnagar to attend marriage of his sister’s daughter on his Hero Honda motorcycle. He parked his motorcycle infront of function hall and went inside the function hall. After completion of marriage, they came out form the function hall and found missing of his motorcycle. He searched for bike, but in vain. Three days of the incident, he gave a complaint to police under Ex.P1. Later he received his motorcycle (MO1) though court on interim custody.

11.PW2 panch witness for scene of offence his evidence discloses that at about 9 or 10 months back police observed the scene and conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and prepared one crime details form Ex.P2.

13.In this case, except the evidence of PWs1 and 2, the Board given up the evidence of LWs2 and 3, who are eyewitness and the evidence of LWs6 to 8 who are panch witnesses for confession and recovery and Investigating Officer are closed by this Board, as the material witness did not support the case of the prosecution.

Except the evidence of PWs1 and 2 complainant and panch witness for scene of offence, other witnesses were not examined by the Board. Accordingly, the JCL is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.379 IPC. Accordingly, the JCL is acquitted.

This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the accusation leveled against the Juvenile in conflict with law for the offence U/Sec.379 IPC is not proved and accordingly he is set at liberty for the same under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The relevant bonds of JCL shall stands cancelled. MO1 Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.AP-29-Q-8401 was already given to PW1 on interim custody and the same shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to steno typist, type to dictation, corrected and pronounced by

me in the Juvenile justice board this the 1st day of May, 2015.

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Juvenile Cases, MAHABUBNAGAR. 1.

2.

::Appendix of Evidence::

For Prosecution : PW.1 H.Shanker Rao. PW.2 Maha Lingam.

5

PW.3 P.Prabhaker Rao. PW.4 Manikya Rao. PW.5 I.Manoj Kumar.

For Defence: None

:: Documents marked on behalf of ::

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is complaint. Ex.P2 is crime details form. Ex.P3 is signature of PW4 on confession panchanama. Ex.P4 is signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P5 is confession panchanama. Ex.P6 is recovery panchanama. Ex.P7 is First Information Report.

For Defence: -NIL-

:: Material objects marked for::

MO1 is 20 KG Aluminum bowl. MO2 is 15 KG Aluminum bowl. MO3 is 20 KG Aluminum bowl. MO4 is steel framed drum big size. MO5 is small size brass framed drum.

.

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for Juvenile Cases, MAHABUBNAGAR. 1.

2.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS SPECIAL MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Dated this the 27th day of March, 2014

Present: Smt.P.Vijaya Durga,

Judicial Magistrate of first class

Special Mobile court, Mahabubnagar.

C.C.No.887 of 2009

Between:

The State represented by Sub- Inspector of police, Koilkonda Police Station, Mahabubnagar. … Complainant.

And

Kola Anjaneyulu, S/o. Venkataiah, age 27 years, Caste: Telugu, Occu: Coolie, R/o: Garlapad Village, Koilkonda Mandal.

... Accused.

Nature of offence : Lurking house-trespass or house- breaking by night in order to commit offence.

Section of law : U/Secs.454, 380 of IPC.

Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court : Found not guilty

Sentence or order : Accused found not guilty for the of- fences punishable U/Secs.454, 380 and 411 of IPC and they are acquitted

U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. His bond shall stands cancelled. The unmarked case property cash of Rs.8,000/- already given interim custody to the PW-1 vide

C.P.No.267/2008 is holds good after expiry of appeal time.

* * *

This case is having come before me for final hearing on 26-03-2014 in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri N.P.

Venkatesh, Sri. S. Murali Krishna and Sri. M. Ramesh, Advocates

for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record

and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

2

JUDGMENT

The Accused is appeared before this court for the offence U/Secs.454, 380 of IPC.

2. The Sub-Inspector of police, Koilkonda Police Station,

Mahabubnagar District has filed a report U/s.173 Cr.P.C with the following averments in brief:-

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15-07- 2008 the complainant LW-1 Y. Sayamma left to Kothapally village to her sister’s house, her husband went for coolie. On the same day at about 1300 hours in their absence some unknown offenders have entered into their house by broke open the lock of the doors and committed theft of net cash of Rs.15,000/- from trunk box and a pair of gold Genteelu weighing about one tola.

The complainant further added that since two days the accused (Anjaneyulu) was moving in the village suspiciously. On 19-07- 2008 again the complainant went to police station and stated that on search she noticed one pair gold ear Genteelu weighing about one tola and net cash of Rs.5,000/- in a mud pot (Golem).

The offenders have committed theft only net cash of Rs.10,000/- from her house on 15-07-2008 at about 1300 hours. On 22-07- 2008 on reliable information LW-8 and staff proceeded to

Garlapadu village and apprehended the accused and recorded his confession and seized Rs.8,000/- under cover of panchanama.

3. On the above petition the LW-8 R. Narsimhaiah, S.I. of

Police has registered a case in Cr.No.54/2008, U/Secs.454, 380 of

IPC and within cognizance.

3

4. Upon perusal of the record, the above charge sheet has taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable

U/Secs.454, 380 of IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Mahabubnagar. Later on it has been numbered as

C.C.No.732/09 on the file of said court. Consequent upon transfer of the crime record to this court it has been re-numbered as C.C.

No.887/09 on the file of this court.

5. On appearance of the accused, they were furnished with the documents as required U/Sec. 207 Cr. P. C. and later on 239

Cr.P.C., examination has been conducted. Accusation of the charge, constituting the offence U/Secs.454, 380 and 411 of IPC was read over to the accused for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

7. After closure of evidence of prosecution the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses has con- templated U/Sec.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Secs.454, 380 of IPC and alternative charge 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

4

10. Point No.1:- To prove the prosecution case the complainant examined as PW-1 stated thatLW-2 Ramulu is her husband. She knew LW-3 Anjilamma and accused. At about six years back in their absence some unknown offenders entered into their house by broke open the doors and committed theft of

Rs.10,000/- and gold Genteelu weighing about one tola. On suspicious, on the next day of the offence her son by name

Bagavanthu caught hold of the accused. She gave a complaint to the police. She received cash of Rs.8,000/- through Court on interim custody dated 30-08-2008 vide C.P.No.267/2008. PW-2 panch witness evidence discloses that he knew PW-5. He do not know the accused. He do not know whether police seized

Rs.8,000/- from the possession of accused. He do not know whether accused confessed the offence before him but police obtained his signature on white paper. Pws 3 and 4 stated that police never conducted panchanama of scene in their presence.

PW-5 his evidence discloses that police not seized cash from the accused in his presence at about four or five years back. Police obtained his signature on confession report. Pw-6 investigating officer stated that basing on report registered the case and during investigation he visited the scene of offence and recorded statements, on 22-07-2008 he arrested the accused at ZPHS school Garlapadu and recovered cash of Rs.8,000/- under confession panchanama.

11. So from the above evidence placed before the court,

PW-1 stated that some unknown offenders committed theft of cash of Rs.10,000/-. No ingredients of offence U/Sec.454, 380 IPC.

5

In this case PW-6 investigating officer stated that he recovered amount from the accused in the presence of Pws 2 and 5 which is stolen property. Pws 2 and 5 evidence not corroborated to the

PW-6 with regard to seizure of amount. The offence U/Sec.411

IPC also not established by prosecution. The cash of Rs.8,000/- already given interim custody to the PW-1 vide C.P.No.267/2008 is holds good after expiry of appeal time. Accordingly accused found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.454, 380 and 411 of IPC.

12. Result:

Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Secs.454, 380 and 411 of IPC and acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

His bail bond executed earlier shall stands cancelled. The unmarked case property cash of Rs.8,000/- already given interim custody to the PW-1 vide C.P.No.267/2008 is holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of March, 2014.

Judicial Magistrate of first class,

Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR

DEFENCE:

PW-1: Yeligondla Sayamma -None-

PW-2: Kavali Banu Prakash

PW-3: Chinna Narsimhulu

PW-4: Harijan Venkataiah

PW-5: Papanolla Jagan Goud 6

PW-6: R. Narsimhaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR

DEFENCE:

Ex-P1: Complaint- Nil –

Ex-P2: Signature of PW-2 on recovery panchanama

Ex-P3: Signature of PW-5 on confessional report

Ex-P4: Original F.I.R.

Ex-P5: Crime detail form

Ex-P6: Confessional Statement.

MOS. MARKED

- Nil -

Judicial Magistrate of first class,

Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar.

7

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT: MAHABUBNAGAR

TABULAR FORM

Calendar Case Number: 887/09

Name of the Police Station: Koilkonda Police Station, Mahabubnagar

FIR/Cr. No.: 54/2008

Section of law: 455, 380 and 411 of IPC

Description of the accused:

Kola Anjaneyulu, S/o. Venkataiah, age 27 years, Caste: Telugu, Occu: Coolie, R/o: Garlapad Village, Koilkonda Mandal.

Date of : Occurrence: 15-07-2008 Report or complaint: 17-07-2008 Appearance/Apprehension: 22-07-2008 Released of accused : 02-09-2008 Commencement of trial: 06-02-2014 Close of trial: 26-03-2014 Sentence or order: 27-03-2014

Explanation for delay: No delay

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class

ToSpecial Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar

The Hon'ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar

Remarks: The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dis. No.

8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, MAHABOOB NAGAR

Present: - Smt.P.Vijaya Durga,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Special Mobile Court, Mahaboobnagar

Saturday, the 29th day of March, 2014

C.C.No.272 of 2011

Between:-

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Nawabpet – Mahaboobnagar, …Complainant

And

Putti Srinu, S/o. Hanmaiah, age 28 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Labourer, R/o: Nawabpet village. …Accused.

Nature of offence : Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means and to provoke breach of the peace.

Section of law : U/Secs.324 and 504 of IPC

Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court : Found not guilty

Sentence or order : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.324 and 504 of IPC and acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

*****

This case came on 27-03-2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and of

Sri. N. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following.

2

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nawabpet, Mahaboobnagar filed a case against the accused in Cr.No.34 of 2011 of his station alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under

Section 324 and 504 of IPC.

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 08-03-2011 at about 5.00 p.m., the complainant LW-1 Chandrakala was scolding her husband in their agriculture field as her husband was not switched on the bore well motor. The accused presumed that she abused him, he went to her and abused in filthy language, pulled her hand and beat with a stick on her stomach. On the next day morning again he picked up quarrel with her husband and beat him with hands by holding his collar.

3. Basing on the complaint, LW-8 C. Mahesh Kumar, S.I. of

Police registered the case in crime No.54 of 2011 U/Secs. 324 and 504 of IPC within cognizance.

4. Upon perusal of the record, the above charge sheet has taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.324 and 504 of IPC, by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

Later on it has been numbered as C.C.No.190/11 on the file of said court

Consequent upon transfer of the crime record to this court it has been re- numbered as C.C. No.272/11 on the file of this court.

5. On appearance of the accused, they were furnished with the documents as required U/Sec. 207 Cr. P. C. and later on 239 Cr.P.C., examination has been conducted. Accusation of the charge, 3 constituting the offence U/Sec.324 and 504 of IPC was read over to the accused for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of prosecution, five witnesses Pws.1 and 7 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

7. After closure of evidence of prosecution the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses has contemplated U/Sec.313 (1)

(b) Cr.P.C. accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Secs.324 and 504 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point:- To prove the prosecution case, the complainant is examined as PW-1, her evidence discloses that PW-2 is her husband, she knew PWs 3, 4 and accused. At about two years back at 5.00 p.m., she was scolding her husband for not providing the water to fields.

Accused suspects that she was abusing him. Accused abused her in filthy language and kicked her on stomach. Her husband came there and they went to police station and gave a report under Ex-P1. PWs 3 and 4 witnessed the incident. PW-2 evidence discloses that PW-1 is his wife. He knew PWs 3, 4 and accused. In the year 2011, at about 5.00 p.m., accused beat PW-1. After the incident, he went to scene of offence accused beat him with hands, PWs 3 and 4 witnessed the 4 incident. Immediately they went to police station and gave a report.

PW-3 stated that she knew PWs 1, 2, 4 and accused. She do not know anything about this case. PW-4 stated that PWs 1 to 3 and accused.

She do not know anything about this case. PW-5 stated that he do not know PW-6, police not conducted panchanama in his presence. At about three or four years back police obtained his signature at police station. He do not know the contents of panchanam. PW-6 stated that he do not know PWs 2 to 5. Police not conducted panchanama in his presence. At about three years back police obtained his signature at

Nawabpet. PW-7 evidence discloses that on 10-03-2011 he examined

PW-1 and found following injuries healing abrasion one inch and ¼ inch on right cheek which is simple in nature caused with blunt object. He issued wound certificate under Ex-P6 wound certificate. As per Ex-P6

PW-1 sustained injuries on right cheek. Under Ex-P1 and as per PW-1 evidence discloses that PW-1 sustained injury on stomach caused with stick. With regard injuries the Ex-P6 not corroborated to Ex-P1 and

PW-1 evidence. As per Ex-P1 accused beat PW-1 with stick but the evidence of PW-1 discloses that accused beat her with a stick on stomach and also beat PW-2 with hands. As per Ex-P6 there are no injuries on stomach of PW-1. In this case the material object was also not seized by police.

11.PW-1 stated that accused abused her in filthy language.

Except her evidence PWs 2 to 4 did not state anything against the accused that the accused abused her. In this case eye witness PWs 3 and 4 and panch witnesses did not support to the case of prosecution.

Eye witnesses stated that they do not know anything about this case.

The prosecution failed to examine investigation officer is also fatal to 5 thecaseofprosecution. Accordingly accused found not guilty for the offence U/Secs.324, 504 of IPC.

12.Result:-

The accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Secs.324 and 504 of IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands canceled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29th day of March, 2014.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR

DEFENCE:

PW-1: K. Chandrakala - None -

PW-2: K. Narsimulu

PW-3: R. Gangamma

PW-4: R. Pentamma

PW-5: K. Krishnaiah

PW-6: B. Anjaneyulu

PW-7: Dr. G. Bucha Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR

DEFENCE:

Ex-P1: Report. - Nil –

Ex-P2: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-3

Ex-P3: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-4

Ex-P4: Signature of PW-5 on panchanama

Ex-P5: Signature of PW-6 on panchanama

Ex-P6: Wound Certificate 6

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar 7

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT: MAHABUBNAGAR

TABULAR FORM

Calendar Case Number: 272 of 2011 Name of the Police Station: Nawabpet Police Station, Mahabubnagar

FIR/Cr. No.: 54/11

Section of law: 324 and 504 of IPC. Description of the accused:

Putti Srinu, S/o. Hanmaiah, age 28 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Labourer, R/o: Nawabpet village. …Accused.

Date of: Occurrence: 08-03-2011 Report or complaint: 22-03-2011 Appearance/Apprehension: -- Released of accused : -- Commencement of trial: 09-12-2013 Close of trial: 19-03-2014 Sentence or order: 29-03-2014

Explanation for delay: No delay

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class

Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar

To

The Hon'ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar

Remarks: - No property in this case to pass the order.

Dis. No.

8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Wednesday, the 26th day of March, 2014

Present: Smt.P.Vijaya Durga,

Judicial Magistrate of first class

Special Mobile court, Mahabubnagar.

C.C.No.394 of 2009

Between :

The State represented through the Sub- Inspector of police, Rural-Mahabubnagar Police Station, Mahabubnagar District.

… Complainant.

And

1. Zaffar Shareef s/o Jaffar Shareef, age 40 years, Occ: CPM Town committee member, Caste: Muslim, R/o: Shashabgutta, Mahabubngar.

2. Pasula Vijay Kumar, S/o. Nagaiah, age 28 years, Occ: CPM party worker, Caste: Boya, R/o: H.No.1-3-113/1, Jagjeevan Nagar, Mahabubnagar, C/o: CPM office, Mahabubnagar.

3. Md. Moulana, S/o. Badesab, age 58 years, Occ: Carpenter, Caste: Muslim, R/o: H.No.6-3-55, Hanmanpura, Mahabubnagar.

4. Md. Pasha, S/o. Md. Rajjak, age 37 years, Occ: Painter, Caste: Muslim, R/o: H.No.5-13-23, Near Polytechnic college, Mahabubnagar.

5. Shavakula Srinivasulu, S/o. Laxmaiah, age 36 years, Occ: Mason, Caste: Telugu, R/o: Badameedhipally village, native of Girnigadda, Hanmanpura, Mahabubnagar.

(The case against A1, A3, A4 and A5 was separated and numbered As in C.C.No.210/2013 on 09-10-2013)

... Accused

Nature of offence : Punishment for rioting, Criminal trespass and Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.

Section of law : U/s.147, 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court : Found not guilty

Sentence or order : Accused A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.147, 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

* * * 2 This case is having coming before me for final hearing on 21-03-2014 in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri

B. Janardhan, Sri. K.Brahmaiah, Advocates for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of police, Rural Police Station,

Mahabubnagar has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.147, 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.145 of 2007.

2.The Sub-Inspector of police, Rural Police Station,

Mahabubnagar District has filed a report U/s.173 Cr.P.C with the following averments in brief:-

The case of prosecution is that on 19-05-2007 at 12.30 hours on information LW-4 Venkataiah along with staff rushed to the government land in Sy.No.812 of Bandameedapally where the CPM party workers occupied the government land illegally, dig the ground, cut the trees and planted the stones and damaged the land. LW-7 along with LW-1 SI of police Lws 2 and 3 police constables apprehended the A1 to A5 and prepared panchanama. Basing on ,that he registered the case in Cr.No.145/2007 U/Sec.147,447, 427 r/w 34 IPC.

3. Basing on the complaint, the LW-7 Mohd. Habibullah Khan,

SI of Police, has registered a case in Crime No.145/2007, U/Secs.147, 447 427 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation. During the investigation he arrested all accused.

3

4. Upon perusal of the record, the above charge sheet has taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.

147, 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Mahabubnagar. Later on it has been numbered as

C.C.No.485/08 on the file of said court Consequent upon transfer of the crime record to this court it has been re- numbered as

C.C.No.394/09 on the file of this court.

5.On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the documents as required U/Sec. 207 Cr. P. C. and later on 251 Cr.P.C., examination has been conducted. Accusation of the charge sheet, constituting the offence U/Secs.147, 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC was read over to the accused for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs P1 to P3 are marked.

7.After closure of evidence of prosecution the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are ap- pearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses has contemplated

U/s.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. accused denied the same and reported no evi- dence in defense.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Secs. 147, 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

4

10. Point-1: To prove the prosecution case PW-1 VRO of

Ravindra Nagar stated that on 19-05-2007 at 1.30 p.m., MRO instructed him to visit the government land in Sy.No.812 of

Bandameedapally at Mahabubnagar sivar. Himself and SI visited the government land and found CPM party leaders criminally trespassed into the land and damaged the trees and erected huts. Police arrested CPM party leaders. PW-2 inspector of police stated that on credible information he along with staff rushed to the government land vide Sy.No.812 of Bandameedapally where some CPM party workers occupied the government land illegally, himself and staff apprehended the accused and conducted scene of offence in the presence of mediators. In this case PW-1 did not state about the presence of the accused in scene of offence at the time of incident.

Except the evidence of PW-2 no corroboration evidence about the presence of accused at scene of offence on the date of incident. In this case the prosecution did not examine Lws 1 to 3 police officers and Lws 5 and 6 panch witnesses. Even though the court given ample opportunity the prosecution did not examine above witnesses, the non examination of witnesses and panch witnesses is fatal to the case of prosecution. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

Result:-

11. The accused A2 is found not guilty for the offence

U/Secs.147, 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and acquitted U/Sec.255 (1)

Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

5

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of

March, 2014.

Judicial Magistrate of first class,

Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: R.Venkataiah -None-

PW-2: Habeebullah Khan

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex-P1: Complaint - Nil -

Ex-P2: F.I.R.

Ex-P3: Crime Detail From

M.O. MARKED

- Nil -

Judicial Magistrate of first class,

Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar.

6

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT: MAHABUBNAGAR

TABULAR FORM

Calendar Case Number: 394 of 2009

Name of the Police Station: Rural -Mahabubnagar Police Station, Mahabubnagar.

FIR/Cr. No.: 145/2007 Section of law: U/Secs.147, 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC. Description of the accused:

1. Zaffar Shareef s/o Jaffar Shareef, age 40 years, Occ: CPM Town committee member, Caste: Muslim, R/o: Shashabgutta, Mahabubngar.

2. Pasula Vijay Kumar, S/o. Nagaiah, age 28 years, Occ: CPM party worker, Caste: Boya, R/o: H.No.1-3-113/1, Jagjeevan Nagar, Mahabubnagar, C/o: CPM office, Mahabubnagar.

3. Md. Moulana, S/o. Badesab, age 58 years, Occ: Carpenter, Caste: Muslim, R/o: H.No.6-3-55, Hanmanpura, Mahabubnagar.

4. Md. Pasha, S/o. Md. Rajjak, age 37 years, Occ: Painter, Caste: Muslim, R/o: H.No.5-13-23, Near Polytechnic college, Mahabubnagar.

5. Shavakula Srinivasulu, S/o. Laxmaiah, age 36 years, Occ: Mason, Caste: Telugu, R/o: Badameedhipally village, native of Girnigadda, Hanmanpura, Mahabubnagar.

(The case against A1, A3, A4 and A5 was separated and numbered As in C.C.No.210/2013 on 09-10-2013)

Date of : Occurrence: 19-05-2007 Report or complaint: 19-05-2007 Appearance/Apprehension: 19-05-2007 Released of accused : 20-05-2007 Commencement of trial: 30-01-2014 Close of trial: 18-03-2014 Sentence or order: 26-03-2014 Explanation for delay : No delay

Judicial Magistrate of first class,

Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar. To

The Hon'ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar Remarks:- No property to pass the order. Dis. No.

7