Sri R.Venkateswara Sarma

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF I CLASS, MADANAPALLE

Present : - Sri.R.Venkateswara Sharma II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Madanapalle

Monday, the Twenty-Eighth (28th) day of December, 2020

C.C.No.379 of 2018

[Crime No.111/2018 of Madanapalle Taluk PS] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Between : -

The State represented by the SHO, Madanapalle Taluk PS ….COMPLAINANT

And : -

Y.Sankara, S/o Papanna, 39 years, r/o Ramapuram, H/o Ankisettipalle, Madanapalle; now r/o Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District (A.P.) ….ACCUSED

This case coming on 23.12.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.Umadevi, Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.J.R.Balakrishna, Advocate for accused, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G E M E N T

1)This case arises out of Crime No.111/2018 for the offence u/s.498(A) of IPC, registered by Madanapalle Taluk PS on the complaint given by P.W.1 (Y.Jyothi), with the following allegations:

2)Succinctly stated, the case of prosecution, according to P.W.1, in a nutshell, is that, her marriage with accused took place about 16 years back and out of the wedlock, they blessed with two children and they lived happily for some time. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused started harassing her physically and mentally demanding her to give the coolie amount and used to beat her in drunken condition and that, on 11.07.2018 at 7.30 PM, accused demanded her to bring money from her parents and necked out her and that, inspite of advice given by elders, he did not change his behaviour and that in that connection, she filed report.

3)On the strength of the report given by her, PW.7 K.V.H.Naidu,

Sub Inspector of Police, then worked at Madanapalle Taluk PS, registered crime, took up investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, and issued notice under sec.41-A of Cr.P.C and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused, for the offence indicated above.

4)The Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A

IPC.

5)Accused was put in appearance before the Court, copies of all documents as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C., are furnished to him.

6)Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against him and charge under Section 498-A of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7)The prosecution in order to prove the complicity of the accused examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5.

8)Accused was examined under section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9)I have heard the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

10)Now, the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable u/s.498(A) of IPC as alleged by the prosecution?

11)POINT : Accused has been charged, on the allegation that, he subjected PW.1 (Y.Jyothi) to physical and mental harassment, demanding her to bring money and beat her in drunken state and necked out her, which made her to file the present complaint covered by Ex.P.1, basing on which, the investigating officer PW.8 did investigation and laid charge sheet. When he was put to said accusation, in the form of a questionnaire, he denied to have committed the said offence.

12)The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, on the charge framed against him, had examined PW.1, de-facto complainant, PWs.2 and 3, her parents, PW.7 her brother, PWs.4 to 6 independent witnesses and PW.8 the Investigating Officer.

13)Learned counsel for the accused has conceded that, accused never harassed PW.1, on any ground much less, on the ground of demanding money and he never maintained extra marital relationship with sister of

PW.1 and never threatened her to kill and in fact, PW.1 herself deserted his society leaving the children with the accused, having accustomed to luxurious life and that, no medical evidence is brought on record in support of her allegation that, she sustained injuries in the hands of accused. It is also his contention that, except the interested testimony of prosecution witnesses, who are none other than the same family members, no independent evidence is let in for connecting the accused with the offence alleged, and as such, placing reliance on inconsistent and unreliable testimony of prosecution witnesses, accused cannot be made to suffer and thus, prays for his acquittal.

14)It is in the testimony of PW.1 that, her marriage with accused took place about 16 years back at Vinayaka temple, Seshamahal,

Madanapalle and out of the wedlock, she blessed with two male children. It is her grievance that, accused having addicted to bad vices, used to beat her demanding her give her coolie amount and developed extra marital relationship with her sister Sukanya and other women and in that connection, she informed the same to police, who pacified the same, however, accused continued to harass her, despite the advice given by elders and that, when she came to the matrimonial house after undergoing uterus surgery, accused beat her causing injuries and taken away the amount kept in the house.

15)PW.2 (M.Chalapathi), who is none other than father of PW.1 testifies about the marriage that was performed to his daughter and, having stated that, PW.1 informed him that, accused beat her, for the obvious reasons known to him, failed to speak the reason for galata in between his daughter and son-in-law. PW.3 (Kalavathi), mother of PW.1 however, has deposed narrating the alleged incidents including the marriage, that was performed to her daughter with the accused and according to her, she came to know through her villagers that, accused beat PW.1 and disputes arose in between them, as the accused did not look after the welfare of her daughter and grandchildren.

16)PW.4 (M.Sreenivasulu), an independent witness, who is related to PWs.2 and 3 has testified that, after the marriage, PW.1 and accused lived happily for 3 or 4 years and thereafter accused having addicted to bad vices used to demand PW.1 to bring additional dowry and in the panchayats held

before the elders, accused having promised to look after PW.1 properly, but

continued to harass her, beat her causing injuries and having no alternative,

PW.1 filed report. PW.7 is none other than brother of PW.1. He also spoke about the marriage held in between PW.1 and accused and according to him, they lived happily for 10 years and later started harassing PW.1 to bring money having addicted to bad vices and beat her causing injuries. He also would depose that, accused eloped with his another sister by name Sukanya and thereby harassed PW.1.

17)Every harassment will not come under the purview of “cruelty” unless consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or heath, whether, mental or physical of the woman and the same is required to be established, in order to connect the accused, with the said offence.

18)It is in this context, profitable to refer Section 498-A of I.P.C in order to know, the ingredients of the said offence, and what amounts to “cruelty” within the parameters of the definition envisaged under the said provision Sec.498-A of IPC reads thus:

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means:

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Thus, it is clear in the light of the definition, extracted above that, every harassment will not come under the purview of “cruelty” unless consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or heath, whether, mental or physical of the woman and the same is required to be established, in order to connect the accused, with the said offence. In any event the willful act or conduct, ought to be the proximate cause for fixing the accused within the frame of the said charge.

19)It is an undenied fact that, marriage of PW.1 with the accused took place about 16 years back and out of the wedlock, they blessed with two male children, aged about 12 years and 4 years respectively. Either in

Ex.P.1 or in the statements of witnesses, there is no whisper about the dowry and presentations, likely to be exchanged, at the time of marriage and in fact, even in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, nothing has been spoken to by the witnesses as to the dowry and presentations exchanged during the time of marriage. It is thus, clear from the evidence on record that, no dowry and presentations have been exchanged by either parties at the time of marriage. As has been stated above, every harassment will not come under the purview of section 498-A IPC unless any willful conduct of husband or the relative of husband of a woman which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health or such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. In fact, either PW.1, her parents or even her brother PW.7 did not speak anything about accused harassing PW.1 for want of additional dowry and it is only PW.4, an independent witness, has given a new theory as if the accused has demanded PW.1 to bring additional dowry and in such a case, what amount of value can be given to the evidence of PW.4, which is all together different from the material found in the evidence of other witnesses is to be looked into.

20)According to PW.1, herself and accused lived happily for a period of 5 or 6 years after the marriage, whereas, PW.2 her father has stated that, PW.1 and accused lived happily for 10 years, but quite contra to the said evidence, what PW.3 mother of PW.1, has stated is that, they lived happily for 2 years. PW.4 also stated that, PW.1 and accused lived happily for 3 or 4 years. There is absolutely no consistency in their evidence as to the period how long both PW.1 and accused lived happily after the marriage.

That apart, PW.1 and PW.7 have stated that accused having developed extra marital relationship with sister of PW.1 by name Sukanya and with other women, started harassing her, however, no such material is found in the evidence of Pws.2 and 3, parents of PW.1. More so, surprisingly, PW.2 has stated that, he does not know the reason for which accused beat PW.1. But

PW3 has stated that, some disputes arose in between PW.1 and accused, as he did not look after the welfare of children. Apparently, in the evidence brought on record, there is no consistency as to on what ground accused used to harass PW.1 for coming to the conclusion that the act of the accused falls squarely within the definition of the Act for which he was charged. The witnesses, though have testified that, a panchayat was held in Mission

Compound and inspite of the advice given by the elders, accused started harassing her, what matters is that, nowhere, the prosecution witnesses have testified the date, time and place where the panchayats were held and the names of the elders before whom it were held. Even the Investigating

Officer, PW.8 did not investigate the matter on those lines and had he secured the names of elders before whom the panchayats were held and figured them as witnesses, there could be some justification in accepting the prosecution theory as was set out. In fact, such material is missing in the case on hand, for appreciating the allegations made by the prosecuting party against the accused.

21)Another crucial and interesting point which is to be addressed is, according to the prosecution witnesses, accused used to beat PW.1 and on 11.07.2018, he dragged her, beat her and caused head injury. However, evidently, it is neither the case of PW.1 that, she approached the hospital for treatment, nor the case of PW.8 the Investigating Officer that, he referred

PW.1 to the hospital for treatment. Virtually, no medical evidence, substantiating the contention of prosecuting party that PW.1 sustained head injury in the hands of accused, is brought on record for believing the story of

PW.1. It is for the prosecuting party to make available such medical evidence for coming to the conclusion, whether or not, accused has caused any grave injury or danger to the life of PW.1 to fix him within the ambit of the charge leveled against him. Though, it is the contention of prosecution that accused necked out PW.1 to bring money from her parents, there is no iota of material as to what is the quantum of amount, he allegedly demanded

PW.1 to bring from her parents and necked out her, in order to say that, accused harassed her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The prosecution is under legal obligation to prove the allegations made against the accused, within the four corners of the provisions of the Act for which he stood charged by placing legal and acceptable evidence. Such material on the face of the record is absent and therefore, believing the case of PW.1 which is inconsistent, unreliable and untrustworthy, certainly would cause prejudice to the case of accused.

22)Case of accused as is evident from the cross examination of witnesses is that, PW.1 herself deserted the society of accused, leaving the children with him and she is in the habit of quarrelling, not only with him but also with neighbours and despite his efforts to get back her, she put a deaf ear and in fact, he was being harassed by her and at her instance only, he shifted the family from one point to another point which is admitted by the witnesses in their cross examination. PW.1 in her cross examination has admitted that, after the marriage they lived at Bodevaripalle and later shifted the family to Madanapalle at her instance and thereafter Edigapalle of

Punganur. She also admitted that, they have shifted the family to

Ramapuram of Ankisettipalle. Though it is clear from her testimony that, they have shifted the family to various places, she denied when suggested that, at her instance accused shifted the family to Ramapuram. She admitted about the omissions pointed out by defence counsel in her cross examination, including contradictions and they are certainly material to the prosecution case. She, having stated that, in the presence of one Seena,

Ramasingarappa, Narasimhulu and Somu, panchayats were held, for the obvious reasons known to her, she failed to refer those names either in her report or in her statement. Similarly, she having stated that the accused has taken away the amount kept in the house, failed to mention as to the quantum of amount allegedly taken. She further admitted that, accused alone has to look after his parents and she does not know the illness of father of accused and that she does not know the age of mother of accused. Had she really lived with the accused as deposed, certainly she should have spoken about the family affairs of parents of accused. It is therefore, not safe to presume that PW.1 at any point of time, showed her willingness to stay with the accused and her parents, despite admitted that her children are living with her mother-in-law.

23)It appears from the testimony of parents of PW.1 that, they have absolutely no knowledge about the alleged disputes and it shows that, they never had taken care of PW.1 after her marriage with the accused and more so, their evidence carries with number of inconsistencies. PW.3 categorically admitted about the places where PW.1 and accused lived after the marriage and that too, at the instance of PW.1, they have shifted the family from one point to another point. He categorically admitted that, accused is the only son to his parents and there is no other person to look after their welfare and

PW.1 is living at Bangalore for the last five years. Had Pws.2 and 3 visited

PW.1 at any point of time after the marriage, certainly they would have got an opportunity of observing the family affairs of PW.1 and accused, but it is not their case at all at any point of time. PW.4 being an independent witness, though spoke about shifting of the family from one place to other place, his evidence is only hear-say and according to him, PW.1 has been staying at

Bangalore for the last 3 months contrary to the case of PW.3, who says that

PW.1 has been staying at Bangalore for the last five years. Though he stated that, he took photographs of the injuries caused on the person of PW.1, for the obvious reasons known to him, he did not produce any such photographs. He is not an illiterate witness. He is working as Lecturer. He should have taken PW.1 to hospital, had his contention that, she sustained injuries in the hands of accused is true. Such effort, for the obvious reasons known to him, has not been made. The evidence of PW.7, brother of accused is of no help for the reason that, contrary to the case of PW.1, he stated that,

Rs.70,000/- worth gold ornaments were given to accused at the time of marriage. If really such amount was given, neither PW.1 nor her parents

PWs.2 and 3 should have spoken the same, but no such material corroborating the contention of PW.7 is brought on record and as such the testimony of PW.7 can be considered as improved version, which gains no significance for appreciating the prosecution case. PWs.4 and 5 independent witnesses have totally turned down to the case of the prosecution and as such no credence can be attached to their hostile testimonies.

24)No doubt, the Investigating Officer PW.8 had spoken about the investigation claimed to have been undertaken by him, but what matters is that, in his cross examination, he admitted that he did not examine sons of

PW.1, elders of the alleged panchayat, which he ought to have done during the course of investigation. When questioned on many of the material aspects, he answered that, he does not know. He should have examined independent witnesses in support of the case of PW.1 by visiting the places where the couple lived and prepared rough sketch. Such exercise has not been done. He also admitted about the omissions pointed out by the defence and those omissions certainly would affect the prosecution case. Therefore, in the absence of positive material that accused subjected PW.1 to both physical and mental harassment either for want of additional dowry or by developing illegal contact with other women in as much as, in the absence of any medical evidence, substantiating the evidence of prosecution witnesses that, PW.1 sustained injuries, it is highly unsafe to believe the prosecution case for linking the accused with the offence alleged. There appears delay of two days in filing the report by PW.1 and more so, Column No.8 of FIR speaks that, there is no delay. These are some of the important aspects which have to be given due weight, while appreciating the prosecution case and if these points are taken into consideration, without any hesitation, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has not come to the court with clean hands, which automatically entitles the accused to claim for acquittal. In other words, I hold that the material brought on record by the prosecution is not inspiring confidence, for want of legal and acceptable evidence, within the ambit of section 498-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, accused is certainly entitled for acquittal.

25)In the result, I find that, accused is not guilty for the offence under section 498-A of I.P.C. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/s.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28 th day of December, 2020.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Madanapalle

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for :

ProsecutionAccused

PW.1Y.Jyothi -Nil-

PW.2M.Chalapathi

PW.3M.Kalavathi

PW.4M.Srinivasulu

PW.5L.Supriya

PW.6J.Chandra Sekhar

PW.7M.Ananda

PW.8K.V.H.Naidu

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution Ex.P.113.07.2018Report of PW.1 to the police

Ex.P.213.07.2018161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P.313.07.2018161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5

Ex.P.413.07.2018161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6

Ex.P.513.07.2018FIR in Cr.No.111/2018 of Madanapalle Taluk PS

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Accused -Nil-

II AJMFC, MPL

FORM NO.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calendar and cases tried by the II Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle

1.Offence:Prior to 11.07.2018

2.Report of complaint: 13.07.2018

3.Apprehension of accused:24.07.2018

4.Release on bail:24.07.2018

5.Commencement of trial:01.05.2019

6.Close of trial:08.12.2020

7.Sentence of order:28.12.2020

8.Explanation of delay and :For non production of witnesses remarks Judgment in Calendar Case No.379 of 2018 on the file of Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle

Complainant : The Sub Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluk PS [Cr.No.111 /2018]

Name of accusedAge (years)Father/Husband’s name (1)(2)(3)

Y.Sankara39Papanna

ReligionCallingResidenceMandal (4)(5)(6)(7)

Ramapuram village, HinduCoolieMadanapalle H/o Ankisettipalle

Offence:Section 498(A) IPC – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty

Finding:Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s.498(A) of IPC

Sentence:In the result, I find that, accused is not guilty for the offence u/s.498-A of I.P.C. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months, as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- R.VENKATESWARA SHARMA

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Madanapalle //true copy//

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MADANAPALLE

Present : - Sri R.Venkateswara Sharma II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Madanapalle

Tuesday, the Twenty Second (22nd ) day of December, 2020

C.C.No.670 of 2016

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Betwen :-

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Food Safety Officer, Office of Gazetted Food Inspector, Ram Nagar Colony, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

....COMPLAINANT

And : -

1. Kondappa Krishna Prasad, age 29 years, S/o. K.Venkateshappa, in charge of M/s. Aditya Bakery, P.T.M. Road, B.Kothakota, Chittoor District.

2. B.K.Venkatesh, age 35 years, S/o. Kondappa, M/s. Aditya Bakery, P.T.M. Road, B.Kothakota, Chittoor District.

....ACCUSED

This case coming before me on 15.12.2019 through physical hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for complainant, and Sri N.S.N.Prasad, Advocate for A.1 and Sri J.R.Balakrishna, Advocate for A.2 and upon hearing their arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Food Safety Officer, Chittoor District has laid complaint against the accused Nos.1 and 2, for the offences U/Sec. 3 (1) (zz) (vii) (xii) and 26 (2) (i), 27 (1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 punishable U/Sec. 59 (i) of Food

Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

2

2.The case of the prosecution as per the complaint, is that, L.W.1 – Ch.

Lakshminarayana is a notified Food Safety Officer vide G.O.Ms.No.243, dt. 25-08- 2011 having jurisdiction for entire State of Andhra Pradesh. On 19.01.2016 at about 3.50 P.M., L.W.1 – Ch. Lakshminarayana, Food Safety Officer along with his office subordinate Nagaraju, visited M/s.Aditya Bakery, PTM Road, B.Kothakota,

Chittoor District, for inspection. At the time of his visit, A.1 was present and transacting the business in the shop. Then, L.W.1 - Ch. Lakshminarayana disclosed his identity as Food Safety Officer and purpose of his visit and secured L.W.2 –

K.S.Shafee to act as witness. On enquiry, A.1 said that, he is the in charge and A.2 is the owner of the above said Bakery Shop. During the course of inspection, L.W.1 – Ch.Lakshminarayana found food items in the aluminium bowl along with other food items. On enquiry, A.1 disclosed that, it is Mysorepak, which was kept for sale for human consumption. Then, L.W.1 – Ch. Lakshminarayana purchased 2 Kgs of

Mysorepak on payment of Rs.240/- towards the cost from to A.1 and obtained cash receipt, which was attested by A.1 and witness. Then, notice in form V A was issued and served on A.1, informing that, the above purchased food items will be sent to the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad for the purpose of analysis and obtained acknowledgement on the office copy of form VA notice and obtained the signature of the witness.

3.Then, L.W.1 – Ch. Lakshminarayana divided the purchased sample into four parts and placed into four separate clean and dry plastic containers, lids closely, tightly and sealed with sealing wax, and pasted a label bearing Code

No.010/DII/04288/2016 having the particulars of food sample by means of gum on each sample container, and each sample container, so labeled wrapped separately in 3 a fairly thick brown paper, ends were neatly folded inside and pasted with gum. He affixed the paper slip of the size duly signed and issued by the Food Safety

Designated Officer, Chittoor District bearing Code No.010/DII/04288/2016, on each sample, completely running round from bottom to top, by means of gum and obtained the signature of A.1 on each sample container in such a manner that, the paper slip and outer wrapper, both carry a part of the signature and that, each sample container further secured with twine both above and across then sealed with sealing wax at four distinct places one on top, one on bottom and two on either side on the middle of the body using specimen impression seal of L.W.1 –

C.H.Lakshminarayana duly observing that, the twine knot on each sample container was also covered with the above seal. Later, an intimation was issued to A.1 under

Rule 2.4.5 of Food Safety and Standards Rules 2011 by intimating that, if he so desired he may make an application to send 4th part of the sample to any one, out of

Three Laboratories prescribed by the Government, by paying Rs.1,000/- through

D.D. in favour of Laboratory opted by him and obtained acknowledgement of A.1 and also obtained signature of the witness on the said intimation. To that effect, a

Panchanama was drafted, then and there in Telugu language, read over and explained in brief by L.W.1 – Ch. Lakshminarayana and the same was attested by

A.1 and witness.

4.On the next working day, i.e. 20.01.2016, one part of sealed container along with copy of Form VI memorandum having specimen impression seal of

L.W.1 – Ch. Lakshminarayana, which was used in sealing the sample was handed over to Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad, by registered parcel vide postal receipt No.A CA404699867 IN dt.20.01.2016. Another copy of Form VI 4 memorandum, having specimen impression seal of L.W.1 – Ch.Lakshminarayana, which was used in sealing the sample was sent separately to the Food Analyst, State

Food Laboratory, Hyderabad, by registered post vide postal receipt No.A RN 537675177IN dt. 20.01.2016. A.1 did not opt to send the 4th part of sample to the

Accredited Laboratory as contemplated under Rule 2.4.5 of Food Safety and

Standards Rules, 2011. The remaining three parts of sample along with Form VI

Memorandum, in triplicate, having specimen impression seal of L.W.1 –

Ch.Lakshminarayana, which was used in sealing the sample were handed over to the Food Safety Designated Officer, Chittoor, for safe custody under an acknowledgement dt. 20.01.2016.

5.After causing analysis of the sample, the Food Analyst, State Food

Laboratory, Hyderabad delivered report bearing No.967/2015-2016 dt. 05.01.2016 in Form B along with covering letter No.379/SFL/2016 dt. 05.01.2016, which was received and forwarded by the Food Safety Designated Officer, wherein, the Food

Analyst, opined that, “the sample does not confirm to the standards of maximum limit of permitted Synthetic Food colours”. Hence, it is unsafe. A detailed report was submitted to the Designated Officer dt. 11.02.2016. As required U/Sec.46 (4) read with Rule 2.4.6 of Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011, the Food Safety

Designated Officer, sent a notice with Rc.No.010/DII/04288/2016 dt. 12.02.2016 along with a copy of Analysis report to A.1 and A.2, by registered post with acknowledgement due vide postal receipt No.A RN 537584825IN dt. 12.02.2016, giving an opportunity to A.1 and A.2 with acknowledgement for sending another part of the sample, to the referral laboratory, if aggrieved with the result of the report of the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad. The accused 5 availed an opportunity for sending other part of the sample to the referral laboratory for re-analysis. A perusal of records, the Commissioner of Food Safety, Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad, has accorded written consent to launch prosecution against

A.1 and A.2 for having processing for sale of Mysorepak vide Rc.No.583/F4/2016

dt. 22.06.2016 for the offences committed U/Sec.3 (1) (zz) (vii) (xii), 26 (2) (i), 27

(1) and punishable U/Sec.59 (i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Hence, the complaint against the offenders for the offences committed U/Sec.3 (1) (zz)

(vii) (xii), 26 (2) (i), 27 (1) and punishable U/Sec.59 (i) of Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006.

6. In this case cognizance was taken by my learned predecessor for the offences punishable U/Sec.3 (1) (zz) (vii) (xii), 26 (2) (i), 27 (1) r/w 59 (i) of Food

Safety and Standards Act, 2006 against A.1 and A.2.

7. On appearance of A.1 and A.2, copies of documents were furnished to them, as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and they were examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C explaining the substance of accusation for the offences punishable U/Sec.3 (1) (zz)

(vii) (xii), 26 (2) (i), 27 (1) r/w 59 (i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, in

Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P19.

9.On closure of the prosecution evidence, A.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence, by explaining the same in Telugu, for which, they denied the same. A.1 and A.2 reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

6

10.Heard the arguments on both the sides. Perused the material on record.

11.Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A.1 and A.2, for the offences

U/Sec.3 (1) (zz) (vii) (xii), 26 (2) (i), 27 (1) r/w 59 (i) of Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006, beyond reasonable doubt ?”

12.POINT:-Reiterating the contents of the complaint and the manner how, he conducted enquiries, in the shop of accused, in the presence of P.W.2,

P.W.1 has testified about his visiting and about his inspecting, the shop in question, found noticed A.1, conducting business, under the instructions of A.2, owner of the said shop and thereafter, having entertained suspicion over the sample, namely

Mysore pak, purchased the same for Rs.240/-, under Ex.P-3, obtained his signature and served Form VA notice, under Ex.P-4, divided the sample into 4 equal parts and after following the legal formalities, pasted the label, issued notice to A.1, under Ex.P-6 and prepared a panchanama, under Ex.P-7, on 19.01.2016. It is his further assertion that, on 20.01.2016, he sent one part of sample, along with Form

VI memorandum to State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad, along with Ex.P-8 and another Form VI memorandum, under Ex.P-10, by handing over the remaining 3 samples to the Designated Officer, Chittoor, under Ex.P-11 and after analysis, the

Food Analyst sent his report, under Ex.P-12, opining that, the sample does not confirm to the standard of maximum limit of permitted synthetic food colours and in that connection, he sent report to the Food Safety Officer. Thereafter, the

Designated Officer sent notice to A.1 and A.2 under Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.17, informing their right to send another part of sample for 2nd analysis, who in turn, got it 7 analysesd with Central Food Laboratory, whereof, it was opined that, the sample

Mysore pak contravened the requirement laid down under Regulation No.2.12 of

Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2011. In short, it is his contention that, as the sample shows dye content about the maximum prescribed limit, after fulfilling all legal formalities, he charge sheeted A.1 and A.2.

13.Learned counsel for the accused, while denying the entire case of prosecution has conceded that, no scrap of paper is filed, to show that, A.1 was doing business, under the ownership of A.2 and there is no satisfactory evidence except, the alleged confession covered under Ex.P-7 that, the sample namely

Mysore pak was manufactured by A.1. He also tried to draw the attention of the court, about the omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions, not only as to the procedure adopted by P.W.1, including the dates of sending the samples, receipt of the report and overwritings in the documents and contends that, in the absence of supporting evidence of P.W.2 mediator, the solitary testimony of P.W.1, cannot be looked into, for appreciating the case of prosecution.

14.It is in this context, relevant to refer the documents, on which, the prosecution has placed reliance. According to P.W.1, he said to have purchased 2

Kgs of Mysore pak sample, on 19.01.2016, under Ex.P-3 Cash Receipt. Apparently, there is an overwriting about the quantum of Cash, mentioned in figures, including the date put, under the signature of vendor and similarly, under Ex.P-4, there is ambiguity, in the date mentioned, under the signature of P.W.2. Similarly, in Ex.P-6

Notice, the Food Safety Officer has mentioned the date, as 19.01.2015. There is also a correction, in Ex.P-12 Delivery Report and that apart, though, the said

Report speaks that, the sample was analysed on 29.01.2016/01.02.2016, evidently, 8 it was said to have been signed by the Food Analyst on 05.01.2016. When the sample was allegedly obtained on 19.01.2016 and sent it for analysis, on 20.01.2016, by P.W.1, the Food Analyst reportedly signed on Ex.P-12, on 05.01.2016, which apparently creates any amount of suspicion, over the procedure that, is being adopted by P.W.1 and by saying simply that, due to oversight mistakes were crept in, while mentioning dates does not absolve the liability. Ex.P-12

Analyst Report is dated 05.01.2016 and the covering letter attached thereto, is dated 05.02.2016, whereas, Ex.P-14 Notice said to have been given is dated 12.02.2016, wherein, the Analyst Report shown in the reference 2nd cited, the date mentioned is 05.02.2016. There is no nexus in between the dates mentioned on the documents, on which, P.W.1 has relied upon for prosecuting the accused and it is fatal to the case of prosecution.

15.Ex.P-7 is crucial document, whereof, according to P.W.1, A.1 said to have confessed that, the sample was manufactured at his shop, under the instructions of A.2 and it is not in confirmity with the standards prescribed under the rules. When it is the contention of accused that, there is no kitchen, at the alleged shop, where the food items, said to have been prepared, duty cast on P.W.1 to mention either in Ex.P-7 or in his complaint that, there is a kitchen in the shop, for manufacturing the food items, that has not been done by P.W.1, for the obvious reasons known to him. A look at Ex.P-7 Panchanama, evidently, there was no mention of endorsement that, by whom it was drafted. Non mentioning of the said endorsement on Ex.P-7, is certainly fatal to the case, for the reason that, P.W.2,

before whom, the alleged inspection was made, has turned down the case of

prosecution. P.W.1 further admitted that, there is no display board, showing the 9 name of owner of Adithya Bakery Shop and that, he did not collect any documentary evidence to show that, A.1 is the business operator and A.2 is the owner of the said shop. He further admitted that, he did not obtain signature of A.2 on Ex.P-3 cash receipt and on Ex.P-7 Panchanama. He also stated that, he did not ask A.1, when the alleged Msyore pak was prepared. It appears that, he, having found difference, in adding of colour, obtained the sample, for the purpose of sending the same to analysis, though, he admitted that, the said Mysore pak is not in deterioration condition and there is no fowl smell. He further admitted that, there is no danger and injury to the health of public, if they consume the Mysore pak. If that could be so, it is not known, how P.W.1 charged the accused U/Sec.27 (1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, particularly, even according to him, the food item in question, is not injurious to health. It is his bounden duty to place necessary material showing that, A.1 is operating the business, by manufacturing, selling, storing, distributing and importing the food items and that, A.2 is the owner of the shop. Absolutely, no such material is brought on record, even to presume that, charge levelled against accused U/Sec.26 (2) (i) of the Act can be operated against the accused.

16.It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the accused that, as per the norms of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the prescribed standards mentioned therein are 3.1.2 (vii), but as per Ex.P-18, the prescribed standards as per Regulation No.2.1.2 of FSS and there is difference in the said regulations under

Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-18. That apart, according to P.W.1 the die content as per Ex.P-18 was mentioned as 145.64 P.M., whereas, as per the Food Safety Standards Act, the food item having Synthetic food colour upto 200 parts per million of the final food 10 for consumption. That means, according to P.W.1 any sweet item having colour up to 200 parts per million of food is fit for consumption. If that could be so, there is no reason for P.W.1 in asking to prosecute the accused for the reason that according to Ex.P-12 Prescribed standards, it should not be more than 100 bpm, but in his cross examination, he admitted that, sweet item is fit for consumption up to 200

PPM. This inconsistency and self contradicting testimony of P.W.1 creates any amount of suspicion, not only as to the inspection, he made but also the procedure adopted in sending the sample to the State Food Laboratory and also to the Central

Food Laboratory in view of the apparent defects found in Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-18 as was admitted by him.

17.Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that

Ex.P-19 sanction proceedings for launching prosecution against the accused was given by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, without verifying Ex.P-18 Report. Apparently, there is difference of readings of PPM mentioned in Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-18 and if that could be so, proceedings said to have been given by Commissioner under Ex.P-19 gains no significance, in view of two inconssitent analytical reports and if the matter is viewed in this angle, I have no hestitation to say that, giving sanction proceedings for prosecuting the accused is not in accordance with law. Counsel for the accused also questioned about the competency of commissioner, FOOD Safety Hyderabad in issuing the said proceedings. However, in view of the testimony of P.W.1 that as there are no food analysts in bifurcation State of A.P., the Govt of Andhra Pradesh has issued circular to send the food sample to the food analyst till the appointment of food analyst in bifurcated state. Thus, the said contention does not hold water and merely because, 11

P.W.1 failed to furnish the said G.O., his entire inspection cannot be doubted.

However, in view of the self contradicting and uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1 not only as to the discrepancy regarding dates on the documents, on which he placed reliance and also the discrepancy as to the Standards of the sample, the alleged inspection without securing any documentary evidence showingthe placement of A.1 and A.2 creates reasonable suspicion over the charges levelled against the accused. In otherwords, I am of the considered view that the solitary testimony of P.W.1, which is not otherwise reliable, trustworthy and convincing on account of material contradictions, case of prosecution cannot be appreciated. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, but the case on hand, projected by P.W.1 carries with many irregularities, contradictions and the procedure adopted by him in prosecuting the accused is not inconsonance with the settled principles of law and thus, I have no doubt in my mind to say that case of prosecution fails for want of legal and acceptable evidence and consequently, I hold that, A.1 and A.2 are entitled for acquittal.

18.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec.3(1) (zz) (vii), 26 (2) (i), 27 (1) punishable U/Sec.59 (i) of Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006 and he is acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for 6 months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dication by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 22 nd day of December, 2020.

Sd/- R.VENKATESWARA SHARMA

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MADANAPALLE

12

APPENDIX OF EVIDERBEHALF OF

Witnesses Examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W1: Ch. LakshminarayanaNone. P.W2: K.S.Shafeek Ahammad @ Shafee

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P-1: Attested Copy of Gazette in GO.MS.No.243 HM & FW (L1) dt. 25-08- 2011. Ex.P-2:Attested Copy of GO.Rt.No.101 HM &FW (L.1) Dept. dt. 16-01-2013. Ex.P-3:Cash Receipt. Ex.P-4:Form VA Notice. Ex.P-5:Label vide Code.No.010/D11/04288/2016. Ex.P-6:Notice U/R.2.4.5 of FSS Act, 2006. Ex.P-7:Panchanama dt. 19.01.2016 at 3.50 P.M. Ex.P-8:Form VI Memorandum. Ex.P-9:Postal Receipt number ACA404699867IN dt. 20.01.2016 Ex.P-10: Postal Receipt No.ARN537675177IN dt. 20.01.2016. Ex.P-11: Letter addressed to Food Safety Designated Officer, Chittoor dt.20.01.2016. Ex.P-12: Delivered Report bearing No.967/2015-2016, of the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad. Ex.P-13: Corrigendum of State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad vide

R.C.No.632/SFL/2016, dt. 05.03.2015.

Ex.P-14: Notice to A.1 and A.2 sent by the Food Safety Designated Officer, Chittoor vide No.010/DII/04288/2016 dt.12.02.2016. Ex.P-15: Postal Receipt No.ARN537584935IN. Ex.P-16: Postal Receipt No.ARN537584825IN dt. 12.02.2016. Ex.P-17: Two Postal Acknowledgements. Ex.P-18: Report of Central Food Laboratory, govt of India, Ghaziabad vide No.C.350/16-RFL/448, dt. 13.04.2016. Ex.P-19: Proceedings issued by Commissioner of Food Safety, Andhra Pradesh, in

R.Cno.583/F4/2015-2016, dt. 22.06.2016.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence: Nil.

Id/- RVS

II A.J.M.F.C.,

MPL. //true copy//

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Madanapalle 13

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

MADANAPALLE.

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.NO. 670 of 2016

Date of offence: 19.01.2016

Date of complaint: 19.01.2016

Date of arrest: --

Date of commencement of trial: 14.06.2017

Date of close of trial : 03.01.2020

Date of Judgment : 22.12.2020

Explanation for delay: Due to non service of summons and heavy pendency the trial could not be commenced till 14.06.2017

Complainant :

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Food Safety Officer, Office of

Gazetted Food Inspector, Ram Nagar Colony, Chittoor, Chittoor District

Accused:

1. Kondappa Krishna Prasad, age 29 years, S/o. K.Venkateshappa, in charge of M/s. Aditya Bakery, P.T.M. Road, B.Kothakota, Chittoor District.

2. B.K.Venkatesh, age 35 years, S/o. Kondappa, M/s. Aditya Bakery, P.T.M. Road, B.Kothakota, Chittoor District.

Section of law: U/Sec.3 (1) (zz) (vii) (xii) and 26 (2) (i), 27 (1) of Food Safety and Standards Act punishable U/Sec.59 (i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

Nature of offence: Stocked the unsafe mysore pak to the public for human consumption

Finding of the court:Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence:- In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.3(1) (zz) (vii), 26 (2) (i), 27 (1) punishable U/Sec.59 (i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and he is acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for 6 months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- R.VENKATESWARA SHARMA

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MADANAPALLE.

//true copy//

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Madanapalle

CC.NO.468 OF 20201IIAJFCMC,MPL.

December, 14, 2020

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MADANAPALLE.

Present: Sri R Venkateswara Sharma, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.

Monday, this the Fourteenth (14th ) day of December, Two Thousand Twenty

C.C.No. 468 OF 2020

(Cr.No.456 of 2020 of II Town Police Station, Madanapalle)

Between:

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station,

Madanapalle (Cr.No.456/2020).

... Complainant.

AND

Sangampalli Venkataiah, age 40 years, S/o. Late S.Chinnaswamy, R/at.

Esukathageli Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 14/14/2020 before me through physical hearing in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

1.This case arises out of crime No.456 of 2020, for the offence under section 498-A, 323 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered by

L.W.6 – S.Vamsidhar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Madanapalle II Town Police Station, on the complaint given by P.W.1 – G.Kusuma Kumari, with the following allegations.

2.In short, it is the theory of prosecution that, marriage of P.W.1 took place with A.1 on 13.08.2020 at Brides Residency, Sheshappa Thota, Madanapalle, and after the marriage, she joined with her husband, for leading marital life. It is alleged that, accused having developed illegal contacts with Thulasi of Anjimedu, harassing her and beat her and demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents. Unable to bear the harassment, she left the matrimonial home and then she has come up with this complaint.

CC.NO.468 OF 20202IIAJFCMC,MPL.

December, 14, 2020

On the strength of the said complaint, L.W.6 S.Vamsidhar, Sub

Inspector of Police, Madanapalle II Town Police Station, registered crime, recorded the statements of witnesses, served notice under section 41(a) Cr.P.C., to the accused and having felt that, the material he secured is sufficient enough, to prove the allegations made against him, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet, for the offences indicated above.

3) Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A I.P.C and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A.1.

4) On appearance of A.1, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/Sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5) A-1 is examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, explaining the accusation leveled against him and charge U/Sec.498-A I.P.C and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, read over and explained to him in Telugu, after having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined L.W.1 -

G.Kusuma Kumari and L.W.2 – D.Bangaramma as P.W.1 and P.W.2. Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.3 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. As P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

7) After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of A.1 U/Sec.

313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with, as there was no incriminating evidence available against him.

8) Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

CC.NO.468 OF 20203IIAJFCMC,MPL.

December, 14, 2020

9) Now, the point for determination is:

 Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that A.1 committed the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A I.P.C and

Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, as alleged by the prosecution?

10) POINT::

In order to bring home the guilt of A.1, beyond all reasonable doubt, it is for the prosecution to prove that, A.1 harassed PW1 having developed illegal intimacy with Thulasi and demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents and necked her out and thereby, committed the offence punishable U/Sec.

498-A I.P.C and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act. To prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.3.

11) P.W.1 (G.Kusuma Kumari), defacto complainant deposes in her evidence that, her marriage was performed with A.1 on 13.8.2020, as per Hindu rites and caste customs, later, she joined with A.1, for leading marital life. She further stated that, due to petty disputes, she filed this case against the accused. She further deposes that, herself and A.1 are living together and she compromised with

A.1. Ex.P.1 is the signature on the report given by her.

12)P.W.2 (D.Bangaramma), mother of defacto-complainant deposes in her evidence that, P.W.1 marriage was performed with A.1 on 13.8.2020, as per Hindu rites and caste customs, later, she joined with A.1, for leading marital life for a period of two months. She further stated that, she does not know about the disputes between P.W.1 and A.1. She further deposes that, P.W.1 and A.1 are living together.

13) Since P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was permitted to put questions to them in the form of cross-examination, as per the provision under Section 154 of Indian

CC.NO.468 OF 20204IIAJFCMC,MPL.

December, 14, 2020

Evidence Act, 1872. Even during the said questions, P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not support the case of prosecution and denied the suggestions. Hence, their statements U/Section 161 of Cr.P.C of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are marked as Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3. As P.W.1 and P.W.2 turned hostile, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses. It appears that, the parties to this case have compromised the offence outside the Court, as such, there is no material available on record to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14) In the result, I find that, A.1 is not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.498-A IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, A.1 is acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per the Provision of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

There is no order regarding disposal of property, since no property was seized and produced before the Court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court by uploading the Judgment in e-courts, this the 14th day of December, 2020.

Sd/-.R.Venkateswara Sharma

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:For Defence: Nil

P.W.1: G.Kusuma Kumari P.W.2: D.Bangaramma

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:For Defence: Nil

Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on the report Ex.P2 : Statement of P.W.1 recorded u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 : Statement of P.W.2 recorded u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C.

M.Os. MARKED: NilId/-.R.V.S.

IIAJFCM, MPL.

// True Copy //

Sd/-. R.Venkateswara Sharma

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.

CC.NO.468 OF 20205IIAJFCMC,MPL.

December, 14, 2020

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

CHITTOOR DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.468 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS COURT, MADANAPALLE

Date of Offence ComplaintApprehensionRelease onCommen-Close ofSentence or Reportof accusedbailcement ofTrialor Order Trial Prior to04.11.202030.11.202030.11.202014.12.202014.12.202014.12.2020 04.11.2020(u/sec.41 (A) Cr.PC Explanation for Delay : Due to non service of summons and heavy pendency the trial could not be commenced till 14.12.2020.

Cr.No : 456 of 2020 of II Town Police Station, Madanapalle

Complainant :The State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Madanapalle II Town Police Station. Name of the Accused No.1:

Sangampalli Venkataiah, age 40 years, S/o. Late S.Chinnaswamy, R/at. Esukathageli Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District.

Offence : U/Sec.498-A, Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act

Nature of Offences :

U/Sec.498-A IPC: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. U/Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act: Receiving of Gold Ornaments from the parents of P.W.1 as dowry and demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from the parents of P.W.1.

Finding:Not guilty.

Result:In the result, I find that, A.1 is not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.498-A IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, A.1 is acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per the Provision of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

There is no order regarding disposal of property, since no property was seized and produced before the Court.

Sd/-. R.Venkateswara Sharma

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Chittoor.

// True Copy //

Sd/-. R.Venkateswara Sharma

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS, MADANAPALLE

Present : Sri R.Venkateswara Sharma II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Madanapalle

Monday, the Twenty-Eighth (28th) day of December, 2020

C.C.No.75 of 2020

[Cr.No.48/2019 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Madanapalle] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Between : -

The State represented by the Prohibition & Excise Station, Madanapalle ….COMPLAINANT

And : -

Bukya Mohan Naik, S/o Sama Naik, 32 years, r/o Udumvaripalle Thanda, Madanapalle Mandal ….ACCUSED

This case coming on 28.12.2020 before me for hearing in the presence of Smt.Umadevi, Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and no summons were served to accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1)The Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, Madanapalle filed charge sheet in Cr.No.48/2019 for the offence u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

2)The brief facts of the charge sheet are : - On 09.04.2019 at about 2.30 PM during the raids conducted by the Excise Officials, Madanapalle the accused was found at Kotavaripalle cross, on Madanapalle – Chembakur,

Madanapalle and on seeing the excise officials, he tried to run away but the accused was caught hold and on verification, the accused was in possession of one white urea bag containing liquor bottles. Then the excise officials tried to secure mediators from Kotavaripalle, but in vain. On verification, the bag was containing 14 bottles of Old Tavern Gold whisky each of 180 ml., and four bottles of

Kingfisher strong premium beer, each of 650 ml. The accused confessed that he purchased the said contraband from different wine shops in Madanapalle and was intending to sell the same for higher price in his village. Then the excise officials arrested the accused, seized the contraband after lifting sample under cover of special report. Basing on the same, a case in Cr.No.48/2019 was registered against the accused. The accused was released after serving section 41(A) Cr.P.C.

notice. After obtaining analysis report and completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offence u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

3)On 28.12.2020, the police filed requisition along with death certificate of accused stating that accused died on 08.11.2019. Death Certificate is filed on record. Hence, the case against the accused is dismissed as abated.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28 th day of December, 2020.

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Madanapalle

FORM NO.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calendar and cases tried by the II Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle

1.Offence:09.04.2019

2.Report of complaint: 09.04.2019

3.Apprehension of accused:09.04.2019

4.Release on bail:09.04.2019

5.Commencement of trial:--

6.Close of trial:--

7.Sentence of order:28.12.2020

8.Explanation of delay and :-- remarks Judgment in Calendar Case No.75 of 2020 on the file of II Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle

Complainant : The Prohibition & Excise Station Sub Inspector, Madanapalle [Cr.No.48 /2019]

Name of accusedAge (years)Father/Husband’s name (1)(2)(3)

Bukya Mohan Naik32Sama Naik

ReligionCallingResidenceMandal (4)(5)(6)(7)

HinduCoolieUdumvaripalle ThandaMadanapalle

Offence:U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act – Penalty for illegal imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses any intoxicant

Finding:Case against accused is abated

Sentence:On 28.12.2020, the police filed requisition along with death certificate of accused stating that accused died on 08.11.2019. Death Certificate is filed on record. Hence, the case against the accused is dismissed as abated.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Madanapalle

RERORTHE LOK-ADALATH BENCHAT MADANAPALLE

Constituted by Mandal Legal services committee, Madanapalle Under section 19 of legal services Authority Act 1987

On this day the 12th December 2020 ...P.O

eesnt: 1.

Presiding judge cum II Addl Junior civil judge,

1.Sri R.Venkateswara Sharma Madanapalle

2.K.Sampath.... Advocate Member ***° °°*'°°° 3.A.Sujatha.. Advocate Member

Lok-Adalath case No So 2020

on the file of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE C.C. NO. 17 /2019

OF 1 CLASS:MADANAPALLE)

cOMPLAINANT:M/s cholamandalamInvestments and finance co ltd,

Rep by its Executive, short fall recovery and GPA holder

Y.V. Natesh Kumar, s/o Y.V.Sekhar, aged about 37 years

D.No.3-241-1, 1 floor, CTM Road, Madanapalle

Chittoor district.

And

Smt Kotakonda Reddy rani w/o K. Mahesh Accused:

Aged 28 yrs, D.No.1-923, Ramulavarigudiveedhi,

Bandlavanka, PILER Town

Chittoor district, PIN-517214

Complainant present. Complainanthas voluntarily compounded the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused.

Compromise is recorded and the following award is passed

4 AWAPD

1. Claim under dishonored cheque bearing No.G08673 Rs. 1,83,473/- is settled for Rs 50,000/-

2. Accused has paid the entire settled amount to the complainant. Consequently the complaint is withdrawn under section 257 Cr.P.C and the accused is acquitted under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Punishable with section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. As per civil appeal NO. 8614 of 2014 of the Honble supreme court of India and Crl.M.P. No. 1/2016 costs waived to Legal services for compromise of this case before Lok-Adalath.

(NBW'S) FaCRMnaadelashestpentinance Ca. l Signature of Accused Omplainant

Authorised Signatory Signature of counsel for Accused Signature of counsel for the Complainant

Given under the hand and seal of the Lok-Adalath Bench on this day the 12" December 2020

1.K

PRESIDING JUDGE

MEMBERS