Sri PSVB Krishna Sai Teja

O.S.No.122/2010

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :BOBBILI

Present: Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja, Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Bobbili, FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili

Friday, this the 15th day of September, 2017.

O,S.No.122/2010

Between:

Tenneti Narayana Murthy, S/o Suryanarayana (late) Hindu, Aged years, Therlam Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

......Plaintiff.

And:

1) Tenneti Krishna Murthy, S/o Suryanarayana (late) Hindu, Aged about 60 years, C/o V.V.Rama Rao, D.No.17-1-12. Padmanagar Colony, P.T.Colony, Hyderabad.

2) Tenneti Srinu Rao, S/o late Ramamurthy, Hindu, Aged 30 years, Belagam Agraharam, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District.

3) Tenneti Atchanna Bukta S/o late Suryanarayana, Hindu, Aged 50 years, Kusumuru village, Terlam Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

4) Tenneti Viswanatham, S/o late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 40 years, Srinivasanagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

5) Nerella Laxmi Narasamma, W/o late Eswara Satyanarayana, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Kurma Raja Puram village, Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District.

......Defendants.

This suit came up on 28-08-2017 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri. P.M.M.Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri M.M.Jagga Rao, Advocate for the defendants and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendants for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, followers, kith and kin from ever interfering with the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.Brief averments of the plaint:

The plaintiff submit that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to the father of the plaintiff viz., late Suryanarayana. During the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff looked after the welfare of him and as such the father of plaintiff due to love and affection executed a registered settlement deed on 23.09.2009 in respect of plaint schedule

Page 1 of 10

O.S.No.122/2010

property in favour of plaintiff and delivered the the same to the plaintiff on that day. Since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interruption and the same fact known to the defendants also. While so, the father of plaintiff died on 29.12.2009. The defendants without having any right or title over the plaint schedule property, came to the plaint schedule property in the 3rd week of May, 2010 and tried to occupy the same, but with the intervention of local elders, the plaintiff protested the high handed acts of the defendants. Again on 2.6.2010 the defendants came to the plaint schedule property with their henchmen and tried to occupy the same and against the plaintiff averted the acts of the defendants with the help of local elders and the defendants openly proclaimed that they will once again occupy the property. The defendants are financially sound, politically influenced. The plaintiff has no option except approaching the

Court for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, followers, kith and kin from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

3.3rd defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 denying the material averments of the plaint. It is further contended that late Tenneti Suryanarayana who died in the year 2009 gave birth to 1) Tenneti Narasimhamurthy, who died in the year 1992, 1st Defendant, late Ramamurty who died 2 years back i.e., the father of the 2nd defendant and others, the 3rd defendant, the 5th defendant, 4th defendant and plaintiff. Smt. Tenneti Visalakshi is the wife of late Suryanarayana. Thus all of them are the Class-I legal heirs of late

Tenneti Suryanarayana and succeeded to the Estate of him. Late Tenneti

Suryanarayana was blessed with another son, late Tenneti

Page 2 of 10

O.S.No.122/2010

Narasimhamurthy also. The family of late Tenneti Suryanarayana is having ancestral property including the plaint schedule property, houses and vacant site in Kusumuru village, which the family inherited in their original family partition from the coparceners. Thus the the family members of late

Tenneti Suryanarayana became the absolute owners. During the life time of Tenneti Suryanarayana, some of his sons i.e., the 1st defendant and late

Narasimhamurthy and the 4th defendant who were residing temporarily out side the village of Kusumuru, used to visit the house at Kusumuru village and by then late Tenneti Suryanarayana used to share the produce derived from the landed property to them and thus all the members of the joint family are enjoying their family properties, including the plaint schedule mentioned property. While the 1st defendant was at Kusumuru village till recently, developed the family properties of them. While so, due to

Government policies, it became difficult and part of late Tenneti

Suryanarayana to procure paddy seed, manures, compensation to the effect of loss of crops due to bad weather, drought etc. conditions, besides that, to get the subsidies from the government under different schemes and to obtain crop loans from the Bank, executed some nominal documents in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendant and the plaintiff herein but nobody claimed exclusive right in respect of the land covered under those nominal deeds, until the death of Manager and Kartha of their joint family, Tenneti Suryanarayana. The plaintiff with the active instigation of his wife, entertained malice intention to grab away the major portion in the schedule mentioned property, win over the mind of the mother of them, taking undue advantage of the nominal document alleged to have been executed by late Tenneti Suryanarayana on 23.9.2009, started secreting the income derived from the joint family schedule mentioned property. The defendants and other family members questioned the

Page 3 of 10

O.S.No.122/2010

conduct of the plaintiff and also issued notices to the plaintiff by the 2nd defendant and his mother. The plaintiff tried to remove the electrical motor which is installed in their joint family property, for which the defendant No.3 objected. Thereupon, the plaintiff got issued registered notice dated 1.3.2011 to the 3rd defendant for which the 3rd defendant gave reply on 10.3.2011. Thereafter, the defendants and their family members demanded the plaintiff for partition of the family properties of them including the plaint schedule mentioned property into 8 equal shares and to allot one such share to each of their branch, as late Tenneti

Suryanarayana is having no right whatsoever to execute any deed much less a Will, settlement deed, sale deed etc., whatever it may in respect of the ancestral joint family properties of them including the plaint schedule mentioned land. The plaintiff is postponing the same on one pretext or the other under the guise of execution of nominal deeds in his favour by their father. Smt. Tenneti Visalakshi is the mother of children of late Tenneti

Suryanarayna who is residing in the house, bearing Door No.1-72 situated in Brahmin Street of Kusumuru village, wherein the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 are also residing jointly in the same house. The defendants and some of their other family members filed the suit on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bobbili and the same is pending trial. The conduct of the plaintiff is detrimental to the interests of other coparceners i.e., the defendants and their other family members. As the defendants are demanding the plaintiff for partition of the family property since long time, the plaintiff got engineered and filed this suit. The suit is not maintainable as per law as the defendants are coparceners of the plaintiff. There is no cause of action arose for filing this suit. Hence they sought for dismissal of the suit with costs.

Page 4 of 10

O.S.No.122/2010

4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were settled for trial.

I) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? ii) Whether the defendants are trying to interfere with the physical possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff in any manner, without any manner of right? iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction decree as prayed for? iv) To what relief?

5.Heard both sides and perused the record on hand.

6.Issue Nos. 1 to 3:

I) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? ii) Whether the defendants are trying to interfere with the physical possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff in any manner, without any manner of right? iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction decree as prayed for?

7.In order to prove their respective contentions, Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 were marked. On the other hand, Dw 1 is examined and no documents were marked on their behalf.

8.PW-1 reiterated the contents of the plaint. During the course of cross examination he deposed that he filed a registered sale deed to show that his father purchased the suit schedule property. He further deposed during is cross examination that Vempana Ramulu, Vempana

Suryanarayana, Barli Ramulu, Datti Polamma, Vempala Guruvulu and others are the vendors of his father.

9. PW-2 in his chief affidavit deposed that father of the plaintiff acquired some property and before his death he settled all of his self acquired property towards his sons and daughters by way of registered deeds and I,n such a way the father of the plaintiff settled plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff.

Page 5 of 10

O.S.No.122/2010

10.During his cross examination of PW-2, he deposed that PW-1’s father purchased the property from Velagalan Appanna, one Penki Kondnadora and one Sambamurthy. He deposed that he do not know in which year the said properties were purchased.

11.The contention of the plaintiff PW-1 is that his father executed a registered settlement deed dt.23.9.2009 in his favour with regard to plaint schedule property and it is self acquired property of his father and Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3 i.e., I-B account copy and Village Account No.3 adangal prove the possession of the plaintiff as such the defendants have no right over the plaint schedule property and sought relief for permanent injunction against the defendants.

12.On the other hand, the counsel for defendants contended that the plaint schedule property is a ancestral property and the defendants are the cornerstone and the permanent injunction cannot be granted against the coparceners who are also having share over the plaint schedule property.

13.On evaluating the evidence of PW-1, during his cross examination

PW-1 categorically stated that he filed registered sale deed to show that his father purchased the suit schedule property. However, the said registered sale deeds were not brought on to record and they were not marked. PW-1 also did not examine Vempala Ramulu, Vempada

Suryanarayana, Barli Ramulu, Dattii Polamma, Vempala Guruvulu and others who are the vendors of his father.

14. Relying upon the decision of Hon’vble Apex Court between “Ananthula Sudhakar Vs. P.Butchireddy (dead) by Lrs and others reported on 25.3.2008 in 2008 (4) Supreme Court cases 594 Where the Hon’ble

Page 6 of 10

O.S.No.122/2010

Apex Court discussed that: “where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute or under a cloud or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of disposition from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction and a bare injunction is not maintainable without prayer for declaration.

15. In the present case, the contention of the defendants are that they are also coparceners of the plaint schedule property which is a ancestral property but not self acquired property. PW-1 during his cross examination categorically admittedly his brother and sisters have filed a suit for partition on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bobbili claiming property as to joint family property and the said suit is pending.

On perusal PW-1 did not file any document to show that the plaint schedule property executed by his father in his favour is self acquired property and he also did not examine the vendors of plaint schedule property.

16.On the other hand, the defendants are contesting that they are coparceners and the plaint schedule property is ancestral property. PW-1 admitted that his brothers and sisters filed suit for partition on the file of

Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bobbili and the same is pending. Hence

the defendants have casted a cloud over the title of the plaintiff with regard to the plaint schedule property and relying upon the decision “Ananthula Sudhakar Vs. P.Butchireddy (dead) by Lrs and others reported on 25.3.2008 by Hon’ble Apex Court, “where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute or under a cloud or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of disposition from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and

Page 7 of 10

O.S.No.122/2010

consequential relief of injunction. Hence in the present case the defendants casted a cloud over the title and hence as per above decision the plaintiff has to file the suit for declaration and injunction. In an ancestral property every coparceners will have equal right over the property and when PW-1 admitted that suit for partition suit is pending

before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, permanent injunction cannot

be granted.

17.The other contention of the defendants is that plaintiff came to the court with unclean hands and therefore he is not liable for seeking injunction. The learned counsel has relied upon decision reported in AIR 1985 Madhya Pradesh 252 between Sahajuddin and others, Appellants Vs.

Nagarapalika Parishad and others, Respondents wherein it was discussed by the Hon’ble Court that granting an injunction is within discretion of the court and if the plaintiff has acted in unfair or unequitable manner with his opponent, he is not entitled to injunction.

18.The counsel for defendants have also relied upon a decision reported in 2005 (4) ALT 415 between Sabbisetti Jaganmohana Rao V. Gowrisetti

Sattayya wherein it was discussed by Hon’ble High Court that parties who have come to court with unclean hands are not entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance.

19.The contention of the plaintiff is that Ex.A-1 was executed by his father in his favour with regard to plaint schedule property but the defendants except stating that Ex.A-1 is nominal deed did not take any steps for cancellation of Ex.A-1. The learned counsel for defendants have relied upon decision reported in 2007 (5) ALT 607 between Momd.

Ikaramubdin V. Sangam Bosle and others wherein it was discussed Hon’ble

Page 8 of 10

O.S.No.122/2010

Court that when plaintiff who is not a party to the document need not prove to his cancellation and need not pay court fee thereupon even if a prayer to that effect is made in a suit filed for declaration of title and possession as he can ignore such document.

20.The above case relates when there a prayer is sought in a suit filed for declaration of title and possession or cancellation. The present suit is merely filed seeking permanent injunction. Hence the facts in the present case and the facts in the above decision are different.

21.The learned counsel for defendants also relied upon a decision reported in 2006 (6) ALT 523 FB between Yennala Malleswari and another

V. Ananthula Siamma and others wherein it was discussed by the Hon’ble

Court that if a person is sold by any person it amounts of playing fraud on the statute and he can get the sale deed canceled by executing cancellation deed and getting it registered and he need not go to civil court for seeking a declaration or to get it canceled.

22.The above decision relates to cancellation of sale deed whereas this case relates to settlement deed and the facts are different.

23.On evaluating the evidence available on the record, PW-1 did not file any document to show that the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of his father and he also did not examine the vendors of the plaint schedule property. On the other hand, the defendants stated that they are coparceners and the suit schedule property is the ancestral property. Hence the defendants have casted a cloud over the title of the

PW-1 and in such case when the title of the property is in dispute and when defendants asserts title thereto the plaintiff has to file suit for

Page 9 of 10

O.S.No.122/2010

declaration of his title and consequential relief of injunction. Moreover,

PW-1 during his cross examination admitted that his brothers and sisters have filed a suit for partition before Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Bobbili and the same is pending.

24.In the light of above circumstances, the issues 1 to 3 are answered against the plaintiff.

25.Issue No.4: To what relief?

Since issue Nos. 1 to 3 are answered against the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction.

26.Result: In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno on the Computer, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 15th day of September. 2017.

Sd/- P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja,

Addl.Judl. I Class Magistrate, Bobbili FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili.

Appendix of Evidence

Oral Evidence

For Plaintif: P.W.1: Tenneti Narayana Murthy P.W.2: Kella Srinu

For Defendants: DW-1: Tenneti Venkata Surya Krishna Sharma

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintif: Ex.A-1: Registered settlement deed dt.23.9.2009 executed by Tenneti Suryanarayana (father of PW-1) in favour of PW-1. Ex.A-2: I-B account copy issued in the name of PW-1 by Tahsildar, Therlam. Ex.A-3: Village Account No.3 Adangal issued in the name of PW-1 by VRO, Kusumuru village for the year 2009

For Defendants:

-NIL-

Sd/- P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja,

Addl.Judl. I Class Magistrate, Bobbili FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili.

Page 10 of 10

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS

BOBILI. Present: Sri P.S.V.B. Krishna Sai Teja, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the I Class,

BOBBILI

Friday, this the 20th of October, 2017.

C.C.No.07/2013

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Therlam Police Station. … Complainant.

And:

A.1. Matha Kishore Kumar S/o Kiran Kumar, aged 31 years, Jajapupeta village, Nellimarla Mandal. A.2. Matha Kiran Kumar S/o late Krupanandam, aged 55 years, rest ditto. A.3 Matha Karunamma W/o Kiran Kumar, aged 50 years, rest ditto. A.4 Matha Vinodh Kumar S/o Kiran Kumar, aged 27 years, rest dito. A.5 Matha Santhi W/o Kadumuri Paramesh, aged 29 years, Allipuram village, Visakhapatnam. A.6 Kadumuri Paramesh @ Parameswararao S/o Suryanarayana, aged 35 years, rest ditto. A.7 Matha Sugunamma W/o Kaligi Asirwadam, aged 49 years, Jajapupeta village, Nellimarla mandal. …Accused.

This case was coming on 09-10-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.S.R.Murthy, Advocate for accused and having stood over till today for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The sub Inspector of police Therlam Police Station filed the charge sheet for the offence under section 498-A R/w 34, Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act 1961 in Crime No.75/2012 of Therlam Police Station.

2. Brief facts of the complaint are that :

LW.1 Matha Ramasimharose Nalini is working as Record Assistant in ZP

High School and on 6.8.2009 her marriage was solemnized with A.1 according to Christian custom in CB Church at Nellimarla. At the time of marriage her parents (LW.2) gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, saresamanulu worth Rs.1,00,000/-, one tula gold golusu, half tula gold ring, one Hero Honda

Passion Pro Motor Cycle to A.1 Kishore Kumar and his parents (A.2 and A.3) through the elder Yejjala Parasayya (LW.5). Immediately after the marriage

LW.1 joined with A.1 and lead conjugal life for one year. After one year A.1 to

A.3 started ill treatment on the pretext that her mother (LW.2) is doing job 2 and demanded LW.1 to bring Rs.2,00,000/- as additional dowry on a plea of purchasing a house site at Vizianagaram. On that LW.1 informed the said ill treatment to A.4 to A.7 as to why she has to bring additional dowry amount as dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- was already given at the time of marriage for which A.4 to A.7 also demanded LW.1 to bring the additional dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on that LW.1 informed the said ill treatment to her parents and raised dispute through the elders (LW.4 to 8) who in turn conducted panchayat. During the panchayat A.1 to A.7 admitted that they will not demand for additional dowry amount and promised to look after LW.1 properly and kept separate family at Garividi. After one month stay at

Garividi all the accused continued the said ill treatment as usally and threatened LW.1 saying that unless she brings the additional dowry amount, they will not allow her for conjugal life. Even then LW.1 bears the said ill treatment caused bythe accused with a hope that the accused may mend their minds and blessed with a son through A.1. After three months at

Garividi A.1 shifted the family to Jarajapupeta. Where all the accused ill treated and harassed her both physically and mentally with a demand to bring the additional dowry amount and drove her away from their house. As there is no other option , LW.1 reached her parental house along with her son

Swatwik Kumar aged 11 months. Though several disputes were raised through the elders (LW.4 to 8) the accused did not take back her. On 14.10.2012 at 14.30 hours LW.1 went to Therlam PS and lodged a complaint.

Basing on that LW.12 registered a case in Cr..No.75/2012 under section 498-A

R/w 34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW.12 examined Lws.1 to 11 recorded their statements and continued investigation.

3.This court took cognizance for the offences U/Sec. 498-A R/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act against the accused .

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to all the accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

3

5. Accused are examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The charges under section Under Sections 498-A r/w 34 of IPC were framed read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to P.8 . and marked Ex.P.1 to P.5

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused are examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material of the prosecution to them for which they stated as false and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused for the offences Under Sections. 498-A r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT :

PW.1 deposed that A.1 used to harass her by stating that as she was working Junior Assistant and her cadre is less, it is better to marry a girl who is doing a better job than her. PW.1 deposed that A.1 and his family members used to harass her stating that they took less dowry and ill treated her. PW.1 deposed that A.1 to A.7 used to harass her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. She deposed that A.1 to A.7 used to harass her stating that she failed to bring additional dowry they will send her who were parents house and they will perform another marriage for A.1. PW.1 deposed that in the year 2010 December then separate from inlaws and starting residing at Girividi and she used to reside at Garbham village. She deposed that A.1 requested shifting of house from Garividi to Jarajupeta village and after three months and they shifted to Jarajapupeta villlage. She deposed that A.1 to A.7 took proper care for about three months and they started harassment. She deposed that on 21.3.2012 a dispute arose for demanding

additional dowry with A.3 and she along with her son came back to her

parents house . PW.1 raised dispute before elders which A.1 and his family attended and she put a condition that if A.1 his ready to live separately from 4 his parents then only she will joinwith A.1 but at that time A.1 and his family members did not demand any dowry. During course of cross examiantion she deposed that Ex.P.1 was not prepared her personally but it contains her signature . She further deposed that shwe does not know exactly Ex.P.1 report. She deposed that one of her relative prepared Ex.P.1 report. She deposed that at the instance of her relatives she signed on it Ex.P.1 without reading it. with . She further deposed in the cross examination Therlam police did not approach her and recorded her statement. She deposed that she have not mentioned Ex.P.1 report that A.1 used to harass her by stating that as I am working as Junior Assistant and her cadre is less to marry a girl who is having a job than her and that she deposed that the same for first time in the court. PW.1 further deposed during cross examination that I have not mentioned in Ex.P.1 report or stated to police A.1 to A.7 used to harass her stating that if she failed to additional dowry they will perform another marriage for A.1. PW.1 deposed during her cross examination that she have not mentioned in her report or stated before the police that when she was 07th month pregnant, she came back to her parental house for delivery and after birth of her son and she joined A.1 at in laws house and that after three months A.1 to A.7 again started harassing and that A.1 used to take away her salary . On evaluating the evidence of PW.1 she deposed that she do not have who exactly Ex.P.1 report and stated Ex.P.1 was not prepared by her personally except containing the signature. She deposed that she signed on Ex.P.1. She also stated in the cross examination the therlam police did not approach her or recorded her statement. With the above facts a serious doubt casts in the mind of the court with regard to subject of cruelty and demanded of additional dowry. She also deposed that in the cross examination that she have not mentioned in Ex.P.1 report or stated before police that A.1 to A.7 harassed that if she failed to bring

additional dowry they will send her to her parents house to perform another

marriage for A.1.

5

11. The evidence of PW.2 is that accused started harassed PW.1 to bring

additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and thereafter accused necked out PW.1

from his house and PW.1 returned to their house along with child. During the cross examination PW.2 deposed that she came to know about harassment when PW.1 informed her. On evaluating the evidence of PW.1 she came to about harassment when PW.1 informed her where has Pw.1 deposed in cross examination that she have not mentioned in the Ex.P.1 report or before police that A.1 to A.7 harassed that if she failed to bring additional dowry they will send her to her parents house to perform another marriage for A.1.

Hence, the evidence of PW.2 casts a doubt mind of the court.

12. PW.3 deposed that A.1 and his parents demanded additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing a site at Vizianagaram and they expressed inability . The said fact was not elicited by PW.1 her PW.2. More over PW.3 during the cross examination stated that he came to know about the harassed when some one stated to me. He also stated that police did not read over the contents of 161 CrPC statement. The evidence of PW.3 also casts a doubt mind of the court.

13. The evidence of PW.4 is that , A.1 started demanding additional dowry and he did not provide any financial assistance . He deposed that

PW.1 is Junior Assistant and in the dispute he stated that A.1 is taking away her money and giving not any money and giving any maintenance. He deposed that A.1 demanded that additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. During the course of cross examination PW.1 deposed during cross examination that I have not mentioned in Ex.P.1 report or stated to police A.1 to A.7 used to harass her stating that if he failed to additional dowry they will perform another marriage for A.1. Hence, the evidence of PW.4 is not linking with

PW.1.

14. PWs.5 to 7 completely turned hostile and nothing was elicit from them by APP during her cross examination expect marking statements. The evidence of PW.8 is procedure nature. During cross examination PW.8 6 deposed that PW.1 did not state that her job is less cadre job and accused want a marry girl having high cadre job.

15.It is duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused all reasonable doubt. On evaluating of evidence of prosecution there is no consist version and clinching evidence against the accused. Accordingly the point is answered infavour of defence and against prosecution.

16. In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.498-A /w 34 of IPC Accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The accused are directed to execute bond for Rs.5000/- each under section 437-A CrPC to appear before appellate court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation on computer typed by Typist corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of October 2017.

Sd/- PSVBK.Sai Teja

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class Bobbili Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Proseuction: For Defence:NIL PW.1: Ramsimha Rose Naini P.w.2 : J.Chittamma P.w.3 :Rejeti Vijaya Sagar P.w.4. G.Muniswamy P.w.5 .John Apparao P.W.6 : M.Suryanarayana P.W.7 : K.Pyditalli P.W.8: T.Kameswararao

Exhibits Marked

For Proseuction: For Defence: NIL Ex.P.1: Report given by P.w.1 Ex.P.2: is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.5 Ex.P.3 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.6 Ex.P.4 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.7 Ex.P.5 is the FIR

Sd/- PSVBK.Sai Teja,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class Bobbili 7

CALANDER AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS::BOBBILI

Date of Offence:06-08-2009 Date of report of Complaint: 18-11-2012 Date of apprehension of accused: 05-03-2013 Date of release on bail : 29-10-2012

Date of Commencement trial: 29-05-2014 Date of close of trial: 09-10-2017 Date of sentence of order: 20-10-2017 Explanation for delay and remarksThe case underwent several adjournments, as the prosecution did not produce its witnesses

Calender and Judgment in C.C. 07/2013 on the file of the Additional

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class:: Bobbili

Complainant:State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police Therlam Police Station.

Sd/- PSVBK.Sai Teja,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Bobbili 8 9

IN THE COU

I

R:r Op tl.J

.. •AL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 11!: ADDl"flOr•

BOBBILI

Prese . . K.Usha Kiran nt . Sri

.. 1 ·udge

Addi. Jnior CIVI J

'

Bobbili

FMd ay this the 23rd day of January, 2015 . c.c.NO. 1412015 Between:

The State represented the ~-ub-lnspector of Police, Bal!Jipeta Police Station

Complainant

And

Bynapalli Vasudev, s/o late Damodar rao ag~d 37 years, Settibalija, Nuvalaravu ' VaJrpu Koturu Mandalam, srikakulam District.

Accused This case is coming on before me fo, final hearing and disposal -~Cl:l..!~on this day in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. Laxmi Depavalli (free legal aid council) Advocate, for the accused and having stood over for determination till this day this court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

1 . The Sub Inspector of Police, Balijipeta Police Station has filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 457,380 IPC.

2. Brief facts in the charge-sheet are:

Lw 1 Sri. M. Gouramma is a defacto complaint and Lw 2 Sri. M. Sivunaidu . h b nd While on 16/17-3-2014 they slept by boulting the door. At about 1.00 hrs Lw Is her us a · . ma found missing pustulathadu from her neck which is wg about 1 % tulas,Lw 1 Sn. Gouram . formed the same to Lw 2 Sri. Siunaidu After that they searched for the 1 Sri.Gouramma in . . h they approached police and gave a police report. same but in vain ence f Lw 1 Sri. Gouramrna Lw 8 Sri. P. Chandra shaker registered the case On the report o . under sections 457,380 lPC. After completion of the investigation of as case In Cr.No. 21114 ' f police, Balijipeta filed the charge sheet against the accused . the case, the Sub-Inspector o jzance of the offence punishable under section 457,380 or 411 This court took cogn 3.

IPC against the accused. . Cused before this court he was furnished with the copies of . . f the ac

4. On appearance o · / ction 207 Cr.PC. · d nder se documents as require u 2

section 239 c .

both sides, d Was examined under 5 . Th r.P.C. and after heann9 e accuse ·nst . nder section 457,380 or 4 C was framed aga1 a charge for the offence punishable u 11 IP ·ity d gUI . 0 the accused in Telu the accused read over and explained t h s not pleade gu who a ' and claimed to be tried . p1 to P4 t. prosecution exam· d p 1 to pw6 Ex.

6. To prove the case of prosecu I0n, 1ne w "" .

w 3 pw 4 are

were marked. Pw-1 is the defacto complainant. Pw 2 Is a husband of Pw 1, p the neibours of Pw 1 and Pw 5 is the mediator for arrest and seizer and PW 6 is the investigating officer,. 313 Cr.P.C

7. After completion of prosecution evidence accused was examined under sec incriminating material in the evidence of Pw 1 to 6 was read over and explained irn h. in telugu for which he denied and reported no defence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point or determination is whether ti1e prosecution has established its case againSt the accused for the offence punishable Sec. 457,380 or 411 PC beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined Pw 1 who is a defacto complainant stated in her evidence that at about eight months back while they he along with

Lw 2 Sri. Sivunaidu and Lw 3 Sri. M.Polinaidu sleeping, one unknown person snatched away her-gold chain from her neck. On hearing her cries Lw 2 Sri. Sivunaidu and Lw Sri. Polinaidu woke up and she informed them about the theft after Lw4 Sri. G.Sriramulu and Lw 5 Sri.

Nagaraju and others came there and searched for thief but in vain . After three days she gave police report i.s Ex P1 .

11. Pw 2 stated that Pw 1 is his wife and on hearing the cries of Pw 1 he woke u P and Pw 1 informed about that some unknown person snatched away her gold chain He . · a ong with 1 Lw3 Sri. M.Polinaidu, Pw 3 Sri. Sriramulu, Pw 4 Sri.Nagaraju searched for the h . c a1n but in vain . Chain wg. about 1 ½ tulas Pw 5 is the mediator for arrest and seizer h · e gave the report on the next day and about one month back police informed about the r ecovery of the chain.

In cross examination he stated that he gave report to the police on the sa

rne day

but police advise him to search for two days ,. th we did not find it the th . even en n ey wIII I d their report. o ge

Pw 3 ,4 stated that 'I , 2. J f the Pw 1 and his family members they on hea . h. h ring the cries o went to t ,re ouse and on d her about theft of gold by some unkwon enquiry th ey informe persons.

Pw 5 who is a medi t 13. k ng as a V.R.0. Of Vengapuram Village. a or stated that he is wor 1 He stated that at strike th . d his bike on seeing the police and tried to e time of arr est he st0PPe escape from that place A . • e searched the accused and found one nd in his · Presence po Ic 1 . cover ,n the pocket of the gold chain wg about 1 ½ tula and another accused A

· nct found one , ·

chain wg about 1 tula o

,,.,ed his name as Bylip1ll1 Vasudev resident n questing a . · ccused 1nfor,,, · · · · t len the articles. He 1dent1f1ed the signature of Srikakulam and he did not stated Wh ere hes o his signature on confession st t a ernent. 1 he registered the F.I.R as in Cr. f p Pw 6, 1.0 stated that ba · w

14. sing on the report o am·,ned Pw 1 to 4 and Lw 3 Sri. M. d No: 21/2014. and he visited the s ex een of offence an Polinaidu. He prepared rough sketch. He arrested the accused and seized the stolen articles in the presence of mediators. then accused was send for remand. When it comes to the evidence of Pw 1 to Pw 4 along with Ex P1 clearly establishes 15. that theft took place in the house of Pw 1 by some unknown person. When it comes to prove that theft was committed that the accused and stolen articles 16. were seized by the police from the custody of the accused, prosecution examined one mediator i.e Pw 5. Pw 5 stated in his evidence that while at the time of arrest of the accused, he along with Lw g Sri. B.Koteswrarao stayed at that Balijipeta Vengapuram junction and speaking with one former and they observed that accused tying to escape on seeing the police, and mediators report was drafted in the police station. Again he stated that he acted as a mediation on the request of the police, he along with police went to the Blijipeta

Vengapuram Junction where police arreSled the accused and seized the property in his

Presence, prepared the report. . h cc1me to the police station upon t e . · on cum seizer report p w 5 17 As per the confessi · request of the police to act as a mediator, after that they went to the Balijipeta Vengapuram

Junction but Pw s admitted that he never visited to the police station and also visiting

Baligipeta Vengapuram Junction along wilh Ille Police as ment1on0d in the mediators report. I I th . e h evidence or prosec • lil1on though prosecution proved t 1a er 18, On perusal of I e d ommitted is a commission of theft ,·n the house of Pw 1 but f,.,_ ii to prove that the accuse c '' theft or stolen property was recovered from the i'lccused in the presence of ,nedialor. As

4

,I

. presence at the t· ./

t hlS 1tne h'

mediator gave two versions aboU bt of arrest and seizer hence is

ft of doU was 9iv

I

evidence is not reliable as such bene en to the accused

'tted U/Sec. 457 38

19. In the result accused is acqui ' O or 411 IPC. Accordingly he is

1 a/readY given to P

acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. M.O. .w.1 for interim custody shall be

. ver The accused i .

made absolute after appeal time is O s directed to execute a bond for

·

c pc. before the

.

r. · if any appeal 15

Rs.5000/- required U/Sec. 437-A of appellate court,

preferred.

d and pronounced by m • . 3rd d y

Typeddll my laptop and correcte a

e in open court, this the 2

of January, 2015.

}< ~~ -

Addi.Judi.I Class Magistrate,

Bobbili.

APPENDIX OF EEVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINEED

FOR DEFENCE:NIL

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.Wl : Maradana Gowramma

P.W.2: M.Sivunnaidu

P.W.3: Gulli palli Sriramulu

P.W.4: Ganta Nagaraju

P.W.5: T.Srinivasa naidu VRO

P.W.6: P.Chandra sekhar. S.I. of Police.

EXHIBITSMARKED

FOR DEFENCE:NIL

FOR PROSECUTION: Ext. P. l is report given by P. W.1 to police.

Ext.P.2 is the signature of PWS on the meadiaters report.

Ext.P.3 is the F.I.R. in cr.No.43/2014.

Ext.P.4 is the rough sketch.

Exct.P.5 is the scene observation report1

MATERIAL OBJ llis MA RK EQ

M.O. l is Gold Chain

(not weighted and tested)

~ u~h•, )-'-.Ah-A y, .

Addi.Judi. l Class Magistrate,

Bobl)ill

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

AT BOBBILI

Present:- Sri P.V.S.K.Sai Teja, Addl Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bobbili Friday this the 06th day of April, 2018

Calendar Case No.73/2016

Between:

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Therlam Police Station. …Complainant. And:

Dodla Srinu @ Srinivasa rao s/o Ramana 34 years, Caste by Telaga, Kondampeta vilalge, Rajam mandal, srikakulam District. …Accused

This case coming on 02-04-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri Ch.L.V.P.Kumar Advocate for accused and hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused was tried for the offence under section 304-

A,337 of I.P.C. and Secs. 196 (1), 192(1), 182(1) of M.V.Act-1988.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Therlam Police Station filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 83/2015 for the offences under Section 304-A,337 of I.P.C. and Secs. 196 (1), 192(1), 182(1) of

M.V.Act-1988.

3. The facts of the case are that

On 22-12-2015 evening at about 19.15 hrs P.W.1 Jada Ramasharma and his family members i.e. his wife P.w.2 Jada Rooopavathi, father in law /deceased, his daughter L.w.6 Ampolu Haripriya and his children were reached Rajam from Visakhapatnam. Then P.ws. 1 and 2 , L.W.6 with children and the deceased boarded in auto bearing No.AP 30 X 0135 to go to Locherla village, while they reached near Panukuvalasa road junction at about 20.15 hrs, in the meanwhile their auto drove his auto with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and tried to escape from the opposite vehicle i.e. one tractor which carrying sugarcane load in opposite direction and dashed 1 2 against the tractor and resulting the auto was turned and turtle twice on the

BT road and resulting which P.Ws. 1’s father in law(deceased) received bleeding head injury on his back side of the head and got unconscious state,

P.W.1 received scratching injury on his face, immediately both of them were shifted to GMRV Care hospital, Rajam for treatment in P.w.4’s auto. The medical officer treated both of the injured and referred P.W. 1’s father in law /the deceased to KGH, Vizag for better treatment as he received grievous head injury. P.w.1 gave a statement to police for taking necessary action against the accused auto driver as he drove his auto with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident.

Basing on the strength of the statement of P.W.1, L.w.17 registered as a case in CR.No.83/2015 under section 338, 337 IPC of

Therlam P.s. on 22.12.2015 and investigated into. During the course of investigation on 23-12-2015 P.W.1 came to police station and represented a report stating that same facts P.W.1’s father in law was died on 23-12-2015 at 2.00 hrs while shifting RIMS hospital, Srikakulam for treatment . Basing on the report of P.w.1 case was altered into 304-A, 337 IPC.

During the course of investigation L.W.17 examined P.W.1 and inspected the scene of offense, prepared scene observation report. In the presence of

L.Ws. 12 and 13 prepared rough sketch of the scene and photographed the scene of offense . L.w.17 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of L.Ws. 8 to 12 and examined witnesses L.Ws. 1 to 7 . L.w.17 arrested the accused on 25.12.2015 and on questioning for the records of crime vehicle the accused failed to produce any of records.

Accused not produced valid RC book of the crime vehicle, Insurance

Certificate and not having driving License . L.W.14 who is the medical officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued

P.M. certificate . L.W.15 who is the medical officer and treated P.W.1 and furnished wound certificate of P.W.1. L.W.16 who is Motor Vehicle Inspector,

Salur inspected the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.A.P 30 X 0135 and issued accident report and he opined that the accident was not due to the 2 3 mechanical defect of the vehicle. After completion of investigation L.W.17 filed the charge sheet.

4. My learned predecessor took Cognizance for the offence under section 304-A,337 of I.P.C. and Secs. 196 (1), 192(1), 182(1) of M.V.Act-1988.

against the accused.

5. On the first appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under sec. 207 Cr.P.C.,

6. The accused was examined under sec. 251 Cr.P.C., and when the substance of the accusation pertaining to sec. 304-A,337 of I.P.C. and Secs.

196 (1), 192(1), 182(1) of M.V.Act-1988. were put to him, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In the course of prosecution side evidence, PW1 to PW.4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked.

8. After the closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., and when the incriminating evidence was put to him, he denied the same and reported no defence witnesses on his behalf.

9.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record on hand.

10. Now the point for determinationis

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Sec. 304-A,337 of I.P.C. and Secs. 196 (1), 192(1), 182(1) of M.V.Act-1988. beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. Point No :

There is no dispute with regard to death of the deceased.

P.W.1 deposed that he did not know how the accident occurred and he did not know the contents of the report. P.w.2 deposed that he did not enquirer how the accident was occurred. P.w.3 and 4 deposed that they did not know how the deceased died.

12. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused under section 304-A has to prove the following ingredients

(a) the death of the deceased, 3 4

(b) such death must be result of rash or negligent act of the

accused.

13.On perusal of evidence, the factum of death of the deceased is established. On evaluating the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 the identity of the accused is not established. There is no evidence to show on 22-12-2015 accused drove the crime vehicle. Even assuming that accused was driver of the crime vehicle , there is no evidence with regard to rash or negligent driving by the accused.

14. Prosecution upon whom the burden lies to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt failed in the present case to prove the guilt of the accused for the offense punishable under Section 304-A,337 of

IPC. Secs. 196 (1), 192(1), 182(1) of M.V.Act-1988.

15.Hence, in the light of the above discussion, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-

A ,337of IPCSecs. 196 (1), 192(1), 182(1) of M.V.Act-1988. beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.Therefore, this point are answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A,337 of I.P.C. and Secs. 196 (1), 192(1), 182(1) of

M.V.Act-1988. . Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C.,

Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Accused is directed to execute a bond for Rs.5000/- as required u/s 437-A of

Cr.P.C., to appear before the appellate court if he prefers any appeal.

Typed to my dictation to personal assistant on computer , typed by him corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 6th day of April 2018.

Sd/- PSVBK.Sai

Teja, Prl.Junior Cuivil Judge, Bobbili. FAC:Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bobbili.

.

4 5

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1:Jada Ramasharma None

PW2: Jada Roopavathi

PW3: Ampolu Porasad sharma.

PW4: Mudida Suryanarayana

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence :NIL

Ex.P1Report given by P.W.1.to Police.

Ex.P2161Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2

Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.w.3

Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C.statement of P.W.4

Material Objects Marked

-Nil –

Sd/- PSVBK.Sai Teja,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili. FAC:Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bobbili.

.// True Copy //

Prl.J.C.J.,BBL. FAC:AJfCM.,BBL 5 6

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

BOBBILI

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Date of Offence: 22-12-2015

Date of Report or Complaint: 10-02-2016

Date of Apprehension of Accused:22-06-2016

Date of release on bail, if any24-12-2015

Date of Commencement of Trial02-04-2018

Date of close of Trial: 02-04-2018

Date of Sentence or other order: 06-04-2018

Explanation of delay and remarks: The case underwent several adjournments,asthe prosecution did not produce its witnesses.

-

Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.73/2016 on the file of the Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of I Class Bobbili.

Complaint: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Therlam Police Station Cr.No.123/14 U/sec. 304-A, 337 IPC, and sections 196 (1) 192(1), 182(1) of M.V.Act.1988.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name of the Father’s NameAge Calling Religion Residence &

Accused Mandal.

Dodla Srinu @ Srinivasa rao s/o Ramana 34 years, Caste by Telaga, Kondampeta vilalge, Rajam mandal, srikakulam District.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence: Under Section 304-A IPC, Causing death by negligence 6 7

U/Sec.337 IPC Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others

And sections 196 (1) 192(1), 182(1) of M.V.Act.1988.

Finding: Accused found not guilty.

Sentence: accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec. 304-A,337 of IPC and sections 196 (1) 192(1), 182(1) of M.V.Act.1988.Accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Accused is directed to execute a bond for Rs.5000/- required U/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the appellate court, if any appeal is required.

,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,Bobbili. Addl. Judl.I Class Magistrate, Bobbili.

Sd/- PSVBK.Sai Teja,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,Bobbili. Addl.Judl.I Class Magistrate, Bobbili.

7

1

IN THE COURTOF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BOBBILI

Present: Sri P.S.V.B. Krishna Sai Teja, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class ,

BOBBILI

Monday this the 23rd day of October, 2017

C.C. 421 /2016

Between

State represented by the Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, Bobbili ….Complainant

And

Uppala Venkata Raju, s/o Ganapathi Rao, Age 40 years, Vysya, R/o Kaluvarai of Bobbili Mandal. Accused.

This case is coming on 16-10-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Complainant State represented by the police, and of Sri T.J.P.B. Advocate for the accused and having stood over till today for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Accused is produced before me for the offence punishable under

Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act by the Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, Bobbili in Cr.No.30/2015-16.

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

On 13-05-2015 at about 11.30 hours P.W.2 along with staff proceeded to Kaluvarai village and found one male person seeing the department Jeep closed the door of his house and tried to escape on that place. Immediately P.W.2 with the staff caught him and questioned him. On interrogation the accused disclosed his identity and sold the IML bottles and stated that he purchased the IML bottles from various shops at Bobbili town selling the same at Kaluvarai village. On verification P.W.2 found 20 beer bottles of knock out , one beer bottles of tuburg and accused stated that he does not have any license of permit. Later P.W.2 seized the property, arrested the accused under the cover of occurrence report and registered a case . P.W.2 transmitted case documents to P.W.1 . During the course of investigation P.W.1 send the samples for chemical examiner for analysis.

2 later Deputy Commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Vizianagaram had ordered confected of the property to the state and issued instructions to destroy the proceedings vide RC.Nol40/2014/A.1 dated 31-08-2015. After completion of the investigation filed charge sheet.

3.After appearance of accused, case copies furnished to accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. Accused is examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. A charge under

Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act was framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In the trial afforded by both parties, prosecution cited 4 witnesses, but examined only P.W. 1 and 2 The remaining witness were given up by the prosecution. Ex.P.1 and M.Os. 1 and 2 are marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Incriminating material were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he stated as false and reported no defence evidence. No exhibits are marked in ‘D’ series.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination are:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence Under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

9. P.W.1 deposed that he received case record fromn Bobbili PS and he send the property for chemical analysis after receiving the chemical report he field the charge sheet. P.W.2 deposed that on 12-05-2015 at about 11.00 hrs at Kaluvarai village and he noticed one person was selling liquor and on seeing them he tried to ran away and later they caught him and questioned him and he revealed that he purchased the liquor to sell the same for profits.

He deposed that he verified the kirana shop of the accused and found 21 beers. He deposed then he seized the property and prepared occurrence report and registered FIR. Later he handed over the case along with property.

3

On 14-05-2015 he transferred the FIR along with property to excise department, Bobbili.

10. On perusal of evidence P.W.2 played a dual role of complainant and also investigating officer, Investigation was conducted by P.W.1. Since P.W.1 himself .played dual role of complainant and investigating officer it caused serious prejudice to accused. This is one of the serious infirmities in the case of prosecution. P.W.3 is admittedly an Excise Official is very much interested on the result of the case.

11. As seen from the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 the investigating authority failed to secure any mediators. Even in the Ex.P.1 occurrence report, the names of the persons who were approached by them to act as mediators is not mentioned. Hence, it is clear that the Investigating Authority did not make any efforts to secure independent mediators.

The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of ‘ State Vs.

Arun’ reported in ‘ A.I.R.2003 S.C.801’ held that: “ Where there is no independent witness from the locality, the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation where it transfers that not only there were many residences in that locality but also large number of people assembled at the time of recovery”.

12. Pw.1 is the investigating officer, failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. in searching and seizing the property and that he has also not prepared seizure list and served to the accused. The examiner who issued the analysis report was not examined by the prosecution. Even in the proceedings under Ex.P.1 is Occurrence report not proved by the prosecution, without the corroboration from the other prosecution witnesses. However without proving the fact that the said contraband was seized from the possession of accused, the guilt of the accused is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Further as per the evidence on record, no other evidence is place on record to show any concrete incriminating material against the accused and there by drawn an inference of guilt towards the accused with which he is charged.

12.Hence, in the light of the above discussion, prosecution failed to 4 prove the guilt of the accused for the offence charged under Section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly point is answered in favour of accused and against prosecution.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence charged under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The remaining property has been already destroyed after obtaining orders from Dy.Commissioner, Proh & Excise Vizianagaram

Vide R.C.No.81/2014/A.1,dt.06-11-2015. The accused is directed to execute a self bond of Rs.5000/- as required U/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the appellate court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation to personal Assistant typed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 23rd day of October, 2017.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Bobbili

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:NIL

P.W.1. R.Sravan Kumar S.I. of Proh & Excise. P.W.2: K.Kasknga Naidu S.I.. of Proph & Excise.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P.1: Chemical analysis Report. - Nil - Ex.P.2: FIRin Cr.No.15/2015. .

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 and 2 beer bottles.

Sd/- PSVBK.Sai Teja

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Bobbili

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDL I CLASS MAGISTRATE BOBBILI

5

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Date of Offence: 12-05-2015

Date of Report or Complaint: 21-06-2016

Date of Apprehension of Accused:

Date of release on bail, if any 12-05-2015

Date of Commencement of Trial 15-03-2017

Date of close of Trial: 16-10-2017

Date of Sentence or other order: 23-10 -2017

Explanation of delay and remarks: The case underwent several adjournments, as the prosecution produce its witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.421 /2016 on the file of the Addl.Judl.First Class Magistrate Bobbili.

Complainant: State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Proh & Excise,Bobbili Cr.No. 15/15-16.

Name of the Father’s NameAge Calling Religion Residence & Accused Mandal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Uppala Venkata Raju, s/o Ganapathi Rao, Age about 40 years, Caste Vysya, Kaluvarai village, Bobbili Mandal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act:: Possession and transportation of Liquor bottles without any permit or license.

Finding:Not Guilty.

Sentence:accused is found not guilty for the offence charged under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The remaining property has been also ready destructed after obtaining orders from Dy. Commissioner, Proh & Excise Vizianagaram Vide

R.C.No.81/2014/A.1, dt. 06-11-2015-2015. The accused is directed to

execute a self bond of Rs.5000/- as required U/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the appellate court, if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/- PSVBK.Sai Teja

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Bobbili 6