Sri R.kishore Babu

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: YELLAMANCHILI

Present : R. Kishore Babu, B.Com., LL.M., Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili (FAC) Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili

Thursday, the 20th day of July, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 100/2013

Between:

Vemula Kondalarao, s/o Venkataramana, Hindu aged about 40 yrs, coolie, Aratlakota village of Payakaraopeta mandal. …Plaintif

And

1.Vemula Venkataramana, s/o late Satyam, Hindu., aged about 68 yrs, cultivation, Aratlakota village of Payakaraopeta mandal.

2.Vemula Chakrarao, s/o Venkataramana, Hindu, aged about 38 yrs, cultivation, Aratlakota village, Payakaraopeta mandal.

3.Vemula Narasingarao, s/o Venkataramana, Hindu, aged about 35 yrs, cultivation, Aratlakota village of Payakaraopeta mandal.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 05.07.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Rajababu, Advocate for the plaintif and of defendants remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendants to pass a decree and judgment in his favour and against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and for allotment of one such separated share with separate possession thereof to the plaintif and mesne profits from the suit schedule properties on a separate application and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows

3.The plaintifs, 2nd and 3rd defendants are the natural brothers and sons of 1st defendant. The 1st defendant also gave birth to one male child by name Vemula Satyanarayana along with plaintif, 2nd and 3rd defendants and three female children by name J. Nagamani, U Manga, A.

Senamma,. The plaintif and defendants constitute an undivided Hindu

Joint family and possessing the schedule properties and enjoying the same jointly. The 1st defendant is managing the schedule properties. The schedule properties are more specifically mentioned in the schedule attached to the plaint.

4.It is further stated that the 1st defendant being only one child to his father by name Satyam, acquired the schedule properties along with some other properties after the death of his fate and used to enjoy the same jointly along with his children by managing the same in the capacity of

Kartha of joint family consisting of himself and his children. The son of the 1st defendant i.e Vemula Satyanarayana died at about 13 years back on which his share in the above properties is settled by 1st defendant being

Kartha of the above properties to his wife and children. The marriages of three daughters of the 1st defendant were performed by 1st defendant in the capacity of Kartha of joint family. After the above settlements the schedule properties are alone left and are in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintif and defendants.

5.It is also stated that the plaintif came to know that the 1st defendant executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 01-04-08 with regard to item no. 1 of the plaint schedule property in favour of 3rd defendant and so also executed another registered gift settlement deed 28-07-10 with regard to item no. 2 of the plaint schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant, in collusion with 2nd and 3rd defendants. Actually the 1st defendant alone has no right to execute the said documents, and the same are collusive nominal and sham documents created by defendants in collusion with each other only to evade his interest in the properties and those documents can not bind the interest of the plaintif over the schedule properties, as he has joint right over the same.

6.It is also stated that I after getting knowledge of the above acts of the defendants and as he has no interest to keep the schedule properties in joint with the defendants, but asked the defendants for partition of the schedule properties and also raised a dispute before elders that regard for partition of schedule plaint properties into 4 equal shares and for allotment of one such share to him. The plaintif also got issued legal notice demanding the defendants for partition of the schedule property and for allotment of his share but the defendants did not give any reply nor partition the schedule property. Hence, this suit.

7.Defendant are set ex parte on 10-03-2017

8.In support of the suit claim, the plaintif himself examined as PW1 and

PW2 got examined and got exhibited A1 to A4.

9.Heard the learned counsel for plaintif.

10.Now, the point for consideration is, “ Whether the plaintif is entitled to the relief as prayed for allotment of ¼ th part of plaint schedule property by way of his share and for separate possession of the same from the defendant?”

11.Point: It is the case of the plaintif that the defendants are his father and brothers and he filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and for allotment of one such separated share with separate possession thereof and means profits from the suit schedule properties.

12.The substantiate the suit claim, plaintif examined himself as

P.W.1 got examined PW2, who is a third party to the proceedings and got exhibited A1 to A4. PW1 has reiterated the averments made in the plaint.

Further, partition on perusing the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintif, he got exhibited registered gift settlement deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of D2 and Ex.A2 to gift settlement deed executed by

A1 in favour of D2. But, the contention of the plaintif is remained unchallenged as the defendants are set ex parte. By adducing oral and documentary evidence, plaintif proves his case. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintif.

13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and there shall be a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintif against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal parts by metes and bounds and allot one such part i.e ¼ th part of plaint schedule property of the plaintif and for separate possession. Plaintif is also entitled to meager profits on filing separate application

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in

Open Court on this 18 th day of July, 2017. Sd/­R.Kishore babu Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

(FAC)PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITHNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS

P.W.1 – Vemula Kondalarao P.W.2 – Allu Apparao

DEFENDANTS: -Nil-

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A.1 certified copy of the gift settlement deed dated 01-04-2008 Ex.A.2 certified copy of the gift settlement deed dated 28-07-2010

DEFENDANTS:

-NIL- Sd/­R.Kishore babu Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

(FAC)PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI.

DATE OF PRESENTATION : 2.7.2013/17.7.13 DATE OF FILING :17.7.2013

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: YELLAMANCHILI

Present : R. Kishore Babu, B.Com., LL.M., Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili (FAC) Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili

Thursday, the 20th day of July, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 100/2013

Between: Vemula Kondalarao, s/o Venkataramana, Hindu aged about 40 yrs, coolie, Aratlakota village of Payakaraopeta mandal. …Plaintif

And

4.Vemula Venkataramana, s/o late Satyam, Hindu., aged about 68 yrs, cultivation, Aratlakota village of Payakaraopeta mandal.

5.Vemula Chakrarao, s/o Venkataramana, Hindu, aged about 38 yrs, cultivation, Aratlakota village, Payakaraopeta mandal.

6.Vemula Narasingarao, s/o Venkataramana, Hindu, aged about 35 yrs, cultivation, Aratlakota village of Payakaraopeta mandal.

...Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendants to pass a decree and judgment in his favour and against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and for allotment of one such separated share with separate possession thereof to the plaintif and mesne profits from the suit schedule properties on a separate application and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is

Rs.97,910/- and in which the plaintif’s ¼ th share is Rs.24,478/- and as the plaintif is claiming ¼ th share as per Section 34 of APCF & SV Act and on which the court fee arrived is Rs.3,346/- as per Section 34 Schedule I, Art (b) & (c) of the said Act and as the plaintif is claiming joint right and possession over the plaint schedule property a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid thereon as per Sec.34 (2) (1) of APCF and SV Act.

This suit coming on 05.07.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Rajababu, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri.

D.B.P.Ramarao Advocate defendants and subsequently the defendants remained exparte from 10.03.2017, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and :

PRELIMINARY DECREE

1. that the suit is decreed with costs;

2. that the preliminary decree is hereby granted for partition of plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants; 3 that the plaint schedule property be and the same is hereby partitioned into four equal parts by metes and bounds and allot one such part i.e ¼ th part of plaint schedule property of the plaintif;

4. that the plaintif is directed to file a separate petition to mesne profits; and

5. that the defendants are hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.317/- towards institutional costs of the suit.

(Copy of schedule is hereto enclosed)

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court this the 20th day of July 17.

Sd/­R.Kishore babu Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

(FAC)PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintif:For Defendants:

(No costs memo filed on either side) Rs. C.F. on vakalat : 2.00 C.F. on plaint : 200.00 C.F. on process : 115.00 ------------- institutional costs allowed 317.00 -------------

Sd/­R.Kishore babu Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

(FAC)PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: AT

YELLAMANCHILLI

Present: Sri. R. Kishore Babu, B.Com., LL.M., Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili.

Wednesday this the 27th day of June, 2018.

C.C.No.601/2012 Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nakkapalli police station. … Complainant. And: A1. Chintakayala Ayyannapatrudu, s/o Yerrapatrudu, Narsipatnam.

A2. Chengala Venkatarao, s/o Apparao, aged about 46 yrs, Ex-MLA, Payakaraopeta village and mandal, Visakhapatnam.

A3. Pyla Vigneswardu, s/o late Atchayya, aged about 50 yrs, cultivation, Voddumetta village Nakapalli mandal.

A4. Pyla Satyanarayana, s/o Konda, aged about 48 yrs, cultivation, Voddumetta village Nakapalli mandal.

A5. Devavarapu Siva, s/o Kondalarao, aged about 35 yrs, cultivation, Voddumetta village Nakapalli mandal.

A6. Kuramdasu Nookaraju, s/o Mahalaxmi, aged about 45 yrs, Ex-ZPTC, Janakayyapeta village, Nakkapalli mandal.

… Accused.

This case coming on 20-06-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of prosecution for the complainant and of S/Sri. R.Govindarao and K. Kondalarao Advocates for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Sub Inspector of Police, Nakkapalli PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.60/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 171 F r/w 34 IPC.

2.Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that there was a notification issued for conducting Bye Election for Assembly

Constituency of Payakaraopeta (Schedule Caste) on 12.06.2012 and in that connection model code of conduct came into force with effect from 24.04.2012. Orders were also duly promulgated by the 2 authority concerned in the said constituency to observe the model code of conduct.

3.While so, on 29.04.2012 at 09.00 a.m, accused No.2 being a contesting candidate on behalf of TDP in the Bye Election and A1, A3 to A6 being TDP leaders were conducting Election campaign at

Voddumitta village were found conducting Election campaign by way of meeting near Anjaneyaswamy Temple in the village, which is a public place and prohibited for conducting election campaign.

There is clear violation of model code of conduct.

4.On 05.05.2012, the de facto complainant, who is the

VRO of Devavaram village reported the matter to the S.I of police (LW5) for taking necessary action. As the offence is non cognizable one, the S.I of police taken permission from the court for registering the case. Accordingly, he registered a report given by the VRO as a case in Cr.No.60/12 for the offence punishable under Section 177 F r/w Sec. 34 IPC and commenced investigation into the case. During the course of investigation, the S.I of police visited the scene of offence observed and prepared rough sketch of the same. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements.

After completion of investigation, the S.I of police Nakkapalli (LW6) laid charge sheet in this case. Thus, the accused are liable to be punished for the above Section of law.

5.This court taken cognizance of the matter for the offence punishable under Section 177 F r/w Sec.34 IPC.

6.Copies of documents are furnished to the accused as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

7.Accused are examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, but they denied the offence under Section 177 F r/w 34 IPC, and the accusation was read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

8.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined

Pws1, 2 and got marked Exs.P1 & P2.

9.As there is no incriminating material found against the accused, their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

10.Heard both sides.

11.The learned APP Grade-II has fairly conceded across the bar that there is no evidence on record connecting the accused to the offence in question, as Pws1 and 2, who are the direct eye witnesses to the occurrence, have given a complete go-by to the case of prosecution.

12. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel contended as follows:

(1)The de facto complainant, who is the VRO of Devavaram has not been examined by the prosecution as he reported to have died.

(2) The Asst. Returning Officer, who is the MRO of

Nakkapalli mandal and cited as LW2 has also not been produced by the prosecution.

(3)The prosecution has also failed to produce the

Investigating Officers who were cited as Lws5 and 6 and their non-examination is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

(4)The important witnesses Pws1 and 2, who are alleged to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence, have given a complete go-by to the case of prosecution and, therefore, there is no evidence on record connecting the accused to the offence with which they are charged.

For all the above contentions, the learned defence counsel prays for the acquittal of accused.

13.Point for Consideration is,”Whether the prosecution has proved his case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”.

14. Point:

4 As rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel, the de facto complainant who was the VRO, Devavaram, has not been produced by the prosecution as he reported to have died. The MRO,

Nakkapalli mandal, who was the Asst. Returning Officer of Nakkapalli cited as LW2 has also not been examined by the prosecution.

Further, Pws1 and 2, who are the direct eye witnesses to the occurrence have given a complete go-by to the case of the prosecution. They denied having stated before the police that the accused have conducted election campaign in public place as contained in Ex.P1 and P2 respectively.

15.Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel, the prosecution has failed to produce the investigating officers cited as LW5 and 6. Admittedly, this case is of the year 2012 and the accused were examined on 11.10.2017 and since then, the matter underwent so many adjournments for the evidence of the witnesses. Consequently as the prosecution has failed to produce the witnesses (Lws2, 5 and 6) this court has constrained to close the prosecution side evidence on 30.04.2018, posting the matter to 07.05.2018 for Section 313 Cr.P.C examination.

But on a petition in Crl.M.P No.1508/18 dt.07.05.2018 this court reopened the matter for the evidence of remaining witnesses (Lws2, 5 and 6) posting the matter to 14.05.2018, but as police failed to produce the witnesses remained, again this court has constrained to close the prosecution side evidence and posted the matter to 21.05.2018 for Sec.313 CR.P.C examination. On 08.06.2018, as there is no incriminating material found against the accused, their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with, posting the matter to 18.06.2018 for arguments and after hearing the arguments in part the matter is posted the 28.06.2018 for 5 continuation of arguments. After hearing the arguments, this case is posted to this day for judgment.

16.From the above, it is clear that even though the prosecution was given ample time, it has failed to produce the witnesses remained. As already observed, as this case is of the year 2012, this court has constrained to proceed further in this case.

17.As rightly observed, as there is no evidence on record against the accused connecting them to the offence with which there are charged, this court feels that this is a fit case in which the accused are entitled to an acquittal. Accordingly, the accused are to be acquitted.

18.In the result, I find accused No.1 to 6 not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 171 F r/w Sec.34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand discharged.

Dictated to stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of June, 2018.

Sd/- R.Kishore babu

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

YELLAMANCHILLI.

Appendix of evidence No. Of witnesses examined on behalf of

Prosecution:

P.W.1/ P.Appala Naidu

P.W.2/ B.Shiva Ganesh

Defence: None

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: : 161 Statement of PW 1

Ex.P2: : 161 Statement of PW 2

Defence:

--Nil--Sd/- R.Kishore babu AJFCM/Yellamanchili.

6

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

(for use in the cases where there is only one or more accused persons) Visakhapatnam district, calendar of cases tried by the Addl. Judicial

Ist Class Magistrate’s Court, Yellamanchili 1.Date of offence: 29.04.2015 2.Report or complaint: 06.05.2012 3.Apprehension of accused : ------ 4.Release on bail: ------

5. Commencement of trial: 12.02.2018 6.Close of trial: 12.02.2018 7.Sentence or Order: 27.06.2018 8.Explanation of delay: No delay 9.Judgment No.: C.C.601/2012

10. Name of the Complainant:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nakkapalli police station.

11. Name of the accused,:

A1. Chintakayala Ayyannapatrudu, s/o Yerrapatrudu, Narsipatnam. A2. Chengala Venkatarao, s/o Apparao, aged about 46 yrs, Ex-MLA, Payakaraopeta village and mandal, Visakhapatnam. A3. Pyla Vigneswardu, s/o late Atchayya, aged about 50 yrs, cultivation, Voddumetta village Nakapalli mandal. A4. Pyla Satyanarayana, s/o Konda, aged about 48 yrs, cultivation, Voddumetta village Nakapalli mandal. A5. Devavarapu Siva, s/o Kondalarao, aged about 35 yrs, cultivation, Voddumetta village Nakapalli mandal. A6. Kuramdasu Nookaraju, s/o Mahalaxmi, aged about 45 yrs, Ex- ZPTC, Janakayyapeta village, Nakkapalli mandal.

12. Offence : u/s 171 F r/w 34 IPC

13. Finding: Not guilty

14. Sentence:

In the result, accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 171 F r/w Sec.34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand discharged.

Sd/- R.Kishore babu

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

YELLAMANCHILLI.

Copy to the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief- Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: AT

YELLAMANCHILLI

Present: Sri. R. Kishore Babu, B.Com., LL.M., Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili.

Thursday this the 28th day of June, 2018.

C.C.No.377/2015 Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nakkapalli police station. … Complainant.

And:

Ambula Venkata Rao, s/o Koteswararao, aged about 46 yrs, Dr.No.9- 507, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam District, n/o Vokkalagedda, Krishan District.

… Accused.

This case coming on 27.06.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of prosecution for the complainant and of Sri. R.Govindarao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Sub Inspector of Police, Nakkapalli PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.51/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A and 337 IPC.

2.Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Nakka Rajesh herein after referred to as deceased No.1 is resident of Velpuru village, Thanuku mandal, and one Nakka Mahima Ratnam, herein after referred to as deceased No.2 is resident of Velpuru village,

Thanuku mandal. On 09.04.2015 at about 03.30 p.m when the de facto complainant along with his deceased brother were proceeding on NH 5 road and when they reached near ZP High School,

Nakkapalli, the accused while driving car bearing registration No.AP 28 DU 4464 from the side of Visakhapatnam towards Tuni in a rash and negligent manner dashed the auto while the same was driving 2 by the de facto complainant. He also dashed 2 pedestrians who were proceeding on walk due to which they sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious. Then, they were immediately, shifted to

Nakkapalli Government Hospital in an Ambulance, but they were succumbed to the injuries received in the accident.

3. On the report given by the de facto complainant, the

S.I of police (LW12) registered a case in Cr.No.51/15 for the offences punishable under Section 304-A, 337 IPC and commenced investigation into the case. He visited the scene of offence observed and prepared rough sketch of the same. He examined witnesses (LW1 to 6) and recorded their detailed statements as part II of his case diary. He also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased

No.1 on 09.04.2015. HC 924 of Nakkapalli PS (LW1) held inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.2 in the presence of

Panchayatdars (LW7 and 8). The S.I of police served notice to the accused as provided under Section 41 (a) Cr.P.C.

4.The Senior Civil Asst. Surgon, CHC, Nakkapalli (LW9) who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued postmortem certificate with his opinion that cause of death of both the deceased was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to haemorrhage and shock. He also issued wound certificates in receipt of the de facto complainant and other injured (LW4 and 5) with his opinion that they sustained injuries simple in nature.

5.The M.V. Inspector, Narsipatnam LW10 who inspected the crime vehicle issued accident report with his opinion that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. After completion of investigation the S.I of police laid 3 the charge sheet in this case. Thus, the accused is liable to be punished for the above sections of law.

6.This court taken cognizance of the matter for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A & 337 IPC.

7.Copies of documents are furnished to the accused as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

8.Accused is examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, but he denied the offence under Sections 304-A, 337 IPC, read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined

PWs1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

10.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material found against the accused, for which he denied the offence once again. But no evidence or documents are produced on behalf of the accused.

11.Heard both sides.

12.The learned APP Grade-II has submitted that the evidence of

Pws1 to 4 clearly proves the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, he may be convicted for the offence with which he is charged.

13.Point for Consideration is,”Whether the prosecution has proved his case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”.

14. Point:

in order to prove the offence alleged against the accused, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 2 out of them PW1 is the de facto complainant, PW2 is the injured, PW3 and 4 are the panchayatdars according to PW1 about 1 ½ years back, when he along with two others boarded an auto to go to Tuni and when the same were 4 proceeding, suddenly the auto turned turtle, but he did not know the reason for the accident or which vehicle hit their auto. He further stated that deceased was the driver of the auto at the time of the accident but he did not know the manner in which the accident took place. As PW1 has given a go-by to the case of the prosecution, the learned APP cross examined him but during the cross examination, he denied having stated before the police that the car bearing registration No. AP 28 DU 4464 coming from the side of

Visakhapatnam hit the auto as contained in Ex.P1.

15.According to PW2, about 2 years back on one day, when they were going to Kakinada from Nakkapalli in an auto and when the same reached near Nakkapalli they fell down due to hit and received injuries. As she also did not support the case of the prosecution, she was cross examined by learned APP and during cross examination she denied having stated before the police that the driver of car bearing registration No.AP 28 DU 4464 hit the auto and due to which they received injuries as contained in Ex.P2. The only evidence of PW3 and 4 is that they were present at the time of holding inquest over the dead body of deceased N. Rajesh. During the cross examination PW3 and 4 admitted that they also not know what was written in the inquest reports.

16.From the evidence of PW1 to 4, it is clear that there is no evidence on record connecting the accused to the offence in question. None of the witnesses stated about the manner in which the accident took place and identify the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. Further, the prosecution has failed to examine the investigation officer who is cited as LW2 within even though sufficient time is granted to the prosecutor. Therefore, in the 5 absence of any evidence produced on behalf of prosecution against the accused, he is entitled to an acquittal. Accordingly, the accused is to be acquitted.

17.In the result, I find accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged.

Dictated to stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of June, 2018.

Sd/- R.Kishore babu

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

YELLAMANCHILLI.

Appendix of evidence No. Of witnesses examined on behalf of

Prosecution:

P.W.1/ B.Sudeer

P.W.2/ G.Gayathri

P.W.3/ G.Nageswararao

P.W.4/ K.Kasulu

Defence: None

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: : Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1

Ex.P2: : Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2

Ex.P3: : Inquest report of Nakka Rajesh

Ex.P4: : Inquest report of Mahima Ratnam

Defence:

Nil

Sd/- R.Kishore babu

AJFCM/Yellamanchili.

6

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

(for use in the cases where there is only one or more accused persons) Visakhapatnam district, calendar of cases tried by the Addl. Judicial

Ist Class Magistrate’s Court, Yellamanchili 1.Date of offence: 09.04.2015 2.Report or complaint: 09.04.2015 3.Apprehension of accused : ------- 4.Release on bail: -------

5. Commencement of trial: 20.11.2017 6.Close of trial: 19.02.2018 7.Sentence or Order: 10.05.2018 8.Explanation of delay: No delay 9.Judgment No.: C.C.377/2015

10. Name of the Complainant:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nakkapalli police station.

11. Name of the accused,:

Ambula Venkata Rao, s/o Koteswararao, aged about 46 yrs, Dr.No.9- 507, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam District, n/o Vokkalagedda, Krishan District.

12. Offence : rash and negligence driving

13. Finding: Not guilty

14. Sentence:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A and 337 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged.

Sd/- R.Kishore babu

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

YELLAMANCHILLI.

Copy to the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief- Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: AT

YELLAMANCHILLI

Present: Sri. R. Kishore Babu, B.Com., LL.M., Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili.

Thursday this the 28th day of June, 2018.

C.C.No.691/2015 Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yellamanchili Rural police station. … Complainant.

And:

Vankina Satyanarayana, s/o Bhadraiah, aged about 28 yrs, kancharla village, Nangigama, Krishna District.

… Accused.

This case coming on 26.06.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of prosecution for the complainant and of Sri. D.Nookaraju, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Sub Inspector of Police, Yellamanchili Rural PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.60/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.

2.Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, one K.Srinu herein after referred to as deceased is a resident of Jeggampeta village,

East Godavari District and he was working as driver for the lorry bearing registration No. AP 16 Y 2682. On 08.07.2015, when the deceased was proceedings towards Visakhapatnam along with his lorry with load of bricks and when he reached near Marribanda village at about 11.30 a.m, he stopped lorry on the road side. While, he was sleeping in his lorry the accused while driving lorry bearing registration No. AP 16 TY 1799 in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the back portion of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 Y 2 2682 resulting, the driver of the lorry fell down and received grievous injuries. He met with an instant death. (LW5) Sidda Ravi

Kumar who is the cleaner of the lorry of the deceased witness the accident and informed the same to the family members of the deceased.

3. Basing on the report given by the de facto complainant, who is the wife of the deceased, the Asst. S.I of police (LW13) registered a case in Cr.No.60/15 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC on 09.07.2015 and he commenced investigation into the case by issuing FIR to all concerned. During the course of investigation, the A.S.I of police visited the scene of offence, observed and prepared rough sketch of the same. He also examined witnesses (LW1 to 5) and recorded their detailed statements as part II of his case diary. He also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars (LW8 and 9). Later, the dead body was got dispatch for postmortem examination.

4.During the course of investigation, the S.I of police served notice to the accused as provided under Section 41 (A) Cr.P.C.

He also given requisition to the M.V. Inspector to inspect the crime vehicle and submit his report. Later, the S.I of police, took up further investigation in this case, verified investigation done by the A.S.I of police. After, completion of further investigation and after receipt of postmortem examination certificate and M.V. Inspector report, the

S.I of police laid the charge sheet in this case on 26.08.2015. Thus, the accused is liable to be punished for the above sections of law.

5.This court taken cognizance of the matter for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.

3

6.Copies of documents are furnished to the accused as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

7.Accused is examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, but he denied the offence under Sections 304-A IPC, read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined

PWs1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8.

9.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material found against the accused, for which he denied the offence once again. But no evidence or documents are produced on behalf of the accused.

10.Heard both sides.

11.The learned APP Grade-II has submitted that the evidence of

Pws1 to 5 clearly proves the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, he may be convicted for the offence with which he is charged.

12.Point for Consideration is,”Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”.

13. Point:

in order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 5, out of them PW1 is the wife of the deceased,

PW2 is the cleaner of the lorry for which the deceased was the driver, PW3 is the inquestdar, PW4 is the mediator for the scene observation report and PW5 is the investigation officer. According to

PW1, on 08.07.2015 when she was at her house, she came to know that her husband met with an accident near Marribanda. Then, she rushed to the spot and found her husband lying dead. But she has 4 not observed any vehicle involved in the accident. She also stated that she has given report to the police under Ex.P1, but she did not know the particulars of the vehicle which caused the accident or its driver.

14.According to PW2, who alleged to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence, when he along with the deceased were proceeding on the lorry, the deceased who was the driver stopped his lorry and were sleeping on the back side. He also stated that on hearing some noise, he woke up and found the driver in pool of blood and another lorry was stopped, but he can not say the number of lorry which has hit their lorry. As PW2 did not support the case of the prosecution, he was cross examined by learned APP and during cross examination he denied having stated before the police that the lorry bearing registration No.AP 10 Y 1799 hit their lorry due to which the driver of lorry died, as contained in Ex.P2.

15.In the result, I find the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged.

Dictated to stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of June, 2018.

Sd/- R.Kishore babu

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

YELLAMANCHILLI.

Appendix of evidence No. Of witnesses examined on behalf of

Prosecution:

P.W.1/ K.Yesu

P.W.2/ S.Ravi Kumar

P.W.3/ A.Venkanna 5

P.W.4/ R.Ramu

P.W.5/ Ch. Venkatarao

Defence: None

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: : Report given by PW1

Ex.P2: : Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2

Ex.P3: : Inquest report

Ex.P4: : Scene observation report

Ex.P5: : FIR

Ex.P6: : Rough Sketch

Ex.P7: : MVI report

Ex.P8: : P.M Report

Defence:

Nil

Sd/- R.Kishore babu

AJFCM/Yellamanchili.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

6 (for use in the cases where there is only one or more accused persons) Visakhapatnam district, calendar of cases tried by the Addl. Judicial

Ist Class Magistrate’s Court, Yellamanchili 1.Date of offence: 09.07.2015 2.Report or complaint: 09.07.2015 3.Apprehension of accused : ------- 4.Release on bail: -------

5. Commencement of trial: 19.03.2018 6.Close of trial: 11.06.2018 7.Sentence or Order: 28.06.2018 8.Explanation of delay: No delay 9.Judgment No.: C.C.691/2015

10. Name of the Complainant:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yellamanchili Rural police station.

11. Name of the accused,:

Vankina Satyanarayana, s/o Bhadraiah, aged about 28 yrs, kancharla village, Nangigama, Krishna District.

12. Offence : rash and negligence driving

13. Finding: Not guilty

14. Sentence:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged.

Sd/- R.Kishore babu

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

YELLAMANCHILLI.

Copy to the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief- Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: AT

YELLAMANCHILLI

Present: Sri. R. Kishore Babu, B.Com., LL.M., Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili.

Wednesday this the 27th day of June, 2018.

C.C.No.247/2010 Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Payakaraopeta Police station. … Complainant. And:

1. Sagireddy Ravi Kumar, s/o Sri Ramulu (died)

2. Sagireddy Sathish Kumar, s/o Sri Ramulu, aged about 26 yrs, Dr.No.17-67, 8th line, L.T. Colony, Payakaraopeta (case against A1 is abated ) … Accused.

This case coming on 27.06.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of prosecution for the complainant and of Sri. D.B.P.Ramarao, Advocate for accused-1 to 6 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Sub Inspector of Police, Payakaraopeta Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 129/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 408 IPC

2.Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that both the accused, who are brothers worked as recovery executives in IKF Financial

Company Limited, Kakinada branch (for short the “(company)” having coverage over Payakaraopeta village. The de facto complainant, who was the Manager of the company issued two receipt books bearing Nos. TR 2396126 to 23150 and 219101 to 219200 to the accused and gave endorsement for collecting amount from the customers. On that A1 collected amounts from the customers to a tune of Rs.85,310/- vide receipt Nos. 239129 to 239150 in first receipt book and A2 collected amounts from the 2 customers to a tune of Rs.63,585/- vide receipt Nos. 239137 to 219200 in the second receipt book, but they failed to remit the amounts to the company. The accused have misappropriate the amounts collected from the customers for their own use. They also removed same receipts from the receipt book.

3.On noticing misappropriate of the amounts by the accused, the de facto complainant directed the auditor of the company (LW2) to conduct enquiry, who in turn, conducted enquiry and confirmed the misappropriation of the company amount by the accused. Then, the de facto complainant reported the matter to the

S.I of police (LW19) on 21.07.2009, who registered a case in

Cr.No.129/09 for the offences punishable under Section 406 & 409

IPC and commenced investigation into the case. During the course of investigation, the S.I of police examined the de facto complainant and the auditor of the company (LW2) and recorded their detailed statements as part II of his case diary. He collected the available receipts, documents and admitted hand writings of the accused from the de facto complainant. He also examined the witnesses (LW3 to

15) and recorded their detailed statements. The S.I of police arrested both the accused on 08.09.2009 and obtained their specimen hand writings and initials in the presence of the mediators (LW6 to 17) and, forwarded the questioned documents (Q1 to Q10) specimen hand writings (S1 to S22) to the Scientific Officer, FSL, Hyderabad (LW18). The Scientific Officer (LW18) who conducted the verification of the hand writings and signatures of the accused with the admitted signatures issued opinion that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked as S1 to S5 He also verified the red enclosed signatures marked as Q1 & Q3. After completion of investigation, the S.I of police laid the charge sheet in this case on 3 17-12-2009. Thus, the accused are liable to be punished for the above sections of law.

4.This court taken cognizance of the matter for the offences under Sections 406 & 408 IPC

5.Copies of documents are furnished to the accused as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.Accused No.2 examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, but he denied the offence. Charges under Sections 406 & 408 IPC are framed, read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined

PW1 got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

8.As there is no incriminating material found against the accused, their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

9.Heard both sides.

10.Point for Consideration is,”Whether the prosecution has proved his case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”.

11. Point:

To prove the offences leveled against the accused, prosecution has examined PW1 who worked as Financial Manager of the company as PW1. According to PW1, accused No.2 has collected amounts from the customers, but failed to remit the same to the company and thus misappropriate an amount of Rs.63,000/- belongs to the company. Later, he has given Ex.P1 report on 21.07.2009 against the accused. But during the cross examination made by the learned counsel, PW1 admitted that they have received amount of Rs.20,000/- from accused No.2 towards an amount due to the company and therefore, their company has no objection for 4 withdrawing the case against the accused. During the cross examination made by the learned APP, PW1 denied having stated

before the police about the misappropriate of the amount collected

from customers by accused No.2 as contained in Ex.P4.

12.In view of the evidence of Pw1 who is the prime witness, the learned APP Grade II has given up the remaining witnesses (LW2 to 19). in view of the evidence of PW1, that they have no objection for withdrawing the case against the accused

No.2, he is entitled to an acquittal. Accordingly, the accused is to be acquitted.

13.In the result, I find the accused No.2 not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 406 & 408 IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused

No. 2, if any, shall stand discharged.

Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of June, 2018.

Sd/- R.Kishore babu

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

YELLAMANCHILLI.

Appendix of evidence No. Of witnesses examined on behalf of

Prosecution:

P.W.1/ U.Rama Krishna

Defence: None

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: : report given by PW1

Ex.P2: : report given by the our managing director

Ex.P3: : two receipts books

Ex.P4: : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Defence: Nil

Sd/- R.Kishore babu

AJFCM/Yellamanchili.

5

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

(for use in the cases where there is only one or more accused persons) Visakhapatnam district, calendar of cases tried by the Addl. Judicial

Ist Class Magistrate’s Court, Yellamanchili 1.Date of offence: Prior to 21.07.2009 2.Report or complaint: 21.07.2009 3.Apprehension of accused : 08.09.2009 4.Release on bail: 10.09.2009

5. Commencement of trial: 27.06.2018 6.Close of trial: 27.06.2018 7.Sentence or Order: 27.06.2018 8.Explanation of delay: No delay 9.Judgment No.: C.C.247/2010

10. Name of the Complainant:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Payakaraopeta police station.

11. Name of the accused,:

1. Sagireddy Ravi Kumar, s/o Sri Ramulu (died)

2. Sagireddy Sathish Kumar, s/o Sri Ramulu, aged about 26 yrs, Dr.No.17-67, 8th line, L.T. Colony, Payakaraopeta (A1 abated in this case)

12. Offence : cheating

13. Finding: Not guilty

14. Sentence:

In the result, accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 406 & 408 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused

No. 2, if any, shall stand discharged.

Sd/- R.Kishore babu

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

YELLAMANCHILLI.

Copy to the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief- Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.