Ms R .Sreelatha

XXII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex · Hyderabad · Telangana

Ms R .Sreelatha, XXII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, is posted at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 235 court orders on record since 2017. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC cases.

235

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/200544/2013 Acquitted

P.S.Bowenpally vs P.Suresh Kumar and others

11 Dec 2018

Dated:11122018 1 CC:544/2013

IN THE COURT OF XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Present :Ms.R.SREELATHA,

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this, the 11 th day of December, 2018

C.C No.544 of 2013

Between:

The State, represented by the SubInspector of police, Bowenpally Police Station, Hyderabad.…Complainant

And

1. Sri P.Suresh Kumar S/o Late P.Ramachandraiah, Aged 45 years Occ: Service R/o H.No.85239/1, Syndicate Bank Colony, (ground floor), Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

2. Sri P.Naresh Kumar S/o Late P.Ramchandraiah, Aged 42 years Occ: Pvt Employee R/o H.No.85239/1, Syndicate Bank Colony, (ground floor), Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

3. Sri P.Anil Babu S/o Late P.Ramchandraiah, Aged 34 years Occ: Pvt Employee R/o H.No.85239/1, Syndicate Bank Colony, (ground floor), Old Bowenpally,

Secunderabad. ...Accused Nos.1 to 3

This case coming before me on 13112018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Naresh, Senior Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State and M/s.M.R.Neelakantam, Advocates and Associates for the accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E NT

The State, represented by the SubInspector of police of P.S

Bowenpally, Secunderabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences U/sec 324 r/w.34 IPC

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the husband of Pw1 and the father of accused are own brothers and there are property

Dated:11122018 2 CC:544/2013

disputes between them. On 10022013 at about 4.30 PM, when Pw1 came to the ground floor to take manjeera water as the water tap is in the sump, the accused have objected and an altercation took place in between them. There upon, the accused beat Pw1 with hands and legs and pushed her aside and also thrown the motor on her. In the result, she sustained simple injuries. Thereby, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offence U/sec.324 r/w.34 IPC.

3. On the charge sheet filed, the cognizance was taken for the offence U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

4. After the appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3, the copies of the case documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined U/sec.239 of

Cr.P.C., The charge U/sec.324 r/w.34 IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 3 have been framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language. They have denied the allegations and claimed to be tried.

5. In this case on hand, the prosecution has examined Pws1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Pw1 is the informant and injured. Pw2 and

Pw3 are the eyewitnesses, Pw4 is the panch witness for scene observation cum seizure panchanama. Pw5 is the Investigation officer of this case and Pw6 is the doctor who treated the Pw1 and issued medical certificate.

6.After the closure of the evidence on behalf of the Prosecution, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are examined U/sec 313 of Cr.P.C., and the

Dated:11122018 3 CC:544/2013

incriminating material was put to them. They have denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Arguments heard.

The learned Asst.Public Prosecutor has submitted oral arguments and the learned counsel assisting the prosecution has submitted the written arguments to the effect that nothing is elicited to rebut the testimony of Pw1 and that unnecessary questions were posed to Pw1 regarding the civil cases. After Pw1 was recalled, to side track the real issues, the Ex.D2 was confronted and the accused have miserably failed to rebut the evidence of Pw1 and also the evidence of

Pws2, 3 and 6. It is prayed to convict the accused severely.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted the written arguments and oral arguments to the effect that there are several omissions in the evidence of Pw1 and in the light of Ex.D2 i.e. English written report which is willfully suppressed by the investigating agency by putting forth Ex.P1 alone, it is apparently evident that a false case is foisted. There are serious allegations of outraging the modesty of Pw1 in this Ex.D2 and the investigation is biased. The non examination of the husband of Pw1 is also fatal. According to the accused, the false charges are framed and he has sought to acquit the accused by extending the benefit of doubt as this case is foisted only to grab the property from the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence

U/sec 324 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Dated:11122018 4 CC:544/2013

To prove the offence U/sec. 324 r/w.34 IPC, the prosecution has to establish the accused Nos.1 to 3 with a common intention have caused simple hurt to Pw1 by means of hands and legs/motor which are sufficient enough to cause death.

9. The perusal of Ex.P1 report dated 1022013 lodged at 9.10 PM discloses that Pw1 is staying in the first floor and in the ground floor of the same premises, the accused are residing and they both are related to each other. On that day at about 4.30 PM, Pw1 went to the ground floor to fetch manjeera water from the tap which is in the sump. Then, the accused No.1 has obstructed her from filling the water. Inspite of it, when Pw1 was taking the water from the sump, the accused No.1 has thrown her out by putting hands under her arms, she sustained injury when she fell on the stone. Thereafter, the accused No.2 with the other accused beat her with hands and legs. The accused No.3 has thrown the water motor on her and she sustained injury on the right hand and again, the motor was kept back in the sump. This incident is witnessed by Himavathi, Bharathamma and Kamalamma. The accused No.3 has sustained injury on left side forehead when he was standing in the sump.

When Bharathamma i.e Pw2 enquired her as to why she was in the sump, at that time, the accused No.3 has sustained this injury.

The alleged incident took place at about 4.30 PM and the report is lodged at 9.10 PM.

10.It is the evidence of Pw1 who is the injured that on 10022013 at about 4.30 PM or 5:00 PM, she came to ground floor to fetch the water from the tap and started motor for pumping the water to the first floor.

Dated:11122018 5 CC:544/2013

The accused Nos.1 to 3 obstructed her and Accused No.3 pushed motor towards her right hand and she sustained injury on her right hand. The accused Nos.1 to 3 have thrown her on the road and her head came in contact with a stone and she received bleeding injury. Again, the accused

Nos.1 to 3 beat her indiscriminately with their hands and legs. The neighbours informed the police and the police rushed to the spot. The incident was witnessed by Pw2, Pw3 and Lw4 Smt.N.Kamalamma. She proceeded to the police station along with the above witnesses and

Colony President and gave Ex.P1 report.

10 (a) The alleged omissions which are put to Pw1 regarding the manner of incident are not proved by putting them to the investigation officer. Hence, they need no discussion. Pw1 has denied to have given the English written complaint on 10022013. Admittedly, there are civil disputes between the parties and the civil suit was filed two months

before this incident as stated by Pw1. No details of that civil suit are

spoken by her.

However, there is O.S.No.287/2016 pending between the accused

No.1 and the husband of Pw1 at Miyapur court and the certified copy of the Plaint is filed by the accused No.1. This case pertains to the disputed premises for eviction and arrears of rents. This suit pertains to the year 2016 and it appears both the parties are claiming the disputed house.

10 (b) Pw1’s evidence discloses that by the time she went to the police station, the accused were at police station. She admits her signature appearing in English in the wound certificate under Ex.P3. Curiously, she has put her signature in Telugu in Ex.P1 report and also during her

Dated:11122018 6 CC:544/2013

evidence, she states that she cannot say if the signature in Ex.D2 (English written report) and Ex.P3 are one and the same.

11.The contention of the accused is that the Pw1 first gave English written complaint under Ex.D2 in the police station regarding the alleged incident and later Ex.P1 was brought into existence as an after thought by suppressing Ex.D2 by mentioning the names of eyewitnesses. In this context, it is relevant to mention here that this

English report was confronted to the investigation officer i.e. Pw5 and the original of this English written report (Ex D2) was available in the

CD file as admitted by the investigation officer. So, there is another report pertaining to the same incident and the signature in Ex.D2 (marked as

Ex.D1) and the admitted signature of Pw1 in Ex.P3 wound certificate appears to be one and the same when examined with the naked eye. Pw1 denying the giving of Ex.D2 report creates doubts regarding the present incident, particularly in the light of civil disputes between the parties regarding that house.

11 (a) If this Ex.D2 is perused, it goes to show that Pw1 was attacked by all the accused persons when she came down to fetch the water. The accused No.1 pulled her hands from the sump and pushed her away and the accused No.2 kicked her in the stomach. The accused No.3 pushed her on to the wall and she got injured on the right elbow. They used unparliamentary language and the accused No.1 kept his hands on her breast and the three persons are tried to molest her and they were in a drunken condition. This report is also dated 10022013. In Ex.D2, there is no mention of Mo1 sump being thrown on her due to which she

Dated:11122018 7 CC:544/2013

sustained injury on her right hand elbow as stated by Pw1 during her evidence and this motor was pushed by the accused No.3 as seen from her ChiefExamination evidence. Significantly, the motor was marked through the investigation officer, but not shown to Pw1. So, all together, a new case is introduced in Ex.P1 if this Ex.D2 is an earliest report.

The police or the victim has chosen Ex.P1 out of Exs.P1 and Ex.D2.

Regarding the original of Ex.D2 being available in this file, the explanation given by the investigation officer i.e. Pw5 is that some other police staff might has received it and tagged in this file and that he did not receive the report from Pw1. But Ex.P1 and Ex.D2 disclosing differing manner of the same incident definitely creates doubts regarding the prosecution case.

12. In this context, if the evidence of Pw2 is perused, she states that at about 4.30 PM, there was galata between Pw1 and the accused while

Pw1 was fetching the water. The accused pulled the motor and pipe and they thrown Pw1 on the road from the compound wall. As such, Pw1 fell down and received injury on her head and she became unconscious.

Then, she along with other witnesses questioned the accused. It is relevant to mention here that there is no mention of Pw1 becoming unconscious in this Ex.P1 report. The same is significant since the report was lodged nearly after 4 ½ hours after the incident and further,

Pw1 claims that the police rushed to the spot after the incident was informed by the neighbours and then she proceeded to the police station.

Only during the crossexamination, Pw1 has stated the version of becoming unconscious and visiting the police station after regaining consciousness. That too, this version is stated when she was recalled

Dated:11122018 8 CC:544/2013

long after her evidence was completed.

12 (a) Further more, it is seen that the evidence of Pw2 goes to show that Pw1 has sustained head injury. Whereas, Ex.P3 discloses simple injuries on right elbow, blunt injury on right ribs, right knee joint and these simple injuries are only caused by hands. She was examined at about 5.30 PM on the date of incident i.e. immediately after she was taken by police to the Cure hospital as seen from the Ex.P3. Even though Pw1 also states that she sustained bleeding injury when her head came in contact with stone after she was pushed, no head injury being noticed during medical examination is fatal and the medical evidence does not tally with the ocular evidence. Pw6 the medical officer has deposed about the noticing of tenderness and pain on Right ribs, right elbow joint, right side of the chest. There is opinion expressed that

Pw1 has sustained simple injury on right elbow and blunt injury on right ribs, right knee joint. The X ray of chest has revealed that the same is normal. Also, Pw2 did not state about the accused No.3 pushing the motor towards right hand of Pw1 due to which Pw1 sustained right hand injury. The very prosecution case and the specific version of Pw1 is that the deadly instrument i.e. motor was used in causing simple hurt to Pw1. So, Pw2’s evidence is not of use to prosecution.

12 (b)In this context, if the left over testimony of Pw3 is perused, while she was drying the clothes on the upstairs at about 4:00 or 4.30

PM, she observed the galata in the house of Pw1 and noticed that the accused were assaulting Pw1 and Pw1 fell on the ground. So, she

Dated:11122018 9 CC:544/2013

rushed to the spot and requested the accused No.3 not to beat Pw1 and somebody telephoned the police and the police took them to police station. So, according to Pw3, the accused No.3 has assaulted Pw1 and she did not speak about the presence of the accused Nos.1 and 2 at all.

13. So, there are variations in the manner of incident spoken by Pws,1 to 3. This coupled with Ex.D2 creates serious doubts regarding the occurrence particularly, in the light of the civil disputes between the parties as observed above. The accused during the Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

examination have submitted the copy of will deed, deposition of Pw1 in civil suit at Warangal and the copy of Plaint in O.S.No.287/2016 pending between the accused No.1 and the husband of Pw1 pertaining to the disputed premises.

14. The evidence of the investigation officer goes to show that he received Ex.P1 and registered the F.I.R. and on the same day, examined Pw1 and referred her to hospital. At the scene of offence, he seized the water pump and examined the remaining witnesses. He collected the wound certificate and filed charge sheet. He has seized the

Mo1 from the scene of offence in the presence of Pw4 and another panch witness. This Pw4 is none other than the friend of son of Pw1. He admits during the crossexamination that this panchanama was conducted at police station. Therefore, the alleged seizure of MO1 in the manner put forth by Pw5 becomes suspicious. This alleged panchanama is not even available in the file and the same is significant since as per this Ex.P1, after throwing the motor by the accused No.3 on

Pw1, again the motor was fixed in the pump by the accused. So, from

Dated:11122018 10 CC:544/2013

where exactly the motor was seized has to be explained i.e. whetherfrom the ground as it was thrown on to Pw1 or from the pump since it was again refixed by accused as seen from Ex.P1. To believe the manner of incident, this aspect is also significant. The contention of the accused is that the Mo1 is planted for the purpose of this case and as already observed, Ex.D2 not disclosing the role of Mo1 in this incident is fatal.

There is no corroboration between the medical and ocular evidence on record. If the using of the weapon is disbelieved, the offence U/sec.323

IPC has to be examined. But, the very manner of incident is not established convincingly by the prosecution as observed supra.

15. For the above discussion, any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the accused Nos.1 to 3. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are therefore entitled for the benefit of doubt for the alleged offence. Accordingly, they are acquitted

U/sec.248(1)Cr.P.C, for the offence U/sec.324 r/w.34 of IPC.

16. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec.324 r/w.34 of IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted

U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months U/sec.437A Cr.P.C. Mo1 shall be confiscated to the state after the expiry of appeal time, as there is no clarity if it belongs to accused or Pw1 and none claimed it so far.

Dictated to the Stenographer GradeII, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 11th day of December,

2018.

XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

Dated:11122018 11 CC:544/2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Pw1 Smt.P.Prabhavathi: Informant/injured.

Pw2 Smt.S.Bharathamma: Proposed eyewitness.

Pw3 Smt.S.Hymavathi: Proposed eyewitness

Pw4 Sri Racha Mallaraju: Panch for scene observation cum seizure panchanama.

Pw5: Sri B.Vijayabhaskar Reddy: S.I. Investigation Officer.

Pw6: Dr.Chandu: who treated the injured and issued Medical certificate

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Report lodged by Pw1 Ex.D1: Signature of Pw1 in Ex.D2

Ex.P2: First Information Report. Ex.D2: Copy of English written report.

Ex.P3: Wound Certificate of Pw1

M.Os MARKED

MO1: Motor pump.

XI ADDL. CHIEF MEROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

CC/200753/2015 Acquitted

PS Mahankali vs Sanni Kumar

18 Dec 2018

Dated:18-12-2018 1 CC:753/2015

IN THE COURT OF XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Present : Ms.R.SREELATHA,

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this, the 18 th day of December, 2018

C.C No.753 of 2015

Between:

The State, represented by the SubInspector of police, Mahankali Police Station, Secunderabad…Complainant

And

Sri Sanni Kumar S/o Late Pradeep Prasad, Aged 27 years Occ:Goldsmith R/o Madhava Apartments, General Bazar, Mahankali N/o Hakilkatpur (v), Bakhtiyarpur (Thana), Patna (Dist), Bihar State. …. Accused

This case coming before me on 13122018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Naresh, Senior Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Daneshwar Rao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E NT

The State, represented by the SubInspector of police of P.S

Mahankali, Secunderabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 420 r/w. 511 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused was carrying on the work of manufacturing the gold biscuits with BIS marking, without any lawful authority conferred upon him. He was indulged in deceiving the public that those gold biscuits stamped as ‘BIS’ (Bureau of Indian

Standards) are approved by the Government through appropriate license.

Thereby, the accused has committed the offence U/sec.420 r/w.511 IPC i.e. attempt to commit cheating.

Dated:18-12-2018 2 CC:753/2015

3. On the charge sheet filed, the cognizance was taken for the offence

U/sec: 420 r/w. 511 of I.P.C. against the accused.

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

Thereafter, he was examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and the charge

U/sec.420 r/w.511 IPC against the accused is framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language. He has denied the allegations and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined Pws1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and Mos.1, 2.

In this case on hand, Pw1 is the panchayatdar for the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused and for the search proceedings.

Pw2 is the Head Constable who has assisted Pw4 in conducting the raid,

Pw3 is the investigation officer of this case and Pw4 is the informant.

6.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined U/sec 313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution side evidence was put to him. He has denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Arguments heard.

The learned Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor has submitted to deliver the judgment basing on the evidence of Pws2 to 4 and according to him, the seizure of Mos1 and 2 goes to show that the accused has attempted to cheat the public by preparing the gold biscuits as if there is BIS monogram

Dated:18-12-2018 3 CC:753/2015

on them. According to him, the panch witness not supporting the prosecution case is not fatal and he sought to convict the accused severely.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the alleged offence U/sec.420 r/w.511 IPC is not attracted at all and the relevant provisions of Bureau of Indian Standards Act are not invoked by the prosecution. According to him, there is no material placed to the effect that the accused has simulated the official monogram of B.I.S and Pw1 has also not supported the prosecution case. He has sought to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution

could prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec 420 r/w.511

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. To prove the offence U/sec.420 r/w.511 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused has attempted to cheat and to dishonestly induce the gullible public by making gold biscuits by simulating the monogram of B.I.S, without any valid licence or permit granted by the authorities concerned.

10. The perusal of Ex.P3 report lodged by Pw4 on 18022014 at about 22:00 hours is to the effect that at about 4.30 PM while Pw4 was at his Taskforce, Secunderbad, he has received the credible information about the accused making the gold biscuits by simulating monogram without any valid license of BIS. He was cheating the innocent public by avoiding the payment of Government Taxes. The situation was appraised to the Additional Dy.Commissioner of Police, Taskforce. Then secured two

Dated:18-12-2018 4 CC:753/2015

panchayatdars, drafted the search proceedings as the delay may cause disappearance of accused and the evidence, conducted search at the premises of 1st floor left side of right corner room of Kolluru Madhava

Apartments, General Bazar, Mahankali, Secunderabad and apprehended the accused present there and caused enquiries. The accused disclosed his identity and admitted that he is making the gold biscuits by simulating monogram without any valid license and conveying the message to the public that these biscuits are pure and bear the official monogram of B.I.S.

His confession statement was recorded and there is seizure of two gold biscuits and 12 blocks by pasting the panch slips. Since he was making the public to believe as if the gold biscuits are as per the provisions of

B.I.S, the accused was produced before the S.H.O of PS.Mahanakli along with report (Ex.P3), Search Proceedings (Ex.P7), Confession cum seizure panchanama (Ex.P5), Authorization Memo (Ex.P5) and the seized property.

11.Pw1 who is the panch witness for the confession cum seizure panchanama did not support the prosecution case at all and his signatures were marked as Exs.P1 and 2 in the search proceedings and in the panchanama. He has categorically stated that there is no seizure in his presence.

12. As seen from the evidence of Pw3 i.e. the investigation officer of this case, Pw4 has lodged Ex.P3 report before Lw8 Sri Rambabu and basing on the same, Ex.P4 F.I.R was registered. Also, Pw4 produced the accused, panchanama, search proceedings and the seized material. Then,

Lw8 Sri Rambabu has arrested the accused and deposited the properties.

Dated:18-12-2018 5 CC:753/2015

Pw3 has only filed the charge sheet in this case. It is seen that Mo1 CD reflects that the gold biscuits are handed over to the accused. Since the accused claimed these gold biscuits, which are seized by Pw4 under panchanama, there cannot be any denial regarding the factum of seizure.

13.In this context, if the evidence of Pw4 who has detected this offence is perused, he received the credible information regarding the making of the gold biscuits by simulating the monogram. The situation was appraised to the superiors and the authorization was obtained under

Ex.P7. Then, he secured the panchayatdars, drafted the search proceedings and proceeded to the Kolluru Madhava Apartment. There, the accused was found to have been making the gold biscuits by simulating the official monogram without license of Bureau of Indian Standards. So, the search proceedings were served, the confession of the accused was recorded and the gold biscuits apart from MO2 blocks were seized.

To establish that the accused was preparing the gold biscuits by simulating the official monogram of B.I.S, first of all what is the official monogram of the Bureau of Indian Standards has to be placed before this court. Then, it has to be established that there was an attempt to imitate the official monogram. As seen from the MO1 and the panchanama, there are symbols i.e., India 100 gm, fine Gold 999, rear side rose flower with leaf lets on the gold biscuits There is no material placed by the prosecution that this particular design pertains to Bureau of Indian

Standard.

13 (a)As seen from the Bureau of Indian Standards Act 1986

U/sec.10 of the Act, the Bureau should recognize any standard in relation

Dated:18-12-2018 6 CC:753/2015

to any article or process as an Indian standard and specify it as Standard

Mark to be called as Bureau of Indian Standards Certification Mark which shall be of such design and contain such particulars as may be prescribed to represent a particular Indian Standard. Also, it is the duty of such

Bureau to make inspection and to take samples of any material or substance as may be necessary to see whether any article or process in relation to which the Standard Mark has been used confirms to the Indian

Standard or whether the Standard Mark has been improperly used in relation to any article or process with or without a license.

13 (b)U/sec.11 of this Act, there is prohibition of improper use of

Standard Mark. So, if really the accused has simulated the official monogram without license or with license, the offence U/sec.11 of the Act attracts. This says that no person shall use in relation to any article or process or Mark or any colourable imitation thereof, unless such article or process confirms to the Indian Bureau Standards. This offence is punishable U/sec.33 of the Bureau of Indian Standard 1986 and whoever contravenes the provisions of Secs 11 or 12 or 14 or 15, is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees or with both and the property is also liable for confiscation to Bureau. Further, there is bar U/sec.34 of the Act in taking cognizance by the courts except on the complaint made by or under the authority of the Government or Bureau or by any officer empowered in this behalf by the Government or the Bureau, or any consumer or any association recognized in this behalf by the Central or

State Government. But here, there is no complaint made by or under

Dated:18-12-2018 7 CC:753/2015

authority of Government or Bureau or officer empowered on behalf of the

Bureau as required U/sec.34 of the Act. In fact, in the present case, there is invocation of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. Without adhering to the provisions laid down under the relevant act, the

Investigation officer has committed irregularity. Even otherwise, as observed, the official monogram of Bureau of Indian Standard is not placed on record and so, the offence of simulating the official monogram or attempt to cheat public with the said gold biscuits is not established.

14. Pw4 admits that he did not obtain any permission from the Central

Government regarding the raid for violation of Bureau of Indian Standards.

No details pertaining to the shop are filed and there is no material that the accused is the owner of that shop. No doubt, there is also the evidence of

Pw2 who assisted Pw4 to the effect that there was raid on the shop at

Madhava Apartment wherein the accused was preparing the gold biscuits with 999 monogram. He pleads ignorance as who is the owner of that mulgi and regarding the accused possessing any trade license. Also, the sole panch witness examined pertaining to the seizure of Mos1 and 2 and the alleged confession of the accused i.e. Pw1 did not support the prosecution case as observed above and the other panch witness could not be examined.

15. In the light of the above material on record, the allegations of attempting to cheat public by simulating the official monogram of Bureau of Indian Standards on gold biscuits is not established by the prosecution beyond every reasonable doubt and any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of

Dated:18-12-2018 8 CC:753/2015

accused. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted U/sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec: 420 r/w.511 of I.P.C.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec:

420 r/w.511 of I.P.C. and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months U/sec.437A Cr.P.C. The interim custody of the Mo1 is made absolute after the expiry of appeal time. Mo2 blocks shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer GradeII, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 18th day of December, 2018.

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Pw1: Sri Prakash Jadav: Panch for search and confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. Pw2: Sri C.Venkat Ramulu: Head Constable, Circumstantial witness. Pw3: Sri S.Vijay: S.I. Investigation Officer. Pw4: Sri M.Muthu Yadav, S.I./Task Force North Zone.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE Nil

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw1 in search proceedings dt.1822014. Ex.P2: Signature of Pw2 in confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P3: Report lodged by Pw3. Ex.P4: First Information Report. Ex.P5: Confession cum seizure panchanama of accused Ex.P6: Search Proceedings. Ex.P7: Authorization Memo.

M.Os MARKED

MO1: The C.D. containing the Photographs of gold property. MO2: The blocks (12 in number).

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

CC/600114/2017 Acquitted

Market vs Repana Sudha aliase Padma

25 Jan 2018

Dated:25012018 1 CC:114/2017

IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

SECUNDERABAD

Dated this, the 25 th day of January, 2018

Present : M s.R.SREELATHA,

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT,

SECUNDERABAD.

C.C No.114 of 2017

(Old CC.No.537/2009 of X ACMM Court)

Between:

The State, represented by the SubInspector of police, Market Police Station, Secunderabad. …Complainant

And

Smt. Repana Sudha @ Padma W/o.R.Shankar, Aged 36 years Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.SRT, 28, Sanath Nagar Quarters,

Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad. ...Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 24012018 in the presence of Sri Naresh, Senior Asst., Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and of Sri V.V.S.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E NT

The State, represented by the SubInspector, Market police station,

Secunderabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 420 and 379 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused due to family necessities started cheating the innocent ladies for sake of easy money. On 04042009 at about 06:00 PM, when she noticed Pw1 purchasing vegetables in the market, the accused introduced herself.

While they both were walking on the road by talking to each other, suddenly, the accused stopped and picked up some packet from the

Dated:25012018 2 CC:114/2017

ground and shown the same to Pw1 and stated as if she found the gold metal piece and asked Pw1 to distribute the same. As Pw1 had no money, the accused took the gold chain of Pw1 and handed over the fake gold metal piece, given her cell number to Pw1 and disappeard.

This is pertaining to the Cr.No.70/2009 of Market Police Station. Again on 06042009, she committed a similar offence by showing the fake gold piece to Smt. Bandaram Lakshmi (Lw2) and Lw2 also gave her

Mangala Sutram by retaining the alleged gold piece towards her share found on the road by the accused and herself. This pertains to

Cr.No.71/2009. Thereby, the accused has cheated the two ladies by giving gold coated metal pieces and committed the offences U/secs.420 and 379 of IPC. The common charge sheet is filed pertaining to these two offences.

3. Upon the perusal of the record, the charge sheet has been taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable U/secs.420, 379

IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused, she was furnished with the documents as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the Charge U/sec.420 IPC is framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which she has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1, 2 and Mos 1 and 2. The evidence of victim Smt.Laxmi (Lw2) is closed by this court as it is reported that she

Dated:25012018 3 CC:114/2017

has died. Lw3’s (Sri Raju) evidence is given up by the learned Sr.APP and the evidence of the rest of the witnesses is closed by this court.

6.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined U/sec 313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution side evidence was put to her. She has denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Arguments heard.

The learned Sr.Addl.P.P., has submitted to deliver the judgment basing on the evidence of Pws1 and 2 and according to him, the

Investigation officer could not be examined as he has retired from service and staying away at Bangalore

Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the fake gold pieces with which the accused is alleged to have cheated the victims are not exhibited by the prosecution and Mo2 is not identified by Pw1. The nonexamination of the Investigation Officer is fatal and he has sought to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is “Whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence U/sec.420 IPC "?

To prove the offence U/sec:420 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein has cheated and dishonestly induced the Pw1 and Lw2 (Smt.Laxmi) to deliver the gold chain to her by

Dated:25012018 4 CC:114/2017

handing over the fake gold pieces to them.

9. In the present case on hand, Pw1 is the informant of

Cr.No.70/2009 and Pw2 is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. The other victim i.e Lw2

Smt.B.Lakshmi could not be examined as it is reported that she has died. The evidence of the Investigation officer i.e Lw8 Sri

A.Purushotham Naidu and the police staff who assisted the Investigation

Officer is closed by this court after giving several opportunities from 15 112017 till 10012018 and on 10012018, the evidence of the

Investigation Officer and other police staff was closed with a liberty to examine them if available prior to hearing the arguments. But till date, no such steps are taken by the prosecution to examine the investigation

Officer. Further, this court has addressed letters to the Station House

Officer to produce these witnesses i.e police officials and it was reported that the Investigation Officer Lw8 (Sri A.Purushotham Naidu) is presently residing at Bangalore after his retirement. The prosecution has not taken any steps to secure his presence.

10. As seen from the Ex.P1 report dated 07042009, there is mention about one lady of 4 ½ feet height wearing blue blouse and saree who came with two years old boy gaining acquaintance with Pw1 and later, she has cheated Pw1. On the road, that lady has acted as if she found some red paper with the gold coating rod and asked the Pw1 that they would share it equally. She promised on her son that it was pure gold.

Towards her share, the accused took the gold chain of Pw1 by promising to give it back after Pw1 gives her share of money pertaining

Dated:25012018 5 CC:114/2017

to the gold piece found on the road. When Pw1 approached the goldsmith, she came to know that it is a fake gold one and therefore, she sought to take action against the lady offender and further it is mentioned in the report that she can identify that lady if she is shown to her. This report was lodged on 07042009 and the alleged incident took place on 04042009.

The other report pertaining to Cr.No.71/2009 lodged by Lw2

Smt.Lakshmi is not exhibited at all.

11.The perusal of the evidence of Pw1 goes to show that she has seen the accused on the date of incident at Monda Market on 04042009.

She has stated that the accused came with small kid and talked to her and after going ahead on the road, the accused has picked up one red paper and shown something like gold biscuit in that red paper and offered to share it 5050. So, Pw1 gave her gold chain by keeping

Pustelu with her and took the gold biscuit offered by accused. Later, came to know that it was not gold and she realized that the accused gave her wrong cellphone number also. In this regard, she lodged Ex.P1 report.

Her specific version is that she herself caught hold of the accused and took back her chain through police. Surprisingly, she denied that

Mo2 shown to her is the fake gold biscuit which was shown by the accused on that day and she has stated that the actual one was little bit bigger in size. She admits during her crossexamination that she has not used the word ‘biscuit’ at all in Ex.P1 and Sec.161 Cr.P.C.Statement. In

Dated:25012018 6 CC:114/2017

the light of Pw1 denying Mo2 as the gold biscuit shown by accused, there arises doubt regarding the prosecution case as put forth. As already observed, there is delay in lodging the report and Pw1 explains that after ascertaining whether the piece was gold piece or not; She has lodged the report after three days. The alleged omission in her version about not stating to the police that she retained the Pustelu while giving her gold chain to the accused could not be proved through the

Investigation Officer as the Investigation officer is not examined at all by the prosecution.

Also, her version is contrary to the prosecution case of accused being caught on 842009 at pot market and she states that she herself caught hold of the accused.

12. As per the prosecution version, after registering these two crimes, during the course of investigation, on 08042009 at about 2:00 PM, the

SubInspector of police Sri A.Purushotham Naidu (Lw8) got some reliable information and so, with the assistance of his staff, he apprehended the accused at pot market and there itself, he conducted

Ex.P2 panchanama and recorded the confession of the accused and from her, there is recovery of two gold chains i.e approximately 4 Tulas in total. (pertaining to Pw1 and Lw2 (Smt.Laxmi).

12 (a) In the light of the nonexamination of the Investigation Officer, if the evidence of Pw2 is perused i.e panch witness of this confession cum seizure panchanama, he has deposed about he being called to

Monda Market and there, one lady confessing to have cheated another

Dated:25012018 7 CC:114/2017

lady by giving fake gold coin by taking the gold chain of that victim. The specific version of Pw2 is that the statement of the lady was recorded in his presence and in the presence of another boy and that the gold chain was recovered under this Ex.P2 panchanama. This Pw2 admits during crossexamination that his signatures were taken at police station even though he was called to the Monda market. Also, he states that the signatures of the lady offender were taken in the panchanama after he has put his signatures. But, Ex.P2 does not disclose the Thumb

Impressions or signatures of the accused. Above all, the alleged confession of the accused made in the immediate presence of police is hit by Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act and there is no recovery in pursuance of the confession and the gold chains pertaining to the

Cr.No.70/2009 and Cr.No.71/2009 were found with the accused herself at the time of this panchanama. Also, the testimony of Pw2, is not useful to the prosecution for the reason that under this Ex.P2 not one gold chain, but two gold chains are recovered. So, the evidence of Pw2 does not tally with the prosecution case and with the contents of Ex.P2.

The panch slips are not exhibited and for the observations mae supra,the testimony of Pw2 is not helpful to the prosecution case. The

MO1 gold chain is not shown to Pw2 for sake of identification. Also,

Pw1 has failed to identify the Mo2 as the fake gold piece shown by the accused at the relevant time and this is very fatal to the prosecution case as observed above.

13.With the available evidence of Pws1 and 2, it is difficult to hold that the accused has cheated the Pw1 and also one Smt.B.Lakshmi

Dated:25012018 8 CC:114/2017

(Lw2) and dishonestly induced them to deliver the gold chains by handing over the fake gold pieces to them. Therefore, the ingredients of the offences U/sec.420 IPC are not established.

14. For the above discussion, any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the accused. The accused is therefore entitled for the benefit of doubt for the alleged offences. Accordingly, she is acquitted U/sec.248 (1) CrPC., for the offence U/sec. 420 of IPC.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/secs.420 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted

U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months U/sec.437A Cr.P.C.

The interim custody of Mo1 given to Pw1 and the other gold chain given to Smt.B.Lakshmi (Lw2) is made absolute after the appeal time is over. The alleged fake gold pieces (deposited vide PI.No.184/2009) shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer GradeII, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25th day of January, 2018.

XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

(FAC) XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT

SECUNDERABAD

Dated:25012018 9 CC:114/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Pw1: Smt.Kotla Shanthamma: Informant. NIL

Pw2: Confession cum seizure panchanama dt.842009.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Report lodged by Pw1Nil

Ex.P2: Signature of Pw2 on panchanama.

M.Os MARKED

Mo1: Gold chain.

Mo2: Fake gold biscuit.

XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

(FAC) XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT,

SECUNDERABAD

CC/204513/2018 Acquitted

Bowenpally P.S vs Ranga Rao Manager

28 Dec 2018

Dt:28122018 1 CC:4513/2018

IN THE COURT OF XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Dated this, the 28 th day of December, 2018

Present : Ms.R.SREELATHA,

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

C.C No.4513 of 2018

Between:

The State, represented by the SubInspector of police, Bowenpally Police Station, Secunderabad. …Complainant

And

1.Sri Ranga Rao, Manager of Soni Sports and Cultural Association, Plot No.33, Nandamuri Nagar, Bowenpally.

2. Sri B.Raju S/o B.Lachaiah, aged 50 years, Occ: Supervisor of Soni Sports and Cultural Association situated at Plot NO.33, Nandamuri Nagar, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.

3. Sri K.Paramesh S/o K.Nagishetty, Aged 34 years, Occ: Business R/o.Shiva Nagar, Jagadgirigutta, Hyderabad.

4. Sri K.Pavan Kumar S/o Akka Rao, Aged 30 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.11162/A, Prakash Nagar, Begumept, Secunderabad.

5. Sri P.Shiva Reddy S/o P.Suryanarayana Reddy, Aged 28 years Occ: Business R/o Madhusudhan Reddy Nagar, Chintal, Hyderabad.

6. Sri Y.Krishna Reddy S/o Y.Venkat Reddy, aged 28 years, Occ: Business R/o Gagillapur, Dundigal, R.R.Dist.

7. Sri T.Hari Babu S/o T.Anand Rao, Aged 32 years, Occ: Business R/o Rajiv Nagar, Borabanda, Hyd.,

8. Sri S.K.Subhani S/o S.K.Kasim Sahib, Aged 43 years, Occ: Business R/o Gajullaramaram Road, Qudbullapur, Hyderabad.

9. Sri K.Madhu S/o K.Anjeneyulu, aged 26 years, Occ: Business R/o Street No.8, Habsiguda, Sec’bad.

10. Sri B.Shiva S/o.Srinivasa Rao, Aged 23 years, Occ: Business R/o Housing board, PhaseI, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

Dt:28122018 2 CC:4513/2018

11. Sri P.Shiva S/o P.Mohan, Aged 29 years, Occ: Business R/o Allway Colony, Kukatpally, Hyd.,

12. Sri B.Gopal S/o B.Balaiah, Aged 53 years Occ: Business, R/o Ameerpet, Hyderabad N/o Kabadipallem (V), Ongole Mandal, Prakasham District.

13. Sri B.Ganapathi S/o B.Jagappa, aged 23 years, Occ: Business R/o Qudbullapur, Hyderabad.

14. Sri I.Shashagiri, S/o I.M.K.Murthy, aged 34 years, Occ: Pvt Employee R/o Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Shapoor, Hyderabad.

15. Sri B.Mojesh S/o B.Prabhudas, Aged 24 years, Occ: Business R/o Kollapur, Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

16. Sri G.Eshwar Rao S/o Paraiah, aged 22 years Occ: Business R/o Kollapur, Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

17. Sri G.Goutham S/o G.Peeraiah, aged 23 years, Occ:Business R/o Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

18. Sri K.Chandu S/o K.Nageshwar Rao, Aged 27 years, Occ: Business R/o Raju Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad.

19. Sri D.Naveen S/o D.Limbanna, aged 22 years, Occ: Business R/o Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

20. Sri G.Siddu S/o G.Mallaiah, aged 44 years Occ: Wielding worker, R /o Near Kalyan Theater, Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

21. Sri V.Shiva Reddy S/o V.Ramchandra Reddy, Aged 51 years Occ: Security Guard R/o Shapoor Nagar,

Hyderabad. ...Accused Nos.1 to 21

This case is being tried against the accused No.1 only. The case against the accused Nos.5, 18 and 20 vide CC.No.338/2013 was disposed off on 19072018 after they admitted their guilt. The case against the accused Nos.2 to 4, 6 to 17, 19 and 21 is splitup vide

CC.No.4512/2018.

This case coming before me for final hearing today on 28122018 in the presence of Sri Naresh, Senior Asst., Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and of Sri Rajashekar Reddy, the learned Advocate for the accused No.1 and having stood over for determination, the court delivered the following:

Dt:28122018 3 CC:4513/2018

J U D G M E NT

The State, represented by the SubInspector of police of

P.S.Bowenpally, Secunderabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 21 for the offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the

A.P.Gaming Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused No.1 is the

Manager of the M/s. Sony Spots and Cultural Association situated at

Premises No.33, Nandamurinagar. For sake of profits, he has chosen to organize the three cards gambling in the club premises which is a game of chance as he was get less profits in rummy games. On the instructions of the accused No.1, the accused No.2 was organizing the card room by allowing the punters to play three cards game by collecting

Rs.200/ from each punter for three cards game. On 29012013, the

Taskforce police raided the club and apprehended 19 punters along with the accused No.2 i.e. the supervisor. There is seizure of cash, center amount, playing cards and membership cards from the possession of 19 punters and the accused No.2 under the cover of confession cum seizure panchananama of the accused No.2. Thereby, the accused have committed the offences punishable U/sec.3 and 4 of

A.P.Gaming Act.

3. Upon the perusal of the records, the charge sheet has been taken on file against the accused Nos.1 to 21 for the offence punishable

U/secs.3 & 4 of A.P.Gaming Act.

4. On appearance of the accused Nos.1, 5, 18 and 20, they were furnished with the copies of documents as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Dt:28122018 4 CC:4513/2018

The Accused were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation against the accused No.1 for the offence U/sec. 3 of the

A.P.Gaming Act and and Sec.4 of the A.P.Gaming Act against the accused Nos. 5, 18 and 20 was read over and explained to them, for which, the accused No.1 has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The accused Nos.5, 18 and 20 have admitted their guilt and were convicted U/sec.252 Cr.P.C. on 19072018.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to 5. No material objects are marked. Pw1 is the investigation officer of this case, Pw3 is the informant and Pw2 is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama.

6. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused

No.1 was examined U/sec 313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution side evidence was put to him. He has denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Arguments heard.

The learned Sr.A.P.P has submitted to deliver the judgment basing on the evidence of Pws1 and 3. According to him, Pw2 not supporting the prosecution case is of least significance and sought to convict the accused No.1.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused No.1 has contended that the accused No.1 is no way concerned with the alleged three cards game in the club and that he was not even present at the time of the alleged raid. For statistical purpose, this false case is foisted

Dt:28122018 5 CC:4513/2018

against the accused No.1 and he has sought to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused No.1.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is “Whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of accused No.1 beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence U/sec.3 of A.P.Gaming Act "?

To prove the offence U/sec.3 of the A.P.Gaming Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused No.l has opened, kept or used or permitted to be used any common gaming house or conducted or assisted in conducting the business of any common gaming house or had advanced or furnished money for gaming therein.

9. The perusal of Ex.P4 report lodged by Pw3 dated 29012013 discloses that while Pw3 was at Taskforce office, he has received the credible information about the three cards game which is a game of chance being conducted at Sony Cultural Association club. After obtaining the authorization memo, he secured the panchayatdars and visited the spot. The accused No.2 on the instructions of the accused

No.1 was allowing the members into Special Room for playing three cards game by collecting Rs.200/ from each member. Hence, he seized

Rs.2,800/ from the accused No.2 and also he found the 19 punters playing four cards game and there is seizure of Rs.19350/ including the center amount apart from playing cards and the membership cards from the punters. All the 20 accused persons were produced along with this report before the SHO of PS.Bowenpally by Pw3.

10. Pw3 before this court has deposed that on receipt of credible information while he was at Taskforce office, he has obtained

Dt:28122018 6 CC:4513/2018

authorization from superior officer and secured Pw2 and Sri Ramu as panchayatdars and prepared search proceedings under Ex.P3. Then, he proceeded to the Sony Sports and Cultural Association Club and served the copy of search proceedings on the supervisor and the accused No.2 gave confession. On his lead, they proceeded into the Special room in the ground floor and found 19 punters who were playing three cards game by betting money. He gave the details of punters of each table out of 4 tables and the amount seized at each table. Apart from this, cash and membership cards were seized. He has prepared the confession cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P3 and lodged Ex.P4 report before the

S.H.O of PS.Bowenpally.

10 (a) Pw3 admits during the crossexamination that he did not collect any material to the effect that the accused No.1 is the Manager of the Sony Sports and Cultural Association Club. As per the prosecution version, the accused No.2 (supervisor) was found there organizing the three cards game on the instructions of the accused No.1 and the accused No.1 is the Manager of the club. But absolutely, no scrap of paper is collected to this effect by Pw3 and also by Pw1 who happens to be the investigation officer of this case. Pw1 also admits that he did not collect any material to show that the accused No.1 is the owner of the disputed club. Pw3 further admits that panchanama was conducted and the seizure was done prior to the registration of the case.

11 It is the evidence of Pw1 that after Pw3 gave him the report, he registered the F.I.R. and produced the seized property before this court.

The playing cards and the membership cards are not even exhibited by

Dt:28122018 7 CC:4513/2018

the prosecution before this court which are given to their safe custody as seen from the records. Even this confession panchanama wherein the accused No.2 has disclosed the role of the accused No.1 is not proved and the sole panch witness examined i.e. Pw2 did not support the prosecution case. The evidence of Pws1 and 2 on record is insufficient for deciding the guilt of the accused No.1.

12.For the above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the role of the accused No.1 that he has organized the three cards game for profits through the accused No.2 and that the accused

No.2 was conducting this game at Sony Sports and Cultural Association

Club on the instructions of the accused No.1. Any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the accused No.1. The accused No.1 is therefore entitled for the benefit of doubt for the alleged offence. Accordingly, he is acquitted

U/secs.255 (1) Cr.P.C, for the offence U/sec.3 of A.P.Gaming Act.

12. In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.3 of A.P.Gaming Act and accordingly, he is acquitted

U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 shall remain in force for a period of six months U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since there is split-up case vide

CC.No.4512/2018 against the accused Nos. Nos.2 to 4, 6 to 17, 19

and 21.

Dictated to the Stenographer GradeII, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this, the 28th day of December, 2018.

XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD

Dt:28122018 8 CC:4513/2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Nil

Pw1: Sri R.B.Rangaiah: Inspector of police, investigation officer.

Pw2: Sri Prakash Jadav: Panch witness.

Pw3: Sri A.P.Anand Kumar: Inspector of police, North Zone, Taskforce

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Authorization Memo

Ex.P2: Search Proceedings. Nil

Ex.P3: Confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused No.2.

Ex.P4: Report lodged by Pw3.

Ex.P5: First Information Report.

M.Os MARKED

Nil

XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD

CC/472/2017 Acquitted

Tirumalgiri vs A.Ananthaiah

17 Jan 2018

Dt:17-01-2018 1 CC:472/2017

IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

SECUNDERABAD

Dated this, the 17 th day of January, 2018

Present : Ms.R.SREELATHA,

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT,

SECUNDERABAD .

C.C No.472 of 2017

(Old CC.No.1257/2015 of XI ACMM Court) Between:

The State, represented by the SubInspector of police, Trimulgherry Police Station, Secunderabad. …Complainant

And

Sri A.Anantaiah S/o Late Ramaiah, Aged 41 years Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.18, Bontavaram, Mangarapally,

Ranga Reddy District. ...Accused.

This case coming before me for final hearing 12012018 in the presence of Sri Naresh, Senior Asst., Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and of Sri Sabavath Balya Naik , Advocate for the accused and having stood over for determination till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E NT

The State, represented by the SubInspector of police of

P.S.Trimulgherry, Secunderabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 338 and 337 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 08032015 at about 17:00 hours, the accused drove the Tavera Car bearing No.AP28 BE 7686 and dashed one Hero Honda Splendor Motor cycle bearing No.AP 09BC 7006 due to his rash/negligent driving. In the result, Pw1 and

Pw2 travelling on the bike have sustained severe injuries and the injuries received by Pw2 are grievous in nature. Thereby, the accused

Dt:17-01-2018 2 CC:472/2017

has committed the offences U/secs.338 and 337 of IPC.

3. Upon the perusal of the record, the charge sheet has been taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable U/secs.338 and 337 of IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of documents as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation for the offences

U/secs.338 and 337 of IPC was read over and explained to the accused, for which, he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. No material objects are marked. The learned Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the rest of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet. On the report filed that the whereabouts of Lw6 Dr.P.Sanjay Divaker are not known, his evidence was closed. The evidence of Lw1 Sri Podithela Vikas is closed by this court.

6. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined U/sec 313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution side evidence was put to him. He has denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Arguments heard.

The learned Addl.P.P., has submitted that the evidence of Pws1 to 3 goes to show that the accident has occurred at C.S.D depot,

Trimulgherry, while Pws1 and Pw2 were travelling on bike. Their bike

Dt:17-01-2018 3 CC:472/2017

was hit by Tavera car bearing No.AP28 BE 7686 driven by the accused negligently. He has sought to believe the identification of the accused by

Pw1 and to convict the accused.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the identification of the accused by Pw1 in the court long after two years of the incident cannot be believed and considering the omissions in the evidence of Pw1 and as Pw2 has not identified the accused, he has sought to disbelieve the involvement of accused. He also submitted that the involvement of the crime vehicle is not established and it is prayed to acquit the accused.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is “Whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offences U/secs:338 and 337 of IPC "?

To prove the offence U/sec.338 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein has driven the Tavera Car bearing

No.AP28 BE 7686 i.e the crime vehicle at the relevant time of incident and caused the grievous injuries to Sri Pw2 by hitting their bike due to his rash/negligent driving.

To prove the offence U/sec.337 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein has driven the Tavera car bearing

No.AP28 BE 7686 at the relevant time and the caused hurt to Pw1 by hitting their bike due to his rash/negligent driving.

9.The perusal of Ex.P3 report lodged by Lw1 Sri Podithela Vikas goes to show that Pw1 is his brother and Pw2 is his Aunt. When Pws1

Dt:17-01-2018 4 CC:472/2017

and 2 were travelling by their Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing

No.AP09 BC 7006, one Tavera car bearing No.AP28 BE 7686 came from their back side and dashed the bike, due to which they fell down.

Pw1 has received injuries on his chest, right hand and Pw2 has received head injury and became unconscious and was being treated at

Yeshoda Hospital by the time of lodging this Ex.P3. This informant could not be examined as he is in Australia now as seen from the evidence of Pw1 and ofcourse, the informant is not an eyewitness to the incident.

9 (a) Pw1 before this court has deposed about travelling from Yapral to Chintal on bike along with Pw2. At Trimulagherry Depot, one Tavera car came from their back side and dashed their bike. He has deposed about sustaining of injuries on his chest, right ankle and that Pw2 has received head injury and became unconscious. He has identified the accused as the person who drove the crime vehicle in a rash/negligent manner and has pleaded ignorance about the crime vehicle number and stated that his brother gave report. His crossexamination discloses that he has not stated to the police during his earliest statement that he can identify the crime vehicle driver if shown to him and also that he has not given the number of the vehicle and the descriptive features of the accused to police.

9(b). In this context, if the evidence of Pw2 is perused, she has also deposed about travelling by bike from Yapral to Chintal about two years ago and that one vehicle came from behind and dashed them. She

Dt:17-01-2018 5 CC:472/2017

became unconscious and stated that she does not know what had happened and failed to identify the accused who drove the crime vehicle.

10. So, the evidence of Pws1 and 2 does not disclose the crime vehicle number and the identification of the accused by Pw1 cannot be straight away believed in the light of the earliest statement of Pw1 not disclosing those details. But, the factum of the receipt of the injuries by Pws1 and 2 while they were travelling on bike which was hit by Tavera car stands proved in the light of the convincing testimony of Pws1 and 2. Their wound certificates are exhibited as Exs.P5 and P6 respectively.

Regarding the conducting of the scene of offence panchanama, the prosecution examined Pw3 whose evidence is that the police took him to

C.S.D Canteen and prepared the panchanama and rough sketch and they found the skid marks on the road and also noticed one car and motor cycle involved in this accident. The alleged panchanama under

Ex.P1 does not contain the date and the date is kept blank along with the time of conducting panchanama. Even the rough sketch does not disclose the date and time of conducting it at the scene of offence. Also, this panchanama under Ex.P1 does not disclose the presence of the vehicles i.e bike and car at the time of conducting this panchanama. If the evidence of Pw3 is taken into consideration, this panchanama was conducted on 08032015 itself at i.e 6.30 P.M., (on the date of incident itself). The report itself is lodged on the date of incident after 4 hours of the incident. The incident took place at 5:00 PM., So, if the evidence of

Pw3 is taken into consideration Exs.P1 , P2 are conducted prior to registering the case. As per the version of the Investigation officer i.e

Pw4 after registering the FIR by Lw7 Sri K.Chittaiah, HC, Lw8Sri

Dt:17-01-2018 6 CC:472/2017

L.Raju Goud, he visited the scene of offence, that too after examining the witnesses at police station. Interestingly, Pw3 admits during the crossexamination that he has affixed his signatures at police station.

Even Pw4 did not state about the bike and car being found at the scene of offence. According to the versions of Pw1 and 2, Pw2 was unconscious after the incident and surprisingly, Pw4 states that after recording the statement of Pw1 and Pw2, Lw8 Sri Raju Goud, visited the scene of offence. The statement of Pw2 under Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

discloses that it does not contain the date of examination and where this witness was examined also cannot be seenin this statement. No document pertaining to the crime vehicle is collected to show the nexus between he accused and crime vehicle.. As seen from the testimony of

Pw4, after the accused has surrendered, he was arrested and enlarged on bail.

11.In the light of Pw1 omitting to state in his earliest statement given to police that he can identify the car driver and also not giving the vehicle number and the descriptive features of the car driver to police, the identification of the accused in the court after two years of the incident by him i.e., Pw1 cannot be the sole basis to convict the accused. So, the involvement of the accused in this accident is not established beyond every reasonable doubt.

12. For the above discussion, any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the accused. The accused is therefore entitled for the benefit of doubt for the alleged offence. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C, for

Dt:17-01-2018 7 CC:472/2017

the offences U/secs.338 and 337 of IPC.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/secs.338 and 337 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No property is deposited in this case.

Dictated to the Stenographer GradeII, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17nd day of January, 2018.

XI ADDL. CHIEF MEROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

FAC XXII ADDL. CHIEF MEROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT

SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Pw1: Sri. P.Vivek: Injured Nil

Pw2: Smt M.Indrani: Injured.

Pw3:Sri.M.Srinvias: Panch for rough sketch and scene observation panchanama.

Pw4: Sri M.Krishna Murty: S.I. Investigation Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Scene Observation Panchanama.Nil

Ex.P2: Rough Sketch.

Ex.P3: Report filed by Lw1 Sri Podithela Vikas.

Ex.P4: First Information Report.

Ex.P5: Medical certificate of Pw1

Ex.P6: Medical certificate of Pw2

M.Os MARKED

Nil

XI ADDL. CHIEF MEROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

FAC XXII ADDL. CHIEF MEROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT

SECUNDERABAD.

Order Record 228 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/204513/2018	Bowenpally P.S vs Ranga Rao Manager	28 Dec 2018	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/201025/2015	PS Bowenpally vs K Ravinder Goud	21 Dec 2018	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/200753/2015	PS Mahankali vs Sanni Kumar	18 Dec 2018	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/202570/2017	P.S.Begumpet vs Mohd kaleem	14 Dec 2018	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/200544/2013	P.S.Bowenpally vs P.Suresh Kumar and others	11 Dec 2018	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/201194/2014	PS Begumpet vs S Durga Prasad	06 Dec 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200386/2014	P.S. Bowenpally vs G Shiva narayana and another	05 Dec 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200585/2015	PS Begumpet vs SABAZ ALI KHAN	04 Dec 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200205/2013	P.S. Bowenpally vs Kinsoth Lingu	03 Dec 2018	Judgment	—
CC/204587/2018	Begumpet P.S vs A-1 Dunna Pavan KUmar @ Chittu	30 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/202127/2013	P.S.Mahankali vs M.Naresh and another	22 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201650/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs Mohd. Mohind	20 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/204553/2018	Begumpet P.S. vs A-1 Mohd. Rabbani and others	19 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200599/2014	P.S. Begumpet vs B Rakesh	16 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/202885/2018	Begumpet P.S. vs Mohd. Aziz @ Ajju	16 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200199/2013	P.S. Bowenpally vs G Nagaraju	15 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200349/2015	PS Begumpet vs PABANI SALEEM	14 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201198/2013	P.S. Begumpet vs D Balaraj	13 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201652/2013	P.S.Mahankali vs V.Dasharath natha and others	12 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200322/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs YRHV Subramanyam	08 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201019/2015	PS Bowenpally vs Shaik Dasthagir	08 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201336/2014	PS Mahankali vs Prakash Purohit	02 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200243/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs P Rajender reddy and others	01 Nov 2018	Judgment	—
CC/203089/2016	PS Bowenpally vs K.Bhoja Reddy	31 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200911/2009	Mahankali vs N Ravishankar	16 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/204358/2018	Kharkhana P.S. vs A-1 Nagaraju @ Ghorke	16 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/204482/2018	Kharkhana PS vs A-1 Mohd. Amjad Khan	12 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/204514/2018	Kharkhana P.S. vs A-1 Md. Amjad Khan @ Ajju	12 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200683/2015	PS Mahankali vs Adluri Srikanth	11 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201664/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs T Satish Patel and others	11 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/1226/2013	G Malathi vs M Shankar Lingam and others	08 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200249/2008	Sarbani Kundu vs G Mahipal Reddy	05 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/202273/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs K Baradwaj Rao and another	04 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200724/2010	Bowenpally PS vs M Manikya Rao	03 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201665/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs T Satish Patel and others	03 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201666/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs T Satish Patel and others	03 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201235/2014	PS begumpet vs Vsmohd. Javed Khan	01 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/202940/2018	P.S.Begumpet vs Ahmed Moinuddin Dawood @ Dawood	28 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200116/2013	P.S. Begumpet vs Mohd. Sardar and another	27 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200677/2013	P.S. Begumpet vs N Nagaraju and another	26 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200165/2013	B Sudhakar Rao vs Suraj Prasad Agarwal	25 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200714/2011	Mahankali PS vs K Chandramouli	24 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201861/2010	P.S. Bowenpally vs R Narsing Rao and others	22 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200362/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs S Narsingh Rao and others	20 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200325/2014	P.S.Mahankali vs Syed Munwar	19 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/202126/2013	P.S.Mahankali vs Mohd. Abdul Waheem and others	19 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200616/2015	PS Mahankali vs P Varaprasad	18 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201513/2013	P.S. Bowenpally vs Shaik Mohd. Asif	18 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/202121/2013	P.S. Bowenpally vs P.Praveen Kumar and others	17 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200394/2013	P.S.Mahankali vs S.Prabhakar Rao and another	10 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200395/2013	P.S.Mahankali vs S Suresh and others	10 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/202264/2013	P.S. Begumpet vs Shyam raj and another	10 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200699/2013	P.S. Bowenpally vs R.Jayachandran and others	05 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200707/2013	P.S. Bowenpally vs R.Jayachandran and others	05 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/202249/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs Rajesh Jain	04 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200660/2013	P.S.Mahankali vs Md Moula and others	31 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200700/2013	P.S.Bowenpally vs Mukhtar Ali Sha and others	29 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200357/2014	PS Mahankali vs Nennu Sandeep kumar and another	28 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200539/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs V Kotaiah and others	27 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/1712/2012	Bowenpally PS vs Syed Akheel and others	24 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201225/2016	PS Begumpet vs GADIPALLY SRINIVAS GOUD AND ANOTHER	23 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200287/2013	P.S. Begumpet vs Zuleqa Begum and others	21 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200692/2013	P.S. Bowenpally vs Y Swaroopa and others	20 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200437/2013	P.S. Bowenpally vs Mohd Irfan and another	16 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200688/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs J Harish kumar	14 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201933/2018	P.S.Mahankali vs Mohd Ahmed pasha	14 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/203303/2018	P.S.Bowenpally vs Mohd Ahmed pasha	14 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200247/2013	P.S. Begumpet vs Preet Shergill and others	13 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201636/2014	PS Bowenpally vs Santosh parik and another	10 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200364/2014	P.S. Bowenpally vs Anand Sharma	09 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201894/2014	PS Bowenpally vs M Shiva and others	08 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200270/2013	P.S. Bowenpally vs Sk Akthar and others	07 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201232/2016	PS Begumpet vs GADIPALLY SRINIVAS GOUD AND ANOTHER	02 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201188/2013	P.S. Bowenpally vs J Shyam and others	01 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201468/2005	Begumpet PS vs Nalli Vijay kumar	31 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200432/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs J Manesh Kumar	30 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200650/2012	PS Bowenpally vs N Sekhar Reddy and others	26 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200554/2014	P.S. Mahankali vs Mohd Farhan	25 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201949/2013	District Registering Authority vs Ms Heart Care Cardiac Clinic	24 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200818/2015	PS Bowenpally vs Lolapu Venkataswamy	20 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201755/2012	P.S. Bowenpally vs N Shekar Reddy and others	19 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200818/2013	P.S.Begumpet vs Uttam Patel	18 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201261/2015	PS Begumpet vs MD IMTIAZ KHAN ANOTHER	17 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201875/2014	PS Bowenpally vs Vskailash Chand Tejwani	17 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200354/2015	PS Bowenpally vs Garvandala Srinivas	13 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201608/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs T Dayanand and others	13 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200244/2013	P.S. Begumpet vs M Srinivas and others	12 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201353/2013	P.S. Bowenpally vs Y Balamani and another	10 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200261/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs T Anjaiah	09 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200714/2013	P.S. Bowenpally vs D Dasarath and others	06 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200564/2007	Bowenpally PS vs G Balwanth Reddy	05 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200389/2005	P.S. Begumpet vs Babu Bhai Patel	04 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200417/2006	Begumpet PS vs B Ramulamma and others	04 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200452/2007	Begumpet PS vs P Pankaj kumar Amruthlal and others	04 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200392/2013	P.S. Mahankali vs Eknath Shivaji Singre and others	03 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/200560/2014	P.S. Bowenpally vs B Mallikarjun	03 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/201181/2012	Bowenpally PS vs N Sekhar reddy and others	03 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/18/2006	Begumpet PS vs Patan Mahaboob khan	02 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/214/2006	P.S. Begumpet vs N Rajeshwar and others	02 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/1091/2009	Begumpet PS vs Daniya Bukya	02 Jul 2018	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 228 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2018		9
Nov 2018		20
Oct 2018		14
Sep 2018		18
Aug 2018		19
Jul 2018		31
Jun 2018		7
May 2018		4
Apr 2018		16
Mar 2018		22
Feb 2018		24
Jan 2018		37

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms R .Sreelatha handled?

Ms R .Sreelatha has handled 235 court orders since 2017 at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 58 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms R .Sreelatha hear?

Based on available records, Ms R .Sreelatha primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex.

Where is Ms R .Sreelatha currently posted?

Ms R .Sreelatha is posted as XXII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Ms R .Sreelatha available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Ms R .Sreelatha are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms R .Sreelatha dispose cases?

Ms R .Sreelatha disposes approximately 58 cases per month, based on 235 orders handled over their tenure at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex.

Since when is Ms R .Sreelatha serving?

Ms R .Sreelatha has been serving at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

CC 100%

Posting History

Nov 2017 — Jan 2018

XXII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate · 29 orders
Sep 2017 — Dec 2018

XI Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate · 206 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 10

Other Judges at this Court

Sri Ch.Chandra Kishore

I Addl Chief Judge

0 orders

Sri. K.suri Krishna

XXVII Addl Chief Judge Court Secunderabad

130 orders

Smt. Shoukath Jahan Siddique

XII Addl. Chief Judge

1,330 orders

MS.N.Saswatha

Prl. Rent Controller

34 orders

Sri. R. Rajkumar

III Senior Civil Judge

136 orders

SMT. DR.M.Shyam Sree

PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT

0 orders

Smt.T.Madhavi

X Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

1 orders

Smt. P. Padmavathi

XI Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

173 orders

Smt. P. Shirisha

XIV Additional Judge cum XVIII Addl Chief Metropo...

377 orders

Smt. M. Aruna

XV Additional Judge cum XIX Addl Chief Metropolita...

275 orders

Sri. J. Upender Rao

XVI Additional Judge cum XX Addl Chief Metropolita...

197 orders

Sri.v.sanketh Mithra

XXII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

361 orders

Sri G Venu

VI Addl Metropolitan Session Judge

145 orders

Smt. B Priyanka

I Junior Civil Judge

407 orders

Ms. Shirisha Katkojwala

XI Junior Civil Judge

0 orders

← View all judges at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex

Ms R .Sreelatha

SECUNDERABAD

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this, the 11 th day of December, 2018

C.C No.544 of 2013

J U D G M E NT

U/sec 324 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

M.Os MARKED

XI ADDL. CHIEF MEROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

SECUNDERABAD

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this, the 18 th day of December, 2018

C.C No.753 of 2015

J U D G M E NT

could prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec 420 r/w.511

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE ­Nil­

M.Os MARKED

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD

SECUNDERABAD

Dated this, the 25 th day of January, 2018

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT,

SECUNDERABAD.

C.C No.114 of 2017

J U D G M E NT

prosecution could bring home the guilt of accused beyond all

XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

(FAC) XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

M.Os MARKED

XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

(FAC) XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT,

SECUNDERABAD

SECUNDERABAD

Dated this, the 28 th day of December, 2018

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

SECUNDERABAD.

C.C No.4513 of 2018

J U D G M E NT

prosecution could bring home the guilt of accused No.1 beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence U/sec.3 of A.P.Gaming Act "?

XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

M.Os MARKED

XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

SECUNDERABAD

SECUNDERABAD

Dated this, the 17 th day of January, 2018

XI ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC XXII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT,

SECUNDERABAD .

C.C No.472 of 2017

J U D G M E NT

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE Nil