Smt.R.Danieruth

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: R.DANIERUTH,

XII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF APRIL, 2018

C.C. 59 OF 2015

Between:- The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Nampally, Hyderabad. …COMPLAINANT

AND

Manda Venkat Reddy, s/o M.Dharma Reddy, aged 66 years, Occ:Pvt Service, r/o H.No.13-1-243/503, Plot No.178, Venkateswara Arcade, Near Post office,

Motinagar, Hyderabad....ACCUSED

This case is coming on 7.4.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Senior Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V.Surender Rao, counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The prosecution filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Secs.420, 468 and 471 IPC.

2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that

On 23.8.2011 Sri M.V.V.Satyanarayana lodged a complaint stating that while he was discharging his duties as the Registrar noticed the accused herein had written a letter dt.19.10.2009 to the Secretary cum Registrar,

Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi stating that he was elected as the

President of AP Pharmacy Council meeting held on 12.10.2009 in place of erstwhile President, Sri V.Rama Rao wef 12.10.2009 and the said letter signed by one K.S.Jagannatham posed as the Registrar, AP Pharmacy

Council, but originally there is no Jaganatham being worked as Registrar of

AP Pharmacy Counsil and the seal and signature had been forged by the 2 accused and that on 4.11.2009, the then Registrar(PW3) wrote a letter to

Pharmacy Council of India informing that he had not signed the meeting letter dt.19.10.2009 electing the accused as the Member of Pharmacy

Council of India (PCI) under 3(g) of Pharmacy Act, 1948 and again on 10.11.2009, the then President wrote a letter to the Pharmacy Council of

India informing that proceedings letter dt.19.10.2009 did not sent a letter stating that the accused as a Member of Pharmacy Council of India and the said letter is not signed by the Registrar. Further on 2.5.2011 Sri

K.S.Jagannathan(PW2) given explanation that he has not signed the letter dt.19.10.2009 and seals and original stamps of the Registrar are different from the original. Hence the complaint. Based on the complaint, a case in

Cr.No.174/2011 under Secs.419, 420 IPC was registered by the investigating officer. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of the complainant and witnesses and collected relevant documents from the complainant and PCI, New Delhi and AP and specimen signatures of PW2, original cheque, driving licence along with two leave application forms and joining letter from the company of PW2 and sent to

FSL for comparison and opinion and after collecting opinion and after completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences alleged him.

3The case is taken cognizance for the offences under Secs.419, 468, 471, 420 IPC against the accused 4 When the accused appeared before this court, copies of documents on which prosecution intends to rely upon were furnished in terms of Sec. 207

Cr.P.C.

5The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charges under

Secs.419, 468, 471, 420 IPC particulars read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 6 To prove the case of prosecution, though cited 9 witnesses, PW1 to

PW4 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked.

7After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses and he denied the same but got marked Ex.D1 to D6 on his behalf.

8Heard arguments of both sides.

9Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences under Sec.419, 471, 468, 420 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10Point:

To substantiate the case of prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P11 documents. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the then Member of Pharmacy Council, Hyderabad, PW3 is the then Honarary

Registrar for the period from 13.10.2009 to 20.10.2009 and PW4 is the investigating officer.

11It is the case of the prosecution that the accused forged and fabricated the seals and stamps of AP Pharmacy Council and the signature of PW2 as the Registrar, AP Pharmacy Counsel and addressed a letter to the Secretary cum Registrar, Pharmacy Council of India on the letter head of AP Pharmacy

Council dt.19.10.2009 stating that he was unanimously elected as a Member to represent the State of AP on the Pharmacy Council of India with effect from 12.10.2009 and further he was nominated by the Government of AP vide GO.Ms.No.135 dt.30.6.2009 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (L2)

Department and same was noticed by the complainant and lodged complaint

before the court which was forwarded to the concerned police for

investigation and report.

4 12PW1 the then Registrar of AP Pharmacy Council deposed that while he was discharging his duties as Registrar noticed some signatures of

Jagannatham as a Registrar and when enquired came to know that

Jagannatham never acted as a Registrar and that LW3 Yathirajam addressed a letter to the State Government and Government of India stating that

Jaganntham never worked as a Registrar of AP Pharmacy Counsel and came to know that accused Venkata Reddy forged the signatures of Jagannatham and signed on important papers of Registrar, AP Pharmacy. He further deposed that after assuming charge in the year 2011, he addressed a letter to Jagannatham to identify the signatures on the papers signed as Registrar and he was informed by Jagannatham that signatures were not authored by him and those signatures were forged by someone and upon enquiry with

Yathirajam, he was informed by him that accused by putting the signatures of Jagannadham conducted meetings of AP Pharmacy and accordingly he informed the same to the State Government and then the Stage

Government addressed a letter stating that they have received the same from Yathirajam in the months of November and December 2009 and that

State Government orally informed them to file criminal case against accused and then he lodged Ex.P1 complaint on 23.8.2011. It was elicited from him that on 29.3.2011 the accused submitted resignation and he accepted it on 30.3.2011 and conducted election AP PCI on the next day which was declared as invalid by the Hon’ble High Court. He categorically admitted that basing on the report submitted by the then Director General of Drugs

Control, Sri R.P.Thakur regarding various irregularities of the council including forging of resignation of accused, a case in Cr.No.99/2013 was registered against him and A.Vijay Bhaskar Reddy in CCS PS, DD, Hyderabad wherein he was shown as absconding and further admitted that Sri K.V.S.Gupta was appointed as a Registrar and succeeded him. He further admitted that PW3 was appointed by V.Ramana Rao in the year 1998 and by the time he took 5 charge as a Registrar, the minutes of meeting of executive council and executive body were preserved. He specifically admitted that himself and

Vijay Bhasker Reddy jointly filed a suit in OS.No.1852/2011 for injunction against the accused and it was dismissed and that proceedings were initiated against him and Vijay Bhasker Reddy for operating bank accounts against government prohibitory orders and that one of the reason for declaring the election of Vijay Bhasker Reddy is that the election was conducted in violation of stay orders.

13PW2 deposed that previously he was nominated as a Member of

Pharmacy counsel, Hyderabad by the Government under Health, Medical and

Family Welfare Department and he was informed that he was nominated as

Vice President in AP Pharmacy counsel and in the year 2011 he resigned to the counsel and thereafter he was asked by Pharmacy Counsil whether he ever acted as a Registrar of Pharmacy counsel since they received communication on his name as Registrar of Pharmacy Counsil and he denied to have acted as a Registrar and that police obtained his signatures and driving licence and also collected some documents containing his signatures from his office under Ex.P2 cheque and Ex.P3 three papers containing his signatures and he disputed the signature on letter dt.19.10.2009 addressed to the Secretary cum Registrar, Pharmacy Council of India and as per letter dt.19.10.2009, accused furnished the letter to Pharmacy Counsil of India.

Subsequently PW2 not turn up for cross examination and his evidence was eschewed by this court.

14PW3, the then Registrar of AP Council of Hyderabad deposed that he acted as a Registrar from October 1998 to February 2011 and from 13.10.2009 to 20.10.2009 he was on leave and after joining duty he came to know that a letter addressed to Pharmacy Counsil of India dt.19.10.2009 shows that accused was elected a a member of Pharmacy Council and he 6 addressed a letter to PCI denying his signature on the said letter and admitted his signatures on attested copies of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. It was elicited from him that PCI by its letter dt.8.1.2010 addressed to the Government of

AP informed that they received communication dated 20.10.2009 of accused along with enclosures about election of the accused to represent State

Council to PCI and copy of same is marked to State Council. He emphatically admitted that no authority including PCI enquired about the authorship of letter dt.19.10.2009 prior to 4.11.2009 and on his own volition he addressed a letter to PCI on 4.11.2009.

15PW4 is the investigating officer and he deposed that on 23.8.2011 at about 6 pm PW1 lodged complaint which was registered as a case in

Cr.No.174/2011 under Secs.419, 420 IPC read with Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C by

HC5708 Md.Altaf Khan of Nampally PS and issued Ex.P6 and then his predecessor took up investigation and collected documents pertaining to this case reference dated 4.11.2009 addressed by PW3 to the Registrar cum

Secretary, Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi along with another document dt.10.11.2009 addressed by LW4 including CC of letter dt.19.10.2009 under Ex.P7. He further deposed that he collected original cheque bearing No.075295 signed by PW2 along original driving licence issued by State of Tamilnadu and subsequently on 16.4.2004 forwarded questioned documents and sample signatures to APFSL for furnishing the opinion. Subsequent thereto himself took up investigation and sent original copy of questioned document dt.19.10.2009 and other documents to FSL and thereafter received FSL report opining questioned documents were not written by PW2. He further deposed that on 19.10.2014 PW2 addressed a letter to him through registered post that on 15.10.2014 the accused along with some other persons forcibly obtained his signatures and that after receipt of FSL report, he altered section of law as Sec.468, 471 with existing

Secs.419 and 420 IPC and after completion of investigation, he filed charge 7 sheet. It was elicited from him that his predecessor LW8 addressed a letter

AP Pharmacy Council to produce original letter dt.19.10.2009 and that himself admitted that he has not filed copy of the letter and also covering letter along with the charge sheet before the court.

16To establish the offences against the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused forged and fabricated the seals of AP Pharmacy

Council and the signature of PW2 on Ex.P7 letter addressed to the Secretary cum Registrar, Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi informing that he was nominated as a Member by the Government of AP vide GO.Ms.No.135 dt.30.6.2009 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (L2) Department.

17Ex.P1 is the private complaint filed before the court by PW1 on 5.8.2011 which was forwarded to police for investigation and report. To prove the contents of Ex.P1, PW1 mainly relied on Ex.P7 document which was allegedly forged and fabricated with the seals of AP Pharmacy Council and signature of PW2 by the accused which was addressed to the PCI, New Delhi stating that he was elected as a Member to represent AP Pharmacy Council.

According to PW1, during his tenure he found signatures of PW2 as the

Registrar and upon enquiry, he came to know that PW2 never acted as a

Registrar and accordingly he informed to the State Government and he launched criminal prosecution against the accused without sanction proceedings from the State Government. No documentary proof about his information to the State Government and receiving of any sanction proceedings from the Government is filed by this witness to launch criminal prosecution against the accused. So, the complaint that was lodged by

PW1 under Ex.P1 is not maintainable for want of sanction proceedings from the Government to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused.

18Upon scanning the entire evidence of PW1, it shows that there were disputes with regard to misappropriation of funds of Pharmacy council and 8

CC.No.106/2014 was also filed against him and one Vijay Bhaskar Reddy and

that they also jointly filed a suit in OS.1852/2011 for injunction against the accused and it was dismissed and that proceedings were also initiated against them for operating bank accounts against government prohibitory orders. At this stage, a perusal of documents filed by the accused unveils the story of prosecution before filing Ex.P1 complaint before the court.

19Ex.D1 is the minutes of AP Pharmacy Council meeting held on 12.10.2009 which was convened to elect office bearers wherein the accused was shown under members present category under serial No.1, PW2 and

PW3 were shown under serial Nos.5 and 10 and therein the accused was elected as the President and PW2 was elected as the Vice President of the

Council. Ex.D2 is the minutes of the Executive committee members of AP

Pharmacy Council held on 19.10.2009 wherein the accused herein and PW2 were present and affixed their signatures to the meeting and in the said meeting, it was resolved to appoint PW2 as the Registrar of AP Pharmacy

Council during the temporary absence of PW3, who was the then Registrar from 13.10.2009 to 18.10.2009 and also for the leave applied for two days subsequently on 19.10.2009. So, as per Ex.D2, PW2 was the Registrar of AP

Pharmacy Council in the absence of PW3. PW1 disputed the genuineness of

Ex.P7 and alleged that seals and signatures of PW2 were forged. PW2 who denied to have subscribed his signature on Ex.P7 in his chief examination and not given any opportunity to the learned counsel for the accused to test his chief examination. Ultimately as he failed to turn up cross examination, his evidence was eschewed by this court. Thereafter when the documents under Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 were confronted to PW3, he has not resisted its contents and admitted that the accused addressed letter to SBI, MJ Market for freezing the account of the Council operated by V.Rama Rao, the erstwhile President of the Council. The contents of Ex.D3 minutes held on 29.10.2009 reflects that V.Rama Rao filed WP.No.22745/2009 in the Hon’ble 9

High Court against the Government of AP and all council members who attended the Council meeting held on 12.10.2009 and further he also filed

WP.No.1240/2009 and in both the cases he signed as the President of AP

Pharmacy Council which act condemned by the members in the meeting.

From the documents produced by the accused and evidence let in by PW1 and PW3 shows that the accused was elected as the President of the AP

Pharmacy Council on 12.10.2009 and the report of Pharmacy Council under

Ex.D6 dt.12.4.2010 given by Team members also delegated powers to the

President(who is the accused herein) and the Registrar to operate bank account in dealing with the funds of the Council. If a quick glance is given to

Ex.D6, it unfolds the story of the prosecution wherein it was observed that erstwhile President, V.Rama Rao was no more the President of AP Pharmacy

Council and elections were held on 12.10.2009 and the accused herein was elected as the President against which Sri V.Rama Rao filed

WP.No.22745/2009 challenging the said election and freezing of council’s

accounts and same was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court stating that there was no illegality in electing the President of APPC and even the

Government delegated powers to the President and the Registrar to operate bank account. The evidence of PW1 further reveals that a criminal case in

Cr.No.99/2013 was registered in CCS, DD, Hyderabad against him and A.Vijay

Bhaskar Reddy with regard to irregularities of the council including forging of resignation of accused and even his successor, Sri KVSN Gupta, the Registrar also complaint against him and PW3 for manipulation of records and refuse to handover charge and CC.No.106/2012 was also filed against him and

Bhaskar Reddy for misappropriation of Council funds and even the injunction suit instituted against the accused was also dismissed in OS.No.182/2011.

So, the entire evidence let in by PW1 is not trustworthy to believe in view of so many allegations against him as discussed above and moreover there is no proper sanction from the Government to launch criminal prosecution 10 against the accused. Even the alleged forgery of Ex.P7 document pertaining to signature of PW2 attributed by PW1 was not proved by the prosecution with cogent and evidence convincing evidence and that PW2 who himself disputed his signature on Ex.P7 not given an opportunity to the defence to test the allegations levelled against the accused in his chief examination. On the other hand, when Ex.D1 to D6 were confronted to PW3 those were not resisted by him and he equivocally admitted that no authority questioned about the authorship of letter dt.19.10.2009 prior to 4.11.2009 and on his own volition he written letter to PCI on 4.11.2009.

21On perusal of the documents under Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 produced by the defence are self-explanatory and very much rebutting the version of prosecution and it establishes that PW2 was very much present on the date of execution of Ex.P7 and subscribed his signature. PW3isthethen

Registrar and custodian of all documents pertaining to minutes of meeting and he was well aware of the minutes of meeting held on 12.10.2009 and 19.10.2009 but ignoring the same on his own volition addressing a letter to

PCI on 4.11.2009 shows his indifferent attitude towards the accused who was elected as the President. As per Ex.D1 minutes of meeting held on 12.10.2009, the presence of PW3 as the Registrar is not disputed by the prosecution on the alleged date and subsequently during his absence, minutes of meeting held on 19.10.2009 wherein PW2 was acted as the temporary Registrar as per the resolution. So addressing a letter to PCI by

PW3 subsequently on 4.11.2009 disputing Ex.P7 authorship not executed by

PW2 is only created for the purpose of putting the accused who was suddenly elected as the President of AP PCI in trouble and whose election was disputed by V.Rama Rao. The evidence of PW3 shows that he acted in collusion with PW1 and PW2 to implicate the accused though he was aware of the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 confronted to him were very much available in the office. The evidence of PW3 cannot be believed in toto as he 11 was against the election of the accused and he sailed with the previous president to dislodge the accused from the Presidentship of the AP PCI council.

22With regard to obtaining FSL report based on Ex.P7 original document,

PW4 failed of offer any explanation as to how he came in possession of the original letter dt.19.10.2009 was not explained by this witness satisfactorily though he contended that LW8 addressed letter to APPC to furnish original letter dt.19.10.2009, but the same was not produced by the investigating officer. Ex.P7 was addressed to Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi dt.19.10.2009. The custodian of Ex.P7 was not examined by PW4 to prove the veracity of the document received by the said Council. It is pertinent to note that FSL report received by PW4 was not marked by the prosecution to prove the denial of authorship of Ex.P7 by PW2 for the reasons best known.

The evidence of PW4 shows that documents were sent to FSL twice for opinion and it creates a suspicion in the mind of the court as to why he send those documents twice and even the letter of advise and FSL report was not marked by the prosecution. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused filed statement under Sec.13 Cr.P.C and produced the opinion issued by Truth Labs dt.9.1.2016 on the same document ie Ex.P7 shows that the authorship of Ex.P7 by PW2 was not disputed by the expert. So, the alleged forgery attributed to the accused is not proved by the prosecution. On perusal of entire record, no tenable evidence was putforth by prosecution witnesses to prove that accused cheated the AP Pharmacy Council and forged the seals and stamps and signatures of PW2 with cogent and convincing evidence.

23In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution miserably failed to 12 connect the accused with the offences alleged against him. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

24In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges under

Secs.419, 471, 468, 420 and accordingly he is acquitted under Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of April, 2018.

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 – M.V.V.Satyanarayana, complainant

PW2 – K.S.Jagannathan, witness

PW3 – B.Yethirajam, witness

PW4 – K.Satyanarayana, SI of Police, PS Nampally, investigating officer

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Complaint

Ex.P2 - Cheque

Ex.P3 - three paper sheets containing signatures of PW1

Ex.P4 - Minutes of EC meeting held on 26.2.2010

Ex.P5 - Minutes of EC meeting held on 12.4.2010

Ex.P6 – FIR

Ex.P7 – Letter dt.19.10.2009 addressed to Secretary cum Registrar

Ex.P8 - Two leave application

Ex.P9 - Joining report

Ex.P10 - GO.Ms.No.135 drt.30.6.2009

Ex.P11 – GO.Ms.No.359 dt.17.2.2011

FOR DEFENCE:

13

Ex.D1 – Minutes of AP Pharmacy counsil meeting held on 12.10.2009 Ex.D2 – Minutes of meeting of Executive committee members of AP Pharmacy Council on 19.10.2009 Ex.D3 - Minutes of meeting of Executive committee members of AP Pharmacy Council on 29.10.2009 Ex.D4- Letter dt.6.7.2009 addressed to the Registrar, AP State Pharmacy Council, Hyderabad Ex.D5 -Letter addressed to the Government of AP Ex.D6 – Copy of report of APPCI dt.12.4.2010

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

HYDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: R.DANIERUTH,

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018

C.C. NO.10 OF 2016

Between:-

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, WCO Team-III, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. …COMPLAINANT

AND 1)Mohd Karimullah, s/o Md.Rafeeq, aged about 44 years, r/o H.No.6-3-1885, C-380, Sachivalayanagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.

2)Smt.Shabana Begum, w/o Md.Karimullah, aged about 39 years, r/o H.No.6-3-1885, C380, Sachivalayanagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.

3)V.Veera Ragavaiah, s/o V.Veera Narayana Murthy, aged about 48 years, r/o H.No.1-1, BKRR Residential Complex, near Lingampally Bus stand, Chandanagar, Hyderabad.

4)M/s.Divya Sai Constructions Pvt Ltd., rep. By its MD, Sri K.Venkateshwar Reddy, s/o K.Sai Reddy, aged about 42 years, Office : 8-39/7, F-4, Kalyani Estates, Shanlthi Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

5)M.Babji, s/o M.Laxmi Narasimham, aged about 46 years, Occ:Service, r/o 30A, GPRA Quarters, Gacchi Bowli, Hyderabad.

6)M.B.Katunker Rai, s/o late Muthappa Rai, aged 62 years, Occ:Retired Senior Manager of Vijay Bank, r/oH.No.12/76, Girija Nivas Kakkunji School, near Shivalli Village post, Kunjilafler 576102 Udupi District,

Karnataka State....ACCUSED

*(case against A4 and A6 split up and numbered as CC.No.502/2016 and this case is proceeded against A1, A2, A3 and A5 only) 2

This case is coming on 9.4.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Sr. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Naveen Kumar & others, counsel for accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The prosecution filed charge sheet for the offences under

Secs.406, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 473 read with Sec.34 IPC against

Accused No.1 to 6.

2 The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

On 11.7.2008 the complainant, Sri Prabhu Lingam representing

Vijaya Bank filed the private complaint stating that accused herein approached and requested to provide loan for making construction of a house at their Plot No.97, Survey No.76/A admeasuring 166.66

Sq.yards situated at Tattiannaram village, Hayatnagar, R.R.District vide application dated 3.5.2005 and A1 and A2 submitted pay certificates signed by A3 along with construction agreement entered with A4 for making residential building in the above property belonging to A1 and as per the agreement A1 paid advance to A4 and as per the clause No.4 and 5, A4 shall complete construction within 12 months from the date of first instalment paid by A1 and as per clause No.7, if the loan is sanctioned to A1, then the loan amount shall be disbursed directly to A4. The complainant bank after considering the documents produced by accused, sanctioned loan of Rs.8 lakhs and the same was informed to them by the complainant vide letter dt.l5.5.2005 and the same was acknowledged by accused. A5 stood as a guarantor for A1 and A2 and executed letter of guarantee in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the loan amount in the event of default committed by accused. On 5.5.2005 A1 and A2 availed the loan of Rs.8.5 lakhs 3 vide ML A/c.No.250031 and executed demand promissory note and other loan documents in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest @ 9% per annum @Rs.8,959/- per month in 174 EMI. Accused No.1 mortgaged the above said plot with the complainant and executed memorandum of mortgage in favour of the complainant and later on verification of the said school and when made local enquiries, came to know that the School is closed.

Thereafter the complainant received a letter from Corporation bank that they have provided loan to the owners of Good Will School and failed to repay the loan amount and the said bank taken possession of the school building and the school is closed from the year 2004. Later on verification of the plot belonging to A1 mortgaged with the complainant, only skeletons of structure were found on the said plot and when questioned acts of accused, they failed to respond and hence filed the complaint. Based on the complaint, a case in

Cr.No.300/2008 under Secs.406, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC read with

Sec.34 IPC was registered by Narayanaguda Police and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of the complainant and witnesses and collected relevant documents from Vijaya Bank and thereafter transferred the case file to CCS, DD, Hyderabad for further investigation. On receipt of case records, CCS police issued notice and collected original documents pertaining to loan account from the Bank

Manager and also addressed a letter to DEO, R.R.District to verify the existence of the Good Will High School, Hayatnagar and received communication that the said school was closed in the year 1995-96 without intimation to DEO. Similarly the Commissioner, EPF, Hyderabad also confirmed as per their office record that said school was not a 4 covered establishment under EPF and MP Act, 1952. Subsequently A3 was apprehended and upon interrogation, he voluntarily admitted his guilt in this case along with other pertaining to other crimes and after arrest he was produced before the court for judicial custody. On 8.3.2014 the investigating officer issued a notice under Sec.160/91

Cr.P.C. to the Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank to appear for the purpose of investigation and on 18.10.2013 received a letter from the bank stating that they have filed civil cases against all borrowers in

DRT/Principal Secondary Civil Judge vide QA114/08 in this case and other cases of Vijaya Bank regarding internal report and internal disciplinary action taken against A6. On 1.9.2014 A5 was apprehended by police and upon interrogation, he voluntarily admitted his guilt and after arrest, he was produced before the court for judicial custody.

Thereafter A1 and A2 surrendered in the police station and admitted their guilt in the above and after furnishing sureties, enlarged them on bail. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the earlier

Manager of Vijaya Bank who is Accused No.6 was involved in the commission of above offence and sanctioned loan amount of Rs.8.5 lakhs without following bank rules. A separate charge sheet will be filed by the police against A4 and A6 as the efforts to trace out them was in vain. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against accused for the offences alleged against them.

3 On perusal of records, cognizance taken for the offences under

Secs.406, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 473 r/w 34 IPC against accused

No.1 to 6. Case against A4 and A6 split up and numbered as

CC.No.502/2016 and this case is proceeded against A1 to A3 and A5

only.

5 4 When A1 to A3 and A5 appeared before this court, copies of documents on which prosecution intends to rely upon were furnished in terms of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Case against A1 split up and numbered as

CC.No.318/2017 and this case is proceeded against A2 to A4 only.

5 A1 to A3 and A5 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charges under Secs.406, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 473 r/w 34 IPC were framed, particulars read over and explained to them. Having understood, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6To substantiate its case, out of 6 witnesses cited prosecution,

PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. PW1 and PW3 are investigating officers and PW2 is the bank official who gave complaint before the court. Ex.P1 is the FIR, Ex.P2 is the complaint, Ex.P3 is the Certified copy of loan application form, Ex.P4 is the

Certified copy of pronote, Ex.P5 is the Certified copy of Letter of guarantee issued by A5, Ex.P6 is the Certified copy of Article of Agreement executed by

A1 and A2 , Ex.P7 is the Receipt issued by Sub Registrar, Ex.P8 is the

Certified copy of legal scrutiny report, Ex.P9 is the Certified copy of sale deed Doc.No.2152/2005, Ex.P10 is the Certified copy of Affidavit of

Md.Kareemullah and Ex.P11. Memorandum of deposit of title deeds 7 Accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C with incriminating material adduced by prosecution witnesses and they denied it.

8Accused did not adduce oral evidence.

9 Both sides advanced their oral arguments.

10 Now the point for determination is whether the conduct of accused falls within the ambit of Secs.406, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 473 r/w 34 IPC and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

11 Point:

6 12 PW1 deposed on 28-11-2008 as per the endorsement of CCS, DD

Hyderabad he registered a case in crime No. 272/2008 U/s. 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w. 34 IPC and issued FIR to all concerned and he handed over the same to the I.O for further investigation.

13 PW2 deposed that in the year 2005 Housing loan was sanctioned to the accused as a Principle Borrower and they took

Rs.8.50 Lakhs from the bank but failed to repay the amount to the bank and in the year 2007, the Bank Manager conducted review and found that accused submitted fake salary certificates showing that they are Teachers in a non existing Goodwill school and the said school was closed in the year 2004 itself and that accused obtained loan of

Rs. 8.50 Lakhs by producing false documents and the Field vigilance officer and Branch Manager visited the address of the property and found that there was no construction of the house and the salary certificates produced for obtaining loan are false and fake. He further deposed that subsequently accused failed to repay the loan and on the instructions of Branch Manager, he filed a private complaint under

ExP2 before the court and the same was transferred through

Narayanaguda P.S to CCS police station and got marked Ex.P3 to

Ex.P11 documents viz. CCs of loan application form, pronote, Letter of guarantee, Article of agreement, receipt issued by Sub-Registrar, scrutiny report, sale deed, affidavit of Md.Kareemullah, Memorandum of deposit of title deeds. It was elicited from him that without verification of property documents, loan amount will not be sanctioned and the said loan was sanctioned in the year 2005 after verification of property by bank officials and obtaining legal opinion. He admitted that loan was disbursed in 3 instalments and that last instalment will be cleared after completion of construction and as per the agreement 7 of loanee and building which is submitted in the bank by the borrower, the loan proceeds will be credited to the builders account but he has not produced said agreement before the court and as per the norms, when any amount will be disbursed to the account of the builder, the same shall be informed to the loanee.

14 PW3 deposed that he received CD file from his predecessor/LW5, verified the investigation, took up further investigation and he approached Manager Vijaya Bank, Himayathnagar and obtained relevant documentary evidence from bank authorities and his deputed staff apprehended A5 and produced before him on 01-09-2004 and he effected his arrest and produced before the court for judicial remand and upon oral confession, he effected arrest of A1, A2 and produced them before the court and obtained internal vigilance report from concerned bank and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused. It was elicited from him that his predecessor addressed a letter to the bank authorities to furnish original documents of transaction but he has not received any original documents from any bank and he has not filed those documents. He admitted that he has visited the site but he has not filed photographs of the land nor collected any documentary evidence from the bank authorities.

15To establish the case against accused, the prosecution has to prove that A1 and A2 approached complainant bank for house loan and submitted fake and fabricated salary certificates of Good Will High

School issued by A3 for which A5 stood as guarantor and got released loan amount to the account of A4 builder in collusion with the earlier manager/A6 and thereafter A1 and A2 committed default in payment 8 of loan amount to the bank and misappropriated the amounts and caused loss to the bank.

16According to PW2, the loan amount was sanctioned to accused in the year 2005 after verification of property and obtaining legal opinion by bank officials and last instalment of loan amount will be cleared after completion of construction and as per the agreement of loanee and building which is submitted in the bank by the borrower, the loan proceeds will be credited to the builders account, but he has not produced the said agreement before the court to visualize the terms and conditions imposed by the bank and also statement of account disbursing loan amount to the account of accused. The original of alleged fabricated salary certificate of Good Will High School issued by

A3 and submitted by A1 and A2 to the complainant bank was not produced by this witness before the court to know the veracity of certificate issued by the school. The contents of Ex.P2 complaint reveals that during review of loan accounts and securities by the complainant, came to know that school was closed and on enquiry with the Corporation Bank which took possession of the school building, received a letter from Corporation bank that they have provided loan to the Owners of Good Will High School and the School was closed in the year 2004 itself but the said communication letter was not produced by PW2. Per contra, the contents of charge sheet reveals that the investigating officer made communication with District Education

Officer and came to know that the school was closed down in the year 1995-96 vide letter dt.19.11.2012 but the said letter was not filed by

PW3 substantiating the contention of the prosecution. So, the version putforth by PW2 that said school was closed in the year 2004 as per letter received from Corporation Bank and communication received by 9

PW3 from DEO that the school was closed down in the year 1995-96 is conflicting with each other due to non-production of said letters by both witnesses and in the absence of those documents, the salary certificate issued by A3 in favour of A1 cannot said to be fake and fabricated document. Even the inspection report and certificate, sanction letter and loan appraisal form of the then Branch Manager/A6 was not filed by PW2 to visualize the court as to how the loan was cleared by A6 during his tenure in favour of A1, A2 and A4.

17As per Ex.P6 Articles of Agreement dated 5.5.2005, the repayment of loan amount of 174 equated instalments @ Rs.8,959/- per month to the complainant bank is to commence on 5.12.2005 and the document under Ex.P10 shows deposit of title deeds by A1 in favour of the complainant bank towards security for release of

Rs.2,63,000/-. So, the entire landed property was with the complainant bank even by the date of Ex.P2 complaint before the court. No statement of account for the loan amounts released to the accounts of accused was filed by this witness to know when was the last instalment of loan was disbursed by the bank to the account of accused and total amount due by accused as on the date of filing the complaint. The private complaint under Ex.P2 was filed on 12.9.2007 against accused and no where it is mentioned that accused committed default in payment of due loan amount to the complainant bank.

18The prosecution mainly relied on the verification conducted by

PW2 about salary certificate and visit to property site wherein he found no structure constructed by accused. So, the alleged verification and inspection report submitted to bank by PW2 is not produced before the court to know the date of visit and particulars collected to rope in accused for the alleged offence.

10 19The allegations leveled against accused are that A1 and A2 and

A4 and A5 were entrusted with loan amount for construction of house on the landed property under Ex.P3 to P9 documents and for obtaining loan, A1 and A2 produced fake and fabricated salary certificate issued by A3 and after release of loan amounts to accused by A6, A1, A2 and

A4 have not raised construction over the property shown under the agreement. As per the contention of the prosecution, loan was sanctioned to A1 and A2 by the complainant bank but said sanction order was not filed by PW2 and even statement of account for release of loan amounts is filed by PW2 substantiating version of prosecution.

PW2 and PW3 alleged that they visited property site and found no structure erected, but they have not filed any photograph of the site to substantiate their contention. So, the alleged entrustment of loan amounts and misappropriation of loan amounts by accused as contended by prosecution with cogent and convincing evidence.

20It is pertinent to note that complainant bank conducted enquiry against A6 who was the then Branch Manager as per the contents of charge sheet for violation of bank in sanction of house loan to A1 and

A2 but said enquiry report was not produced either by PW2 or the investigating officer/PW3. As already discussed above, PW2 failed to file relevant documents pertaining to the enquiry held against A6 for violation of bank rules by their bank. The contents of Ex.P2 complaint further reveals that PW2 inspected the school and property site before lodging complaint but he has not produced his inspection report as to when he visited the school and site and the correspondence made and received from Corporation Bank. Though PW2 filed certified copies of application form Ex.P3 accompanied by Ex.P4 to Ex.P11 documents 11 evidencing approach of accused to bank for sanction of loan but those were not authenticated under Evidence Act.

21On perusal of records, the investigating officer received one letter dt.31.7.2008 from Vijaya Bank enclosing Inspection report of the then

Branch Manager under Serial No.4, Inspection certificate under serial

No.14, sanction letter by then Branch manager under serial No.15 and loan appraisal under serial No.17 but those were not filed by the investigating officer/PW3 before the court to substantiate the version of prosecution regarding sanction of loan to A1 and A2 against norms by A6, the then Branch Manager. The entire evidence of PW2 reveals that he was not personally aware of the loan transaction and he deposed as per records and the documents relied on by him is not inspiring any confidence to believe that accused committed any default in payment of loan amounts due to bank and that the allegations leveled against accused for submitting fake and fabricated salary certificates is not substantiated by producing those original documents in consonance with letter issued by DEO before this court by this witness. So, the alleged forgery attributed by the prosecution is not proved against accused.

22The evidence of PW3 shows that he visited property site but he has not produced photograph of the site to substantiate the contention of the prosecution that there was no structure existed for which loan amount was sanctioned for construction purpose. The contents of charge sheet reveals that the investigating officer confirmed with DEO about closure of Good Will High School in the year 1995-96, but the said letter was not produced before the court to enlighten about the non-existence of school by the time of availing loan by accused. PW3 not collected relevant documents pertaining to internal enquiry 12 conducted against A6 for violation bank rules for sanction of loan to accused and report submitted by their bank nor PW2 produced those documents before the court. No document is collected by PW3 from the

Corporation bank or examined concerned official of the bank about non-existence of said school on which A3 issued salary certificate in favour of A1 and also to know the date of closure of school and subsequent seizure of property for default committed by owners of school to know the intention of accused in cheating the complainant bank for obtaining fake salary certificate. Even the alleged agreement between loanee and the builders that was available with the bank was neither produced by PW2 nor collected by PW3 from the complainant during investigation to know involvement of the builder/A4 in siphoning the amounts in collusion with other accused after sanction of loan.

Record reveals that complainant bank already initiated DRT proceedings for recovery of due amounts against all borrowers but

PW2 not whispered anything about instituting those proceedings against borrowers. The documents relied on by the prosecution is not convincing to prove the alleged criminal breach of trust committed by accused by producing fake and forgery salary certificate and cheated the complainant in view of discussion made supra. The evidence of investigating officer/PW3 is suffering with infirmities and latches and there are serious lapses in the manner of investigation conducted by him and that without examining proper persons and collecting relevant documents from the concerned, he filed charge sheet in a mechanical manner.

23After careful consideration of the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents relied on by them, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution miserably failed to connect 13 accused with the offences alleged against them. Prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences alleged against them beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence accused are entitled for acquittal.

24In the result, accused No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.406, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 473 read with Sec.34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused stands cancelled after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of April, 2018.

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO.OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: P.W.1. Sri Shareef Ahmed, SI of Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad registered case P.W.2. Sri Prabhu Lingam, complainant P.W.3. Sri P.Karunaker Reddy, Inspector, WCO Team-III, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, investigating officer

DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: Ex.P1. FIR Ex.P2. Complaint Ex.P3. Certified copy of loan application form Ex.P4. Certified copy of pronote Ex.P5. Certified copy of Letter of guarantee Ex.P6. Certified copy of Article of Agreement Ex.P7. Receipt issued by Sub Registrar Ex.P8. Certified copy of scrutiny report Ex.P9. Certified copies of sale deed Doc.No.2152/2005 Ex.P10. Certified copy of Affidavit of Md.Kareemullah Ex.P11. Memorandum of deposit of title deeds

DEFENCE: Nil

M.Os.MARKED NIL 14

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

1 C.C. No. 877 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE;

HYDERABAD.

Present:- Smt. R. Danie Ruth, XII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC XIV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this Wednesday the 14th day of October,2015.

C.C.No 877 /2014.

Between:- The State through the Sub-Inspector of police,

Panjagutta Police Station,Hyderabad. ..... Complainant.

Sk. Rabbani Basha, S/o Abdulgani Saheb, aged: 36 years, R/o H.No. 37-1-65, Islampet, Ongole, Prakasam District.

... Accused.

***

This case is coming on 13.10.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst,PPO and of Sri. T. Suresh,Counsel for Accused and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day the Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Panjagutta Police Station Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sections 279, 337 and 338

IPC in Cr.No.815/2013 of Panjagutta Police Station.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that; the accused being driver of crime vehicle lorry bearing No. AP 27 V 1480 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the bike bearing No. AP 12 L 2861 of PW.2 from its behind due to which Pws.1 and 2 sustained injuries. Hence, the charge sheet.

2Cognizance of case was taken for the offence U/S 337 and 279 IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to the Accused as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

3.The accused was examined U/S.251 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation

U/S 337 and 279 IPC is read over and explained to the accused, for which the

Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried .

2 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 4To substantiate its case the prosecution cited 7 witnesses. Out of them 4 witnesses were examined as Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

5 After completion of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C. When the accused was called upon to enter in to defence, he reported no defence evidence.

6Heard the arguments.

7Now the point that arises for the determination is :

1) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 337 and 279 IPC?.

2) he drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner?.

3) Due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused the vehicle of PW.2 was damaged?.

8No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

9.The Learned APP argued that through the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 it is clearly established that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and drove the same in rash and negligent manner as such the accident occurred and Pws.1 and 2 sustained injuries. Hence, he is liable for conviction.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that the prosecution failed to seize the documents of driver of crime vehicle to prove that he is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of the accident. Though Pws.1 and 2 identified the accused as the driver, thy identified him in the court hall. There is no whisper in the statements of Pws.1 and 2 or in the complaint that they can identify the driver of the crime vehicle. No test identification parade was conducted during the course of investigation to identify the accused. Except, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and investigating officer no independent witnesses were examined. No documents were seized by the investigating agency, hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

3 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 10.Points:-

As can be seen from the prosecution evidence, the complainant was examined as PW1. According to him the accident was occurred on 20-9-2013 while himself and PW.2 are going towards Charminar from Erragadda. It is further stated by PW.1 that at about 11.00 P.M, when they reached Panjagutta

Khairathabad junction they stopped their bike due to red signal and at that time one lorry came from their back side in speed manner and hit them, due to which they fell down and sustained injuries. PW.1 sustained injuries on both his hands and abdomen and PW.2 sustained injuries on his left hand and the bike was damaged and thereafter, they were shifted to hospital in 108 ambulance and his statement was recorded in hospital while he was in treatment. He further stated that after the accident lorry was stopped and he saw the driver of the lorry at the spot. PW.2 corroborated with the evidence of PW.1. But as can be seen from the complaint contents or in the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement which were recorded by the investigating officer, there is no whisper that they can identify the driver of crime vehicle or they have noticed the driver of crime vehicle at the spot.

11.The investigating officer was examined as PW.4 and he deposed about receiving the information on 21-9-2013 and conducting investigation according to him on 21-9-2013 he visited the Osmania hospital, examined as Pws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements and on the same day he visited the scene offence situated at Khairathabad Chowrastha, prepared rough sketch at the scene of offence and on receipt of medical report he filed charge sheet. Except hurdling some suggestions nothing worthwhile was elicited during his cross-examination by the defence counsel.

12. As can be seen from the complaint contents the offence took place on 20- 9-2013 Pws.1 and 2 were examined on 29-9-2014. Admittedly, the accident was 4 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 occurred in the night time. During the course of cross examination of Pws.1 and 2 stated that there are no prior acquaintance with the accused and they have seen the accused for the first time on the date of incident only and after that they identified the accused in the court hall. No test identification parade was conducted by the investigating agency and there is a long gap of one year between he date of offence and the date of identification of accused by Pws.1 and 2 in the court hall. According to Pws.1 and 2 immediately after the accident they sustained sever injuries and they were shifted to hospital through 108 ambulance. Pws.1 and 2 did not state anything that who called 108 ambulance, but during their examination by the police. But surprisingly, both of them stated that they identified the driver. However, the investigating agency failed to file any document to establish that the accused is the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 27 V 1480 and he was enterested with the duty on that day. Moreover, accident spot is a signal point that too occurred in the night time at 11.00 P.M, there is no possibility to drive any vehicle at the signal point in such a speedy manner.

Identifying of accused by Pws.1 and 2 in the court hall directly creating a doubt about the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. Independent witness was examined as PW.2 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

13.As can bee seen from the charge sheet contents the accused voluntarily surrendered before the investigating officer on 24-9-2013 and admitted his guilt, but the investigating officer failed to collect the documents of lorry and the driving license particulars of accused. Except the evidence of investigating officer there is no evidence to show that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and he voluntarily surrendered before him. Basing on the sole testimony of

PW.4 and the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 who identified the accused for the first time in the court and without any such evidence regarding the rash and negligent driving of the accused it is not safe to attach any offence to the accused. There are no mechanical defects of crime vehicle. It is settled law 5 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 when two vehicles were involved in any accident both vehicles should be tested by Motor Vehicle Inspector and to be seized. But in this case the investigating agency failed to seize both the vehicles and no MVI report is filed.

14.In view of the above circumstances, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, these points are answered.

15IN THE RESULT:I find that the accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 279 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted as per the provisions U/Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked non valuable property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the personal Asst., transcribed and typed by her,

corrected,pronounced and signed by me on this the 14th day of October ,2015.

FAC XIV Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Appendix of evidence. Witnesses examined for. Prosecution. Defence. -Nil- PW1: Syed Basheer- Complainant/Injured. PW2: Mohd Shamshuddin- injured/witness PW3: Syed Riyaz- Panch witness PW4: Mansingh -Sub Inspector and Investigating Officer .

Exhibits marked. EXP1: Complaint of PW.1 EXP2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 - Nil-. EXP3: Signature of PW.3 on scene observation panchanama EXP4: Original First Information Report EXP5: Rough sketch of scene of offence

Material Objects - Nil-

FAC XIV Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

6 C.C. No. 877 of 2014

FORM NO.71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: HYDERABAD. Calender case tried by The XIV Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, HYDERABAD. _______________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence : 20.09.2013 Date of Report :21­09­2013 Date of apprehension of accused :24­09­2013 Date of Release of accused :24­09­2013 Date of filing of charge sheet :21­06­2014 Date of Taking cognizance :24­06­2014 Date of Furnishing of copies to accused: 04.08.2014 Date of Recording the plea of accused :06­08­2014 Date of commencement of trial :29.09.2014 Date of closure of trial : 20.8.2015 Date of Examination of accused U/S.313: Cr.P.C: 15.6.2015 Date of Sentence or order : 14.10.2015 Reason for delay : No delay. Judgment of Calender Case No. 877 /2014 on the file of XIV ACMM;Hyderabad. Name of the complainant : The Sub­Inspector of police, P.S Panjagutta,Hyderabad. Particulars of the accused : Sk. Rabbani Basha, S/o Abdulgani Saheb, aged: 36 years, R/o H.No. 37-1-65, Islampet, Ongole, Prakasam District. :

Offence U/S. : 337, 279 IPC Finding of the Court : The accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted U/S 255(1) Cr.P.C

From The XIV Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

XIV Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 

HYDERABAD.

To The Hon'ble I Addl.,Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

CC.No. 877/14 Date of Judgment: 14.10.2015.

Dis.No: /XIV ACMM/Hyd/2015 Dt. 10.2015.

7 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 8 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 9 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 10 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 11 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 12 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 13 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 14 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 15 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 16 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 17 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 18 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 19 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 20 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 21 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 22 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 23 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 24 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 25 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 26 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 27 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 28 C.C. No. 877 of 2014 29 C.C. No. 877 of 2014

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: R.DANIERUTH,

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF APRIL, 2018

C.C. NO.599 OF 2014

Between:-

The State represented by The Assistant Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad-II Circle. …COMPLAINANT

AND *1)Sri Nawab Shah Alam Khan, Occupier, 2)Sri Khader Alam Khan, Manager, M/s.The Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette Factory Pvt Ltd., No.1-7-140,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad....ACCUSED

*(Case against abated and this case is proceeded against A2 only)

This case is coming on 12.4.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Labour Officer for the State and of M/s.K.Ravinder Reddi, counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The prosecution filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.7-A read with Sec.41 Rule 61-C, D, E & F (3) of the

Factories Act & Rules, 1948.

2 The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

That on 5.6.2014 at about 9 am the deceased Mohammed Shakir

Hussain climbed the platform ladder placed near the cut tobacco godown by them and reached the top of GI sheet of the verandah adjoining to the cut tobacco godown and passed on to east side of the top of AC sheet roof of the cut tobacco godown and while he was moving on the east side of the said AC sheet roof nearly at the ridge at 2 about 9.40 am suddenly AC sheet on which he was moving gave a way and as a result he fell down on the cement flooring of the godown from a height of about 18 feet and receive grievous internal bleeding injuries and immediately he was shifted to Sagaralal Hospital and then shifted to Gurunanak Care Hospital at Musheerabad and succumbed to injuries on the same day afternoon. A1 is the Occupier and A2 is the

Manager of the company and they failed to comply the provisions of the Factories Act and Rules and liable for punishment u/Sec.92 of

Factories Act, 1948 3 On perusal of records, cognizance taken for the offence under

Sec.7-A r/w Sec.41 rule 61C, D, E & F(3) of Factories Act & Rules, 1948 .

Case against A1 abated and this case proceeded against A2 only.

4 When Accused No.2 appeared before this court, copies of documents on which prosecution intends to rely upon were furnished in terms of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5 The accused No.2 was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec.7-A r/w Sec.41 rule 61C, D, E & F(3) of Factories Act & Rules, 1948 and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6To substantiate its case, PW1 and PW2 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14.

7 The accused No.2 was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C with incriminating material adduced by prosecution witnesses and he denied it.

8Accused did not adduce oral evidence.

9 Both sides advanced their oral arguments.

10 Now the point for determination is whether the conduct of accused falls within the ambit of Sec.7-A r/w Sec.41 rule 61C, D, E & 3

F(3) of Factories Act & Rules, 1948 and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

11 Point:

PW1 deposed that on 6.6.2014 at about 3 pm he received letter from the Director of Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette Factory Pvt Ltd,

Musheerabad and informed that an accident occurred in the factory on 5.6.2014 at about 9.40 am to Mohd Sakeer Hussain while he was engaged in spreading Bitumen sheet over an absestos sheet of a shed to prevent water leakage, then asbestor sheet broke and worker fell down from the gap and shifted to hospital and he received Ex.P1 along with letter from the Director and worker succumbed to injuries on the same day. He further deposed that he rushed to the factory on 6.6.2014 at about 4.30 pm along with PW2 and enquired about the accident with the workers and recorded the statement of Ravi Kumar, fort lift driver and obtained strength particulars from the management under Ex.P3 and obtained photographs and CD of scene of offence and during enquiry, he found that the Manager of Factory has failed to impart pre-employment training on dangerous involved while working at heights and high roofs and failed to provide suitable safety belts, safety nets, helmets, duck ladders or crawling boards and there is no work permit to work above 18 feet height and that deceased died due to non-compliance of safety measures and accordingly prepared inspection report under Ex.P2 and issued show cause notice under

Ex.P4to A1 and A2 and received replies under Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. He further deposed that having not satisfied with replies again issued notice to accused and after receipt of sanction proceedings launched prosecution against accused. During his cross examination, he 4 admitted that Ex.P4 does not contain violations and further admitted that the names of A1 and A2 are written by hand by applying whitener.

He categorically admitted that in Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 replies, accused have mentioned that the deceased was moving on the roof out of curiosity and after filing the complaint, Musheerabad police registered a case with regard to the incident report under Ex.P1 and that Ex.P2 inspection report does not contain the signatures of accused.

12PW2 deposed that on 6.6.2014 she accompanied PW1 and that

PW1 conducted inspection and prepared inspection report under Ex.P2 and obtained photos of scene of offence/accident under Ex.P11 and after receipt of sanction letter under Ex.P12 she filed charge sheet after collecting copies of FIR, inquest report and final report from PS

Musheerabad. In her cross examination she admitted that Ex.P12 does not bear the signature of the Director and that final report of the police reveals the cause of the death of deceased was due to own negligence of the accused.

13To establish the offences against the accused, the prosecution has to prove that accused failed to provide proper safety measures to workers due to which the deceased died on the alleged date of accident.

14The date of accident was on 5.6.2014 and the alleged inspection report under Ex.P2 was prepared by PW1 on 6.6.2014. Ex.P2 shows that there are many corrections which are not attested by this witness and it was not served to accused under acknowledgement. Even the alleged show cause notice issued to accused under Ex.P4 does not speak about the what are the violations committed by accused. On perusal of entire oral evidence and documents submitted by prosecution, it shows that a case in Cr.No.224/2014 under Sec.304-A 5

IPC was registered by Musheerabad police for the death of the deceased worker by name, Mohd Shakir Hussain and subsequently the case is referred as “Action dropped as death due to multiple injuries”.

The final report further reveals that the deceased on his own climbed on the godown roof and fell down and sustained bleeding injuries and succumbed to injuries. So, from the documents and evidence produced by prosecution witnesses, it is established that the cause of death of deceased worker is only due to his own negligence and that there is no liability on the part of accused and that even the inspection report and show cause notice prepared by PW1 is not whispering any violations committed by accused. So, in the absence of any attribution made to accused for alleged violations and safety measures not followed by them, it is not safe to pass any orders against accused. Prosecution failed to establish its case against accused for the offences alleged against him.

15In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against him and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

16In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.7-A r/w Sec.41 Rule 61C, D, E and F(3) of the Factories Act &

Rules, 1948 and accordingly he is acquitted under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16th day of April, 2018.

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO.OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION:

P.W.1. Sri B.Rajagopala Rao, Dy.Chief Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad P.W.2. Smt.Laxmi Kumari, Inspector of Factories, Medak.

DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: Ex.P1.Form No.18 dt.5.6.2014 from A1 along with copy Ex.P2.Inspection Report dt.6.6.2014 Ex.P3.Strength particulars statement Ex.P4.Show cause notice Ex.P5. Inspection order notice dt.9.6.2014 Ex.P6. Postal acknowlegement Ex.P7.Postal acknowledgement Ex.P8.Reply of occupant dt.18.6.2014 Ex.P9.Reply of Manager dt.18.6.2014 Ex.P10.Letter addressed by PW1 dt.7.7.2014 Ex.P11.Photographs of scene of offence/accident spot 3 Nos. Ex.P12.Sanction letter Ex.P13.Form-II Ex.P14.Proceedings

DEFENCE: Nil

M.Os.MARKED NIL

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

7

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: R.DANIERUTH,

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF APRIL, 2018

C.C. NO.599 OF 2014

Between:-

The State represented by The Assistant Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad-II Circle. …COMPLAINANT

AND *1)Sri Nawab Shah Alam Khan, Occupier, 2)Sri Khader Alam Khan, Manager, M/s.The Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette Factory Pvt Ltd., No.1-7-140,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad....ACCUSED

*(Case against abated and this case is proceeded against A2 only)

This case is coming on 12.4.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Labour Officer for the State and of M/s.K.Ravinder Reddi, counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The prosecution filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.7-A read with Sec.41 Rule 61-C, D, E & F (3) of the

Factories Act & Rules, 1948.

2 The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

That on 5.6.2014 at about 9 am the deceased Mohammed Shakir

Hussain climbed the platform ladder placed near the cut tobacco godown by them and reached the top of GI sheet of the verandah adjoining to the cut tobacco godown and passed on to east side of the top of AC sheet roof of the cut tobacco godown and while he was moving on the east side of the said AC sheet roof nearly at the ridge at 2 about 9.40 am suddenly AC sheet on which he was moving gave a way and as a result he fell down on the cement flooring of the godown from a height of about 18 feet and receive grievous internal bleeding injuries and immediately he was shifted to Sagaralal Hospital and then shifted to Gurunanak Care Hospital at Musheerabad and succumbed to injuries on the same day afternoon. A1 is the Occupier and A2 is the

Manager of the company and they failed to comply the provisions of the Factories Act and Rules and liable for punishment u/Sec.92 of

Factories Act, 1948 3 On perusal of records, cognizance taken for the offence under

Sec.7-A r/w Sec.41 rule 61C, D, E & F(3) of Factories Act & Rules, 1948 .

Case against A1 abated and this case proceeded against A2 only.

4 When Accused No.2 appeared before this court, copies of documents on which prosecution intends to rely upon were furnished in terms of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5 The accused No.2 was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec.7-A r/w Sec.41 rule 61C, D, E & F(3) of Factories Act & Rules, 1948 and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6To substantiate its case, PW1 and PW2 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14.

7 The accused No.2 was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C with incriminating material adduced by prosecution witnesses and he denied it.

8Accused did not adduce oral evidence.

9 Both sides advanced their oral arguments.

10 Now the point for determination is whether the conduct of accused falls within the ambit of Sec.7-A r/w Sec.41 rule 61C, D, E & 3

F(3) of Factories Act & Rules, 1948 and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

11 Point:

PW1 deposed that on 6.6.2014 at about 3 pm he received letter from the Director of Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette Factory Pvt Ltd,

Musheerabad and informed that an accident occurred in the factory on 5.6.2014 at about 9.40 am to Mohd Sakeer Hussain while he was engaged in spreading Bitumen sheet over an absestos sheet of a shed to prevent water leakage, then asbestor sheet broke and worker fell down from the gap and shifted to hospital and he received Ex.P1 along with letter from the Director and worker succumbed to injuries on the same day. He further deposed that he rushed to the factory on 6.6.2014 at about 4.30 pm along with PW2 and enquired about the accident with the workers and recorded the statement of Ravi Kumar, fort lift driver and obtained strength particulars from the management under Ex.P3 and obtained photographs and CD of scene of offence and during enquiry, he found that the Manager of Factory has failed to impart pre-employment training on dangerous involved while working at heights and high roofs and failed to provide suitable safety belts, safety nets, helmets, duck ladders or crawling boards and there is no work permit to work above 18 feet height and that deceased died due to non-compliance of safety measures and accordingly prepared inspection report under Ex.P2 and issued show cause notice under

Ex.P4to A1 and A2 and received replies under Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. He further deposed that having not satisfied with replies again issued notice to accused and after receipt of sanction proceedings launched prosecution against accused. During his cross examination, he 4 admitted that Ex.P4 does not contain violations and further admitted that the names of A1 and A2 are written by hand by applying whitener.

He categorically admitted that in Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 replies, accused have mentioned that the deceased was moving on the roof out of curiosity and after filing the complaint, Musheerabad police registered a case with regard to the incident report under Ex.P1 and that Ex.P2 inspection report does not contain the signatures of accused.

12PW2 deposed that on 6.6.2014 she accompanied PW1 and that

PW1 conducted inspection and prepared inspection report under Ex.P2 and obtained photos of scene of offence/accident under Ex.P11 and after receipt of sanction letter under Ex.P12 she filed charge sheet after collecting copies of FIR, inquest report and final report from PS

Musheerabad. In her cross examination she admitted that Ex.P12 does not bear the signature of the Director and that final report of the police reveals the cause of the death of deceased was due to own negligence of the accused.

13To establish the offences against the accused, the prosecution has to prove that accused failed to provide proper safety measures to workers due to which the deceased died on the alleged date of accident.

14The date of accident was on 5.6.2014 and the alleged inspection report under Ex.P2 was prepared by PW1 on 6.6.2014. Ex.P2 shows that there are many corrections which are not attested by this witness and it was not served to accused under acknowledgement. Even the alleged show cause notice issued to accused under Ex.P4 does not speak about the what are the violations committed by accused. On perusal of entire oral evidence and documents submitted by prosecution, it shows that a case in Cr.No.224/2014 under Sec.304-A 5

IPC was registered by Musheerabad police for the death of the deceased worker by name, Mohd Shakir Hussain and subsequently the case is referred as “Action dropped as death due to multiple injuries”.

The final report further reveals that the deceased on his own climbed on the godown roof and fell down and sustained bleeding injuries and succumbed to injuries. So, from the documents and evidence produced by prosecution witnesses, it is established that the cause of death of deceased worker is only due to his own negligence and that there is no liability on the part of accused and that even the inspection report and show cause notice prepared by PW1 is not whispering any violations committed by accused. So, in the absence of any attribution made to accused for alleged violations and safety measures not followed by them, it is not safe to pass any orders against accused. Prosecution failed to establish its case against accused for the offences alleged against him.

15In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against him and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

16In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.7-A r/w Sec.41 Rule 61C, D, E and F(3) of the Factories Act &

Rules, 1948 and accordingly he is acquitted under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16th day of April, 2018.

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO.OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION:

P.W.1. Sri B.Rajagopala Rao, Dy.Chief Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad P.W.2. Smt.Laxmi Kumari, Inspector of Factories, Medak.

DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: Ex.P1.Form No.18 dt.5.6.2014 from A1 along with copy Ex.P2.Inspection Report dt.6.6.2014 Ex.P3.Strength particulars statement Ex.P4.Show cause notice Ex.P5. Inspection order notice dt.9.6.2014 Ex.P6. Postal acknowlegement Ex.P7.Postal acknowledgement Ex.P8.Reply of occupant dt.18.6.2014 Ex.P9.Reply of Manager dt.18.6.2014 Ex.P10.Letter addressed by PW1 dt.7.7.2014 Ex.P11.Photographs of scene of offence/accident spot 3 Nos. Ex.P12.Sanction letter Ex.P13.Form-II Ex.P14.Proceedings

DEFENCE: Nil

M.Os.MARKED NIL

XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

7