Sri R. Venkateswara Sarma

1

CC No.865 of 2017

J.F.C.M.,C.T.P.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRAE OF I CLASS::

CHINTALAPUDI

Present:- Sri R Venkateswara Sharma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi

Monday, this the 15th day of June, 2020

C.C.No.865 of 2017

(Cr.No.179/2017 of Dharmajigudem Police Station)

Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmajigudem Police Station. -- Complainant -Vs -

1. Yadhala Venkatesh, S/o Veeraswamy, 65 yrs, Yadava, Singagudem village, Lingapalem mandal.

2. Yadhala Sai Babu, S/o Venkatesh, 40 yrs, Yadava, Singagudem village, Lingapalem mandal.

3. Yadha Lakshmayya, S/o Venkatesh, 38 yrs, Yadava, Singagudem village, Lingapalem mandal.

4. Yadhala Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkatesh, 30 yrs, Yadava, Singagudem village, Lingapalem mandal.

5. Yadhala Prasad, S/o Siddiyya, 45 yrs, Yadava, Singagudem village, Lingapalem mandal.

.…. Accused

This case is coming on 12/06/2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri S.Sarvaiah., Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This case arises out of crime No. 179/2017, for the offence, under

Sections 447, 434, 506 read with 34 of IPC registered by Dharmajigudem

Police Station, on the complaint given by PW1-J.Venkatasubba Rao, with the following allegations, through Video Conferencing.

2. Brief facts as was unfolded are that, P.w.1 has got Ac.2.88 cents in

R.S.No.225/3 in Lingapalem mandal of Singagudem village and to the west of the said land, poramboke land is situated. It is alleged that, in August 2013, A1 to A5 obstructed P.w.1 in moving through the said land and at that time, he purchased Ac.0.10 cents of land for passage and continued to 2

CC No.865 of 2017

J.F.C.M.,C.T.P.

move through the said passage. Thereupon, after some time, accused trespassed into the said passage way and obstructed their way and when he questioned, accused abused him in filthy language. Thereafter, P.w.1 approached the Tahsildar, who summoned the accused, advised them not to obstruct P.w.1 and provided passage way of 5 sq.yards and made an endorsement, got it surveyed with the Mandal Surveyor and fixed poles on four sides. It is further alleged that, on 27.08.2017 accused have removed the said poles, leveled the land with the tractor and raised cotton crop and when Pw.1 questioned them, accused abused him in filthy language and tried to attack on him. Thereupon, P.w.1 informed the same to P.w.2, Pw.3,

L.w.4 and L.w.5 and as the accused did not turn up, when summoned by the elders, he approached the Police and filed report.

3. On the strength of the report given by him, PW.6-V.Kranthi Kumar,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmajigudem Police Station, registered crime, recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene and issued notice under Section 41-A of

Cr.P.C. to the accused and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

4. The Court took cognizance of the offence under Sections 447, 434, 506 read with 34 of I.P.C.

5. A1 to A5 are put in appearance before the Court, copies of all documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to them.

6. A1 to A5 are examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against them, for the offences under Sections, 447, 434, 3

CC No.865 of 2017

J.F.C.M.,C.T.P.

506 read with 34 of IPC against accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

7. The prosecution in order to prove the complicity of the accused, examined PW.1 to P.W.6 and got Ex.P.1 to Ex.P6 marked.

8. A1 to A5 are examined under section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. I have heard the learned 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

offences punishable under Sections 447, 434 and 506

read with 34 of I.P.C., as alleged by the prosecution”?

11. P O I N T:

It is a case of ‘criminal trespass’ alleged against accused pointing out that, they trespassed into the passage way of PW1, given by Mandal

Revenue Officer under Ex.P3, picked up quarrel with him, keeping the land disputes in between them in mind, threatened him with dire consequences claiming that, the passage way under dispute belongs to them. The plea of accused is one of total denial, when they were questioned, on the accusation made against them, explaining the accusation in the form of a questionnaire.

12. For application of the offence of ‘criminal trespass’, the prosecution is under legal obligation to prove that, the person, complained off is in possession of the property under dispute, and the accused enters into the 4

CC No.865 of 2017

J.F.C.M.,C.T.P.

said property with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. Thus, the primary ingredient for establishing the charge leveled against the accused is that, the complainant party must prove that, the accused criminally trespassed into him land, picked up quarrel with him and threatened him with dire consequence, and the said act is quite unlawful. .

13. In order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 complainant, PW2 to P.w.5 independent witnesses and PW6 the investigating officer.

14. It is a matter of record that, P.w.1 and accused are having lands at the place of offence. It is the grievance of P.w.1 that, accused have occupied poramboke land situated by the side of his land in an extent of

Ac.2.88 cents of Singagudem village of Lingapalem mandal, under Ex.P1 on 12.05.2014 and since then they are using the same, as passage way and as the accused objected for it, he placed the matter before Mandal

Revenue Officer, who in turn directed the accused not to obstruct him, and got the said land surveyed by Mandal Surveyor, who issued Ex.P2 and basing on the said report, the MRO has issued Ex.P3 endorsement recognizing the right of P.w.1 in using poramboke land as his pathway for reaching his lands. He further would depose that, on 27.08.2017 at 9.00 a.m., all the accused removed the boundary stones and obstructed him in moving through the said land and then he filed report under Ex.P4.

15. The testimony of Pw.2 G.Ramachandra Rao, indicates that, for reaching the lands of Pw1, one has to cross vagu belonging to the

Government and that, the accused having occupied the Government 5

CC No.865 of 2017

J.F.C.M.,C.T.P.

poramboke land, obstructing the way of Pw1 and that, he came to know through P.w.1 that, accused quarreled with him. Thereafter, P.w.1 approached the MRO of Lingapalem, who promised to provide 5 sq.yards of site for using as pathway. The evidence of P.w.3 N.Pullarao, also speaks in similar lines with that of P.w.2 and according to him, during his visit at the place of offence, he noticed that, there was no pathway for P.w.1 to reach his land. P.w.4-M.Dhanunjayarao, has deposed in his evidence that, about two years back, while he was at the place of offence, he heard some shoutings and thereafter he went to the scene, observed the accused removing stones fixed to the land of P.w.1 towards fencing and accused also abused P.W.1 in filthy language. According to him, dispute arose in between P.w.1 and accused regarding passage way. The version of P.w.5 is that, about 2 or 3 years back, he went to Sundraopeta Cheruvu for grazing the sheep and at that time, he found P.w.1 at the place of offence.

He further noticed that, accused have removed some stones from the land and thrown in the canal and quarreled with Pw.1.

16. Thus, what emerges from the evidence let in by prosecution is that,

P.w.1 has got Ac.2.88 cents of land in R.S.No.225/3 of Singagudem village and to west of his land accused have got lands. It is also evident from the record that, as the accused having occupied the poramboke land since obstructing the way of Pw1, for reaching his lands, he purchased 10 cents of land from the accused, for using the same as passage way, which is culled out from Ex.P1. It appears from the testimony of P.w.1 that, as the accused again started obstructing him, in using the passage way, he approached the Mandal Revenue Officer of Lingapalem, who in turn got the lands surveyed by the Mandal Surveyor and fixed the boundary stones 6

CC No.865 of 2017

J.F.C.M.,C.T.P.

recognizing the right of P.w.1 in using passage way through 5 yards in

R.S.No.225/1 which is evident from Ex.P2 report of Mandal Surveyor and the endorsement given by Mandal Revenue Officer, under Ex.P3.

17. It is of course true that, P.w.1 in his cross examination has admitted that, there were bore disputes, in between him and accused and he erected a bore adjacent to the road situated, in the lands of accused, arresting free flow of water and on the report given by them to the Mandal Revenue

Officer, he was imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-. The fact remains is that, in the instant case, the dispute in between P.w.1 and accused is regarding passage way but not for the bore. Though P.w.1 in his cross examination has stated that, he did not file any report before MRO or the District

Collector about the disputes in question since 2013, except Ex.P4 report, what matters is that, from the recitals under EX.P3 endorsement given by

MRO of Lingapalem, it appears that, P.w.1 had given a representation to the Mandal Praja Parisath Officer through Prajavani on 29.09.2014, basing on which MRO instructed Mandal Surveyor to survey the land under dispute, who in turn after his survey filed Ex.P2. It is clear from the evidence brought on record that, as rightly suggested by the accused that

P.w.1 did not file any report before MRO or District Collector, about the dispute in question, but eventually from the recitals under Ex.P2 endorsement given by MRO, it is evident that P.w.1 has approached

Mandal Praja Parisath Officer, Lingapalem and gave a representation on 29.09.2014 in Prajavani. It is, therefore clear from the material on record that, there was a dispute in between P.w.1 and accused regarding passage way. Nothing necessitated the MRO and Mandal Surveyor to issue Ex.P2 endorsement and Ex.P3 letter without there being any representation by 7

CC No.865 of 2017

J.F.C.M.,C.T.P.

Pw.1. The inconsistency found in the evidence of P.w.1 in this regard is minor and it will not effect the case of prosecution. There is also no necessity for P.w.1 to file the report under Ex.P4, unless there is interference from the side of the accused, obstructing his way through the land, which he purchased under Ex.P1 document. Moreover, the testimony of P.w.2 clearly would indicate that, P.w.1 has approached the MRO who promised to provide 5 sq.yards of site for using it as pathway. P.w.3 also has stated that, he had no lands at the scene of offence and he came to know the same through P.w.1. P.w.4 has stated that, he cannot say the survey number of the land, where the incident took place. However, Pw5 an independent witness clearly would depose that, a galata took place in between P.w.1 and accused, while he was at Sundrarao peta Cheruvu.

Nothing was suggested to Pw5 in his cross examination by the accused for impeaching his testimony. Similarly, the evidence of P.w.2 to Pw.4 though appears to be hearsay, nothing was suggested to them, for coming to a conclusion that, they have got enmity with the accused and as such they spoke against them. A collective reading of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record clearly would suggest that, galata took place in between accused and P.w.1 since the accused was continuously obstructing him in the using the passage way.

18. No doubt, as rightly suggested by the accused, there is a delay of more than one month in registering crime, as was admitted by Pw..6 the investigating officer, but the same would not have any bearing on the case of prosecution, for the reason that disputes cropped up in between P.w.1 and accused since 2013 and continuing as such about the passage way.

P.w.6 ought to have examined the neighbors whose names were 8

CC No.865 of 2017

J.F.C.M.,C.T.P.

mentioned in Ex.P6 rough sketch but he did not do so. He should have examined the Surveyor and Mandal Revenue Officer for proper appreciation of case at hand, but he did not do so. It is purely a case of civil nature, in view of the land disputes prevailing in between the parties.

Though P.w.1 has made a specific allegation that, accused have removed the boundary stones, on the date of offence, there is no such material in the evidence of P.w.2 to P.W.4. However, P.w.5 has stated that, accused have removed the stones from the land and thrown in the canal, but such material is not found in the evidence of P.w.1. The evidence of Pw1 and

Pw5 about accused removing the stones and throwing it in a canal appears to be not corroborating with each other and there is some inconsistency in their testimony on this aspect.

19. In the case at hand, undoubtedly there is some material indicating that, there were some property disputes in between accused and P.W.1. It is also evident from the record that, accused obstructed P.w.1 in moving through the passage way which was recognized by MRO and Mandal

Surveyor. Though P.w.1 has asserted that, accused have removed the boundary stones fixed, the evidence let in this connection is not inspiring confidence. The investigation undertaken by P.w.6 suffers from legal infirmities. Therefore, on proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence brought on record, this court is of the view that, the evidence let in is sufficient for bringing home the guilt of the accused, for the offence under section 447 of IPC alone but it is not sufficient to record any finding of guilt against them for the offence under section 434 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC for the failure of P.w.6 in seizing the poles from the place of offence and for not examining the Mandal Surveyor and Mandal Revenue Officer. In that view 9

CC No.865 of 2017

J.F.C.M.,C.T.P.

of the matter, I hold that case of prosecution stands proved against A1 to

A5 for the offence under section 447 of IPC but failed to prove its case for the offence under section 434, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, I find A1 to

A5 guilty of the offence under section 447 of IPC. I also find A1 to A5 are not guilty of the offence under section 434, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

20. A1 to A5 are heard about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them. A1 is aged about 65 years, A2 is aged about 40 years, A3 is aged about 38 years, A4 is aged about 38 years and A5 is aged about 45 years, as on the date of commission of alleged offence. The record did not disclose any previous criminal conduct against the accused. Therefore, taking into consideration of the character of the accused, having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of offence and as the offences committed by the accused are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I feel that, it is expedient to release them on

Probation of good conduct under section 4 of P.O.Act, instead of sentencing them to any punishment at once.

21. In the result, I find that, A1 to A5 are not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 434, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. I further find that, A1 to A5 are guilty of the offence punishable under section 447 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted of the said offences under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of offences and the character of the offenders, apart from the fact that, the offences committed by the accused are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I direct for their release under section 4(3) of Probation of Offenders Act, on their entering into a 10

CC No.865 of 2017

J.F.C.M.,C.T.P.

personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each without sureties, with a further direction to appear and receive the sentence for a period of three months, whenever called upon by the Court under section 4 of P.O.Act and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior. The accused shall remain under the supervision of District Probationary Officer, Eluru, for a period of three months and the District Probationary Officer, Eluru, is directed to furnish his report to this Court from time to time.

22. Office is directed to send a copy of this Judgment to the District

Probationary Officer, for keeping the accused in observation for a period of three months.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and

pronounced by me, through Video Conferencing, on this the 15th day of June,

2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW.1: Jasti Venkata Subbarao, complainant - NIL – PW.2: Ganta Ramchandra Rao PW.3: Nandeti Pullarao, Independent witness PW4: Mandalapu Dhanunjayarao, Independent witness PW5: Katru Adam PW6: V.Kranthi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police

EXHBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: NIL Ex.P.1: registered document dt.02.05.2014 Ex.P.2: Mandal Surveyor report dt.14.07.2016 Ex.P.3: endorsement given by Mandal Revenue officer dt.22.06.2015 Ex.P.4: report Ex.P.5: FIR Ex.P.6: Rough sketch of scene of offence. MOs marked: NIL JFCM, SMC, Eluru FAC.JFCM, Chintalapudi Typed by:S.N.Raju 11

CC No.865 of 2017

J.F.C.M.,C.T.P.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO:865 of 2017 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, CHINTALAPUDI

Date of

OffenceComplaint Apprehension Release Commence-Close of Sentence or reportof accusedon bailment of trialtrialof Order 27/08/1719.09.17--25/09/1927.02.202015.06.2019 –

Explanation for delay: NIL

Cr.No. : 179/2017 of Dharmajigudem Police Station

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Dharmajigudem P.S.

Offence : Under sections 447, 434 & 506 read with 34 IPC Name of the accused:

1. Yadhala Venkatesh, S/o Veeraswamy, 65 yrs, Yadava, Singagudem village, Lingapalem mandal.

2. Yadhala Sai Babu, S/o Venkatesh, 40 yrs, Yadava, Singagudem village, Lingapalem mandal.

3. Yadha Lakshmayya, S/o Venkatesh, 38 yrs, Yadava, Singagudem village, Lingapalem mandal.

4. Yadhala Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkatesh, 30 yrs, Yadava, Singagudem village, Lingapalem mandal.

5. Yadhala Prasad, S/o Siddiyya, 45 yrs, Yadava, Singagudem village, Lingapalem mandal.

Finding: A1 to A5 are found guilty of the offence under sections 447 r/w 34 of IPC. A1 to A5 are found not guilty of the offence under sections 434, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Result: In the result, I find that, A1 to A5 are not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 434, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. I further find that, A1 to A5 are guilty of the offence punishable under section 447 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted of the said offences under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of offences and the character of the offenders, apart from the fact that, the offences committed by the accused are not 12

CC No.865 of 2017

J.F.C.M.,C.T.P.

punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I direct for their release under section 4(3) of Probation of Offenders Act, on their entering into a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each without sureties, with a further direction to appear and receive the sentence for a period of three months, whenever called upon by the Court under section 4 of P.O.Act and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior. The accused shall remain under the supervision of District Probationary Officer, Eluru, for a period of three months and the District Probationary Officer, Eluru, is directed to furnish his report to this Court from time to time.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

1 C.C.No.591 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRAE OF I CLASS::

CHINTALAPUDI

Present:- Sri R Venkateswara Sharma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi

Thursday, this the 18th day of June, 2020

C.C.No.591 of 2017

(Cr.No.103/2017 of Chintalapudi Police Station)

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi Police Station. -- Complainant -Vs –

1.Theegavarapu Krishnaveni, W/o Madhusudhana Rao, 58 yrs, Brahmin, Raghavapuram village, Chintalapudi mandal.

2.Theegavarapu Venkata Pundareekakshudu, S/o Late Venkata Sitharayya, 68 yrs, Brahmin, Raghavapuram, Chintalapudi mandal.

3.Theegavarapu Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o Late Venkata Sitharamayya, 52 yrs, Brahmin, Raghavapuram, Chintalapudi mandal.

4. Kanchi Rambabu, S/o Venkateswara Rso, 32 yrs, K.Balija, Chinthakayala Kothagudem, Chintalapudi mandal.

.…. Accused

This case is coming on 17/06/2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri U.M.S.R.Murthy., Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This case arises out of crime No.103/2017, for the offence, under

Sections 447, 427, 506 of IPC registered by Chintalapudi Police Station, on the report given by PW1-Theegavarapu Venkateswara Rao, with the following allegations.

2. Case of the prosecution in short is that, father of P.w.1 by name

Venkata Sitharamayya has got 100 acres of land and house property 2 C.C.No.591 of 2017 situated at Raghavapuram village of Chintalapudi mandal and the said property was orally partitioned in between his father, himself and his brother and the same was reduced into writing in the form of a partition deed dt.10.06.1970 and since then they have been in respective possession and enjoyment of the property. It is further alleged that, during the life time of his father, he executed a Will dt.04.09.1977 for his share and later, he died on 22.04.2000 and that, the said Will has not been changed which was his last and final Will. Thereafter, after his retirement

P.w.1 came to Raghavapuram village, constructed a house and living therein. A2 and A3 are also staying in Raghavapuram village and his another brother by name Madhu Sudhana Rao, husband of A1 who worked in Andhra Bank, Raghavapuram died and after his death, A1 being his legal representative looking after the properties of his brother late Madhu

Sudhanarao.

3. It is further alleged that, as A1 to A3 with a dishonest intention tried to grab away his property in R.S.No.249/1B of Raghavapuram village of

Chintalapudi mandal, he filed a suit in O.S.No.2/2016 before Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Chintalapudi, wherein, the court has granted temporary

injunction in I.A.No.5/2016, and despite grant of temporary injunction by the court, accused with a view to grab away the said property, have removed the boundary stones by illegally trespassing into his property and errected a barbed wire fencing, in an extent of Ac.0.35 cents, in his absence.

Thereupon, on knowing the same, he approached A1 and demanded her to remove the fencing and that, A1 having promised to remove the fencing, failed to do so and when he questioned, she (A1) threatened him with dire 3 C.C.No.591 of 2017 consequences saying that, in the event of insisting her for removing the fencing, she will file complaint against him. Having no other go, P.w.1 filed this complaint.

4. On the strength of the report given by her, L.w.7-B.Said Naik, Sub-

Inspector of Police, then worked at Chintalapudi, registered crime, recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene and issued notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to the accused and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

5. The Court took cognizance of the offence under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

6. A1 to A4 are put in appearance before the Court, copies of all documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to them.

7. Accused Nos 1 to 4 are examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against them, for the offences under Sections, 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against accused, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

8. The prosecution in order to prove the complicity of the accused, examined PW.1 to P.W.6 and got Ex.P.1 to Ex.P8 marked. A joint memo has been taken from both sides about, the change in marking documents due to typographical mistake.

9. Accused Nos 1 to 4 are examined under section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of 4 C.C.No.591 of 2017 prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10. I have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt that the accused committed the

offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506

r/w 34 of I.P.C., as alleged by the prosecution”?

12. P O I N T:

It is a case of ‘criminal trespass’ alleged against accused pointing out that, A1 to A4 trespassed into the land of P.w.1 situated in R.S.No.249/1B, removed the boundary stones and arranged barber fencing wire and on coming to know the same, when P.w.1 questioned A1, about her fixing fencing, she having promised to remove the same, failed to do so and on the other hand, threatened him with dire consequences that, she would file complaint against him, in the event of insisting her to remove the fencing and as such P.w.1 approached the Police. The plea of accused is one of total denial, when they were questioned, on the accusation made against them, explaining the accusation in the form of a questionnaire.

13. For application of the offence of ‘criminal trespass’, the prosecution is under legal obligation to prove that, the person, complained off is in possession of the property under dispute, and the accused entered into the said property, with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person, in possession of such property. Thus, the primary ingredient for establishing the charge leveled against the accused is that, 5 C.C.No.591 of 2017 the complainant party must prove that, the accused criminally trespassed into his property and threatened him with dire consequence, and the said act is quite unlawful.

14. In order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 the complainant, PW2 his brother, P.w.3 to P.w.5 independent witnesses and PW6 the investigating officer.

15. It is an undenied fact that, A2, A3 and P.w.2 are brothers of P.w.1 and A1 is wife of one Madhu Sudhanarao, another brother of P.w.1. It is also an undisputed fact that, father of P.w.1, Pw.2, A2 and A3 died in the year 2000 and during his life time, partition took place among them showing the division of properties. It is also a fact which is evident from the testimony of P.w.1 that, A2 and A3 looked after the management of his properties till the year of 2015 for the reason of his employment as Bank

Manager in different parts of the state.

16. It is the claim of P.W.1 that, in partition, he got Ac.1.74 cents of land in R.S.No.249/1B, out of which, he sold Ac.0.74 cents of land to A1 and that, A1 has got Ac.0.82 cents of land prior to purchase of the land of

Ac.0.74 cents by him and thereby she got an extent of Ac.1.50 cents of land in total. The grievance of P.w.1 as is culled out from his testimony is that, A1 to A4 tried to grab away Ac.0.30 cents of his land and then he brought one Mandal Surveyor to measure the property, but as the accused objected for the same, he filed a suit in O.S.No.2/2016 on the file of Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Chintalapudi which was subsequently transferred to

Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru and renumbered as

6 C.C.No.591 of 2017

O.S.No.229/2018. He further would depose that, he obtained injunction

order in the said suit against the accused, however, accused tried to grab away his property.

17. The testimony of P.w.2-T.Venkata Subrahmanyam discloses that, his brother P.w.1, has got Ac.1.74 cents of land in R.S.No.249/1B of

Raghavapuram village out of which, he sold Ac.0.74 cents of land to A1. It is his further say that, in the month of March, 2017, when P.w.1 had been to Bangalore, accused have occupied Ac.0.35 cents of land by removing the boundary stones.

18. Thus, what emerges from the testimonies of P.w.1 and P.w.2 is that, with the help of A4, A1 to A3 with a view to grab away the properties of

P.w.1 said to have removed the boundary stones in the land of P.w.1 and fixed barber fencing wire. It is a matter of record that, though P.w.1 has stated in his complaint under Ex.P1 that, accused have fixed barber fencing wire with a view to grab away Ac.0.35 cents of his property, for the obvious reasons known to him, he did not specifically stated in his evidence about accused fixing barber fencing wire in R.S.No.249/1B. It is also a matter of record that, P.w1 having stated that, three partition deeds have been executed during the life time of his father, for the obvious reasons known to him, he did not place any such document before the court, for appreciating his case of trespass allegedly made against the accused, for the reason that, according to him, in the partition 82 cents of land fell to the share of husband of A1 and that, he came to know that, A2 sold 82 cents of land to

A1 on 04.10.1993. Had P.w.1 filed the documents, namely partition deeds executed among them and also the documents relating to sale and 7 C.C.No.591 of 2017 purchase of properties in question, his case certainly could have been appreciated. In his cross examination, he admitted that, A1 filed suit in

O.S.No.171/2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru,

wherein, he filed a counter claim. He further admitted that, the schedule in

O.S.No.2/2016 filed by him and the schedule in O.S.No.171/2017 filed by

A1 are one and the same to some extent. It is therefore clear from the very admissions of P.w.1 that, both have filed suits making different claims and counter claims in respect of the properties in question. Moreover, P.w.1 in his cross examination has stated that, he cannot say in how much extent of land A1 is in possession and enjoyment, unless the property was measured. P.w.1 having stated that, till now court has not decided which partition is correct, out of the 3 partition deeds executed claiming that, he was in possession of the land situated on the southern side of the fencing.

He further stated in his cross examination that, he has filed nearly five suits against A1. He categorically admitted in his cross examination that,, he had taken some persons to remove the fencing wire of A1 land. However, P.w.2 who is none other than his brother in his cross examination has admitted that, P.w.1 and husband of A1 exchanged the properties and in the said process, husband of A1 has got Ac.0.74 cents of land. Pw.2 further stated that, he does not know whether husband of A1 has purchased 82 cents of land under a sale deed. P.w.2 further deposed that, he does not know whether A1 filed O.S.No.171/2017 on the file of Hon’ble Principal Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru against him. Thus, prima facie it appears that,

there is no consistency in the testimonies of P.w.1 and Pw2 as to the ownership of the properties in question. Moreover, P.w.2 has stated in his cross examination that, he was not present on the date of alleged incident.

8 C.C.No.591 of 2017

19. As could be seen from the Ex.P3 endorsement of Mandal Surveyor, it appears that, no survey has been undertaken in R.S.No.249/1B in view of pendency of O.S.No.2/2016. I do agree that, the recitals under Ex.P4 indicates that, name of P.w1 was shown as pattadar of the land in

R.S.No.249/1B. Similarly, Ex.P5 form-1B adangal indicates that, the extent of land which P.w.2 has got and Ex.P6 form-B adangal indicates that, the extent of land which wife of P.W.1 has got. However, what matters is that, parties have filed civil suits against each other and though the endorsement made by Tahsildar under Ex.P7 discloses that, P.w.1 is the owner of the land in R.S.No.249/1B, since the suits filed by them in respect of the disputed property in the same R.S.number is pending before the concerned courts, it is not wise to decide the ownership of the said property by this court, unless and until the civil courts wherein cases of claims and counter claims are pending, delivers its finding, and as a consequence the allegation of P.w.1 that, accused trespassed into his property by removing the boundary stones and fixed the barber fencing wire, do not merit for consideration.

20. The evidence of P.w.3 to P.w.5 indicates only to the extent that, they went for coolie work for fixing the barber fencing and nothing more is spoken to by them in respect of the allegation which P.w.1 has made. As already stated P.w.1 having claimed that, he obtained temporary injunction, in his favor and against the accused in O.S.No.2/2016 for the reasons best known to him, he did not file any such paper before the court for appreciating the stand taken by him. Under these circumstances and from the discussion stated supra, apart from the fact that, civil cases are pending 9 C.C.No.591 of 2017 in between parties making claims and counter claims, in the absence of any concrete proof to be let in by prosecution establishing the factum of ownership of the property in question, the contention of P.w.1 that, accused trespassed into his property attracting the ingredients of Section 447 of IPC cannot be said to have been proved.

21. No doubt, on the report by P.w.1, L.W.7-B.Said Naik, Sub-Inspector of Police, did investigation, however, the fact remains is that, the said Sub-

Inspector of Police is no more and the investigation undertaken by him got recorded through P.w.6-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Infact he had spoken about the investigation undertaken by L.W.7-Said Naik, Sub-

Inspector of Police, regarding registration of crime, recording the statements of witnesses and preparation of rough sketch. What he had stated in his cross examination is that, Ex.P8 rough sketch did not disclose any survey number and they did not take the surveyor during investigation to survey the land under dispute. The fact remains is that, there were civil disputes in between the parties and suits are pending before the concerned courts. In any view of the matter as already stated that, since the ownership of the property in question is pending for adjudication before the civil courts, the claim of P.w.1 making allegation against the accused that, they trespassed into his land cannot be decided at this stage and the investigation claimed to have been undertaken by L.w.7 did not reveal about preparation of scene observation report, taking of photographs etc., for coming to a definite conclusion that, accused have arranged fencing in the land of P.w.1. These circumstance certainly would suggest that, the 10 C.C.No.591 of 2017 material placed on record is not sufficient for arriving at a definite conclusion that, accused have trespassed into the land of Pw1.

22. In so far as the offence under section 427 of IPC is concerned, according to prosecution, accused have caused damage to the land but nowhere, either in Ex.P1 report nor in the evidence let in none of the witnesses spoke as to the quantum of loss allegedly sustained, on account of the removal of fencing wire to the land in question. It is for the investigating officer to visit the place of offence and prepare scene observation report, estimating the quantum of loss allegedly caused.

Though, L.w.7 claims that, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, he did not prepare any scene observation report, estimating the quantum of loss. The rough sketch said to have been prepared by the investigating officer under Ex.P8 did not indicate about any damage that was allegedly caused to the crop in the land. Therefore, in the absence of any material to be let in to the effect that, P.w.1 sustained loss, on account of acts of accused, it cannot be said that ingredients of offence under section 427 of IPC are made out.

23. Having regard to the evidence adduced by prosecution and for the reasoning given by me pointing out the draw backs in the case of prosecution, I am of the considered view that, the prosecution failed to establish its case, against the accused for any of the offences, charged against them and consequent thereto I hold that, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

11 C.C.No.591 of 2017

24. In the result, I find that, accused Nos 1 to 4 are not guilty of the offence under Sections 447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C, by extending benefit of doubt. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and

pronounced by me, through Virtual Court, on this the 18th day of June,

2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW.1: T.Venkateswara Rao, complainant - NIL – PW.2: T.Venkata Subrahmanyam PW.3: K.Venkateswara Rao PW.4: U.Nageswara Rao PW.5: I.Srinu PW.6: Sk.Liyaquat Ali, A.S.I of Police

EXHBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: NIL Ex.P.1: Report Ex.P.2: injunction extension petition in O.S.No.2/2016 Ex.P3: endorsement given by Mandal Surveyor Chintalapudi Ex.P4: Mee-seva copy of 1-B namoona dt.10.01.2019 Ex.P5: mee-seva copy of 1B namoona on the name of L.w.2 Ex.P6: Mee-seva copy of 1-B namoona on the name of A1, dt.10.01.2019. Ex.P7: endorsement given by MRO, Chintalapudi, dt.10.04.2017. Ex.P.7A: FIR Ex.P.8: Rough sketch of scene of offence.

MOs marked: NIL

JFCM, SMC, Eluru FAC.JFCM, Chintalapudi Typed by:S.N.Raju 12 C.C.No.591 of 2017

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO: 591 of 2017 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, CHINTALAPUDI

Date of

Offence Complaint Apprehension Release Commence-Close of Sentence or report of accused on bail ment of trial trial of Order 01.04.1701.04.17--04.07.201912.03.202018.06.2020 --

Explanation for delay: NIL

Cr.No. : 103 /2017 of Chintalapudi Police Station

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi P.S.

Offence : Under sections 447, 427 & 506 of IPC

Name of the accused:

1.Theegavarapu Krishnaveni, W/o Madhusudhana Rao, 58 yrs, Brahmin, Raghavapuram village, Chintalapudi mandal.

2.Theegavarapu Venkata Pundareekakshudu, S/o Late Venkata Sitharayya, 68 yrs, Brahmin, Raghavapuram, Chintalapudi mandal.

3.Theegavarapu Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o Late Venkata Sitharamayya, 52 yrs, Brahmin, Raghavapuram, Chintalapudi mandal.

4. Kanchi Rambabu, S/o Venkateswara Rso, 32 yrs, K.Balija, Chinthakayala Kothagudem, Chintalapudi mandal.

Finding: Found not guilty

Result: In the result, I find that, accused Nos 1 to 4 are not guilty of the offence under Sections 447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C, by extending benefit of doubt. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

1

CC No.768 of 2017

J.F.C.M.CTP

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRAE OF I CLASS::

CHINTALAPUDI

Present:- Sri R.Venkateswara Sharma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi.

Monday, this the 15th day of June, 2020

C.C.NO.768 of 2017

(Cr.No.117/2017 of T.Narasapuram Police Station) Between: Sub-Inspector of Police, T.Narasapuram Police Station. -- Complainant - Vs –

1.Garlapati Rambabu, S/o Prasada Rao, 30 yrs, SC Madiga, Mutyalammapeta, T.Narasapuram village and mandal.

2.Garlapati Raja Kumari, W/o Rambabu, 28 yrs, SC Madiga, Mutyalammapeta, T.Narasapuram village and mandal.

…. Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 21/05/2020 in the presence of Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Rajkumar, Advocate for Accused and having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following, through Video Conferencing.

J U D G M E N T

1. This case arises out of Cr.No.117/2017, for the offence under Sections 353, 509, 448, 506 r/w 34 IPC, registered by T.Narasapuram Police station, on the complaint given by P.W.1-Vatti Jhansi Lakshmi Bai, with the following allegations.

2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution as was set out by PW1-Vatti Jhansi

Lakshmi Bai is that, at about 20 days back, she asked the accused to prepare her records with diagrams and that, on 10.05.2017 at 9.30 a.m., while she was in hospital duty, accused came and informed that, record work was finished and asked her to pay Rs.1,000/- and in the event of her inability to pay the amount, touch his feet and insulted her in the presence of her staff. When she asked him not to make such humiliation, accused caught hold her tuft of hair and tried to beat her and on hearing her cries, the duty doctor came to the scene, and on 2

CC No.768 of 2017

J.F.C.M.CTP

seeing him, accused ran away. It is also alleged that, on 11.05.2017 at 4.30 p.m, wife of accused trespassed into her house and questioned her as to why she abused her husband and threatened her that, she would file case under SC&ST

Act, abused her and went away and in that connection, she filed a report.

3. On the strength of the report given by her, PW.6 K.Nagendra Prasad, Sub-

Inspector of Police, registered crime, visited scene of offence, recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared rough sketch of scene and issued Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C notice to accused, and on completion of investigation, he laid final report against the accused, for the offences indicated above.

4. The Court took cognizance of the offence u/Sections 353, 509, 448, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

5. A1 and A2 are put in appearance before the court, copies of all documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to them.

6. A1 and A2 are examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against them, and charges for the offences under sections 353, 509, 448, 506 r/w 34 IPC, have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

7. The prosecution in order to prove the complicity of the accused, examined

PW1 to P.W.6 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

8. A1 and A2 are examined under section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied.

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

3

CC No.768 of 2017

J.F.C.M.CTP

10. Now the question that arises for the consideration:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of

the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the

offence under sections 353, 509, 448, 506 r/w 34

IPC?

11. POINT:

In the instant case, A1 has been charged for allegedly committing the offence of ―criminal intimidation” by using derogatory words against P.w.1, in connection with payment of amount by her for drawing the diagrams, as requested by her and insulted her, while she was on duty on 10.05.2017. His wife

A2 has been charged, for the offence of criminal trespass and for allegedly threatening P.w.1 with dire consequences on 11.05.2017 in consequence of the incident that allegedly happened on 10.05.2017 at Primary Health Center,

T.Narasapuram.

12. In short, case of prosecution as was narrated by P.w.1 is that, on her request accused agreed to draw the diagrams, in her records for payment to be made by her, according to her wish, but on completion of the said work, as per

P.w.1, accused asked to her pay Rs.1,000/- else touch his feet and caught hold her tuft of hair and thereby insulted her, while she was on duty on 10.05.2017 and in consequence thereof, A2 wife of A1 trespassed into the house of P.w.1 on 11.05.2017 picked up quarrel with her and threatened her with dire consequences.

13. According to P.w.1 alleged victim, who is working as II ANM at Primary

Health Center, T.Narasapuram, on her request, accused agreed to draw diagrams on payment of the amount, as per her choice, but on 10.05.2017, A1 on completion of record work, approached her and demanded her to pay

Rs.1,000/- and when she bargained for Rs.800/-, he did not agree and then she agreed to pay Rs.1,000/- and went to hospital. Thereafter, while she was on duty,

A1 came to the hospital, abused her in the presence of her staff, asked her to 4

CC No.768 of 2017

J.F.C.M.CTP

beg him for concession and at that time, the duty doctor came and admonished

A1. She further would testify that, at about 1.00 p.m to 2.00 p.m., A2 came to her house, beat her with a stick and abused her and also threatened her that, she would file case under SC&ST Act and in that connection, she filed report.

14. The prosecution has examined P.w.2, who is working as Sweeper and according to him, on 10th May about one year back, A1 came to the hospital, picked up quarrel with Pw.1, for the payment of amount for the drawing he made and that, on the directions of duty doctor they went away. P.w.3 who is working as Vaidya Mithra also spoke in similar lines with that of P.w.2 as to the incident that allegedly happened on 10.05.2017. P.w.4 is the son of P.W.1 and according to him, his mother asked the accused to draw the diagrams on payment of money, whereby, accused having finished the work, asked his mother to pay

Rs.1,000/-, whereas, his mother wanted to pay Rs.800/- and in that connection, galata took place in the hospital. Thereafter, on 11.05.2017 A2 came to their house, tried to beat his mother, abused her in filthy language and threatened her that, she would file case under SC&ST Act. Infact, Pw4 son of P.w.1 is not an eye witness to the incident that allegedly happened in the hospital.

15. In so far as the offence under section 353 of IPC is concerned, nowhere

P.w.1 has stated that, she could not discharge her duties, on account of the acts of the accused. Neither Pw1 nor the investigating officer have brought any record or documentary evidence to show that, P.w.1 was on duty at the time of alleged incident. When Pw1 has asserted in her evidence that, on the demand of the accused to pay Rs.1,000/- for drawing the diagrams, in the record, she agreed to pay the same, which is evident from her testimony, the question of accused again going to the hospital, demanding her to pay Rs.1,000/- else touch his feet does not arise. P.w.1 either in her report or in her evidence, did not refer the name of the doctor, who happened to be present, in the hospital at that time, for 5

CC No.768 of 2017

J.F.C.M.CTP

coming to a definite conclusion that, on the instructions of the said doctor, A1 left the place. Similarly P.w.1 did not state in her report about the presence of P.W.2 and Pw.3 at the place of offence, at the time of alleged incident. Therefore, the contention of Pw.1 that, the duty doctor was present, at the time of incident, suffers from credibility. There is no whisper in the evidence of P.w.2 and P.w.3 about A1 caught holding the tuft of hair of Pw.1 and tried to beat her. When the presence of P.w.2 and P.w.3 was not mentioned in the report covered by Ex.P1 and also in the evidence of P.w.1, apart from the fact that, both witnesses have not stated about A1 caught holding the tuft of hair of P.w.1, no significance can be attached to their testimony. Moreover, P.w.2 in her cross examination has stated that, at the time of incident, she was sweeping outside the hospital. Thus, she had no occasion to notice, as to what was actually happened in between

Pw1 and accused in the hospital. Similarly, the testimony of P.w.3 is of no help, as she also had no occasion to notice, what was actually happened in between

A1 and P.w.1. Had the prosecution examined the doctor, the fact should have come to light but for the obvious reasons known to the investigating agency, no material in that regard is brought on record. Except the solitary testimony of

P.w.1, which is inconsistent, no other independent evidence is brought on record for appreciating the allegation made by her against A1 for allegedly committing the offence of not only criminal intimidation with derogatory words but also obstructing her in discharging her legitimate duties, for want of concrete proof beyond any shadow of doubt. Thus, from the material referred to above, it can be safely conclude that the allegations made against A1 have not been proved with satisfactory evidence, for linking him with the said offences.

16. Coming to the charge leveled against A2 for criminal trespass and threatening P.w.1 with dire consequences, attracting the ingredients of Sec.448 and 506 of IPC is concerned, according to prosecution case, on 11.05.2017 A2 came to the house of P.w.1 and made galata. Contrary to the material found in 6

CC No.768 of 2017

J.F.C.M.CTP

Ex.P1 report, what P.w.1 has stated in her evidence is that, A2 came to her house at about 1.00 p.m to 2.00 p.m on the same day I.e 10.05.2017 abused her in filthy language stating that, she would file case against her under SC&ST Act.

The testimony of P.w.1 is self contradicting, as to the date and time of incident allegedly happened at her house. P.w.2 and P.w.3 virtually had no opportunity of noticing the incident that allegedly happened, at the house of P.w.1. P.w.1 in her cross examination has admitted that, accused filed case against her in

Cr.No.116/2017 under SC&ST Act. The testimony of P.W.5 is of no help in view of his hostility towards prosecution case, resiling from the contents of what he allegedly stated before police during investigation. P.w.4 also admitted in his cross examination about filing of case under SC&ST Act against P.w.1, prior to her filing the present case. It is, therefore, clear from the very admission of P.w.1 and P.W.4 that, on the report given by accused against P.w.1, FIR was booked in

Cr.No.116/2017 one day prior to registration of FIR in this case under Ex.P3.

P.w.6 the investigating officer also has admitted about registration of FIR in

Cr.No.116/2017 under SC&ST Act against P.w.1, prior to registration of Ex.P3.

Had P.w.6 the investigating officer examined any independent witness, in the hospital including the medial officer, there could be some justification in believing the case of P.w.1. Such exercise for the obvious reasons known to the investigating agency has not been made. There is no necessity of A2 coming over to the house of P.w.1, unless some verbal quarrel took place in between

P.w.1 and A1 and if P.w.1 or P.w.6 had come up with real facts, as to what was actually happened in the hospital, there is some possibility for appreciating the case set out by P.W.1. The investigating officer had lost sight of securing the records, which were allegedly given by P.w.1 to the accused, for the purpose of drawing to prove the motive attributed against him. It appears that, some material facts have been suppressed by P.w.1 and she has not come to the court with clean hands. The material brought on record by Pw1 and also the prosecution is 7

CC No.768 of 2017

J.F.C.M.CTP

not inspiring confidence, for the reason that, had the incident as alleged took place on 10.05.2017 initially, she should have approached the Police and filed report, but that has not been done, for the obvious reasons known to her, which creates reasonable suspicion over the allegations which P.w.1 has made against

A1 and A2. That apart, the present crime was registered on the report of Pw1 only after registering case against P.w.1 on the report given by accused under

SC&ST Act in Cr.No.116/2017 and therefore, the possibility of P.w.1 filing this case, as a counter to the case filed by accused, cannot be ruled out. In other words, I hold that, the material brought on record is not inspiring confidence, for connecting the accused with any of the charges made against them and consequently, A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, I find that, A1 and A2 are not guilty of the offence punishable under sections 353, 509, 448, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, they are 0acquitted of the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and

pronounced by me, through Video Conferencing, on this the 15th day of June,

2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW1: V.Jhansi Lakshmi Bai, Complainant NIL

PW2: Sk.Nagoor bee, colleague of P.w.1

PW3: Palanki Sujatha, Colleague of PW1

PW4: Maddu Tanishkar, son of P.w.1.

PW5: Maturi Rambabu

PW6: K.Nagendra Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police 8

CC No.768 of 2017

J.F.C.M.CTP

EXHBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1 --NIL—

Ex.P.2: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW5

Ex.P.3: FIR in Cr.No.117/2017 of T.Narasapuram Police Station.

Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch No.1

Ex.P5: Rough sketch No.2

MOS marked:

J.F.C.M. SMC, E

FAC.JFCM, CTP

Typed by:S.N.Raju 9

CC No.768 of 2017

J.F.C.M.CTP

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO:768 of 2017 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::CHINTALAPUDI

Date of

Offence Complaint Apprehension Release Commence-Close of Sentence of accused or report on bail ment of trial trial of Order 10.05.201711.05.201714.03.201905.03.202015.06.2020 ––

Explanation for delay: --NIL--

Cr.NO.117/2017 : T.Narasapuram Police Station

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, T.Narasapuram P.S.

Offence : Under section 353, 509, 448, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

Name of the accused:

1.Garlapati Rambabu, S/o Prasada Rao, 30 yrs, SC Madiga, Mutyalammapeta, T.Narasapuram village and mandal.

2.Garlapati Raja Kumari, W/o Rambabu, 28 yrs, SC Madiga, Mutyalammapeta, T.Narasapuram village and mandal.

Finding: Found not guilty

In the result, I find that, A1 and A2 are not guilty of the offence punishable under sections 353, 509, 448, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

1

CC No.238 of 2018

J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

CHINTALAPUDI

Present:- Sri R.Venkateswara Sharma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi.

Thursday, this the 19th day of June, 2020.

C.C.No.238 / 2018

(Cr.No.173/2018 of Chintalapudi Police Station)

Between: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi Police Station. -- Complainant

Vs.

1. Chimata Nagaraju, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 30 yrs, Yadava, Lingagudem, Chintalapudi mandal.

2. Chimata Ratnakar, S/o Mareswara Rao, 23 yrs, Yadava, Lingagudedm, Chintalapudi mandal.

3. Chimata Savithri, W/o Venkateswara Rao, 48 yrs, Yadava, Lingagudem, Chintalapudi mandal.

4. Chimata Krishnaveni, W/o Siva, 22 yrs, Yadava, Lingagudem, Chintalapudi mandal.

5. Chimata Gangamma, W/o Mareswara Rao, 38 yrs, Yadava, Lingagudem village, Chintalapudi mandal.

6. Chimata Lakshmi, W/o Narasimharao, 38 yrs, Yadava, Lingagudem village, Chintalapudi mandal. -- Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 12.03.2020 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri M.P.R.Kumar, Advocate for accused and having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This case arises out of Cr.No.173 of 2018, for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC, registered by Chintalapudi Police Station, on the statement given by P.W.1 Elika Nagalakshmi, with the following allegations:

2. Succinctly stated, case of the prosecution as was set out by PW1 is that, she is staying with her family members near the house of her father-in-law by name

Mukkayya and for reaching the road, they have got passage way through the house of Chimata family and in the year 2005, Panchayat authorities laid concrete road. It is alleged that, as the road is filled with pits, Panchayat authorities closed the pits and formed road till the house of Chimata Somayya 2

CC No.238 of 2018

J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi and in that connection, accused claiming that the road belongs to them, obstructed P.w.1 and others and arranged fencing. While so, on 20.05.2018, one

Thera Srinu brought JCB and leveled the road by removing the fencing and at about 5.00 p.m., P.w.1 having noticed the same, again when tried to remove the same, all the accused came there, beat her with a stick, causing injuries. They also beat her family members with sticks and stones. Thereupon, they were shifted to Government Hospital, Chintalapudi for treatment by Elika

Satyanarayana, whereof, she gave statement to Police.

3. On the strength of the statement given by her, LW.7/M.Sombabu, Head

Constable, then worked at Chintalapudi Police Station, registered crime, recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene, and later P.W.7/Sub Inspector Police took up investigation and issued notice to accused under section 41-A Cr.P.C. and on completion of investigation, laid charge sheet.

4. The Court took cognizance of the offence u/Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

5. Accused Nos 1 to 6 were put in appearance before the court, copies of all documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to them.

6. Accused Nos 1 to 6 were examined u/Section 239 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation leveled against them and charge for the offence u/Section 324 r/w 34

IPC have been framed, read over and explained them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution in order to prove the complicity of the accused, examined

PWs.1 to PW7 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P.8 marked.

8. Accused Nos 1 to 6 were examined under section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution 3

CC No.238 of 2018

J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi witnesses, for which, they denied the incriminating evidence. Accused reported no defence evidence.

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

10. Now the question that arises for the consideration is:- Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence, under

Section 324 r/w 34 IPC?

11. P O I N T:

Accused Nos 1 to 6 have been charged for voluntarily causing hurt to PW1 and others by means of sticks and stones on 20.5.2018, in connection with the dispute regarding passage way for removing the fencing arranged by P.W.1 at the boundary of her house.

12. It is a matter of record that, as is evident not only from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but also from the contents of Ex.P.8 Rough Sketch that, both the prosecuting party and accused are having houses at the place of offence. It is also not in dispute that, there is a passage way in between the said houses from North to South which is being used by both of them till the

Panchayath Authorities laid gravel. According to the case of P.W.1, on 20.05.2018, she went for coolie work and on return, she noticed that, barber fencing was arranged by accused across the road and in that connection, herself,

P.w.2 and Pw.3 when tried to remove the same, A1 and A2 thrown stones upon her and on P.w.2 and P.w.3, causing injuries, on her stomach and contusion injuries to P.W.2 and P.w.3. She further deposed that, A3 to A6 also beat her with sticks.

13. The testimony of P.W.2/Elika Savhithri, indicates that, on 20.05.2018

Panchayat authorities placed mud on the road, which they have adjusted the 4

CC No.238 of 2018

J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi same by removing the barber fencing and again by evening accused have placed the barber fencing and when they tried to remove the same, they beat P.w.1 and

Pw3 with sticks and stones, causing injuries.

14. The evidence of P.w.3-Elika Ramadevi, runs in similar lines with that of

P.w.2 and according to her, accused beat P.w.1 and Pw.2, when they tried to remove the barber fencing, at the place of offence, causing injuries on their person.

15. Thus, it is clear from the evidence extracted above that, the moment the

Panchayat Authorities dumped gravel at the place of offence, leveled it for formation of road till the house of Siva, P.W.1 and others arranged fencing at the place of offence, which was used as a joint passage by the accused till then, and in that connection galata took place in between them when the accused tried to remove the fencing claiming that, the land at the scene of offence belongs to them. P.W.1 in her cross examination has admitted that, Mukkayya is her father in law, who had a passage way laid by panchayat to the main road. She admitted that, the house of Mukkayya and the house constructed by them belongs to

Mukkayya land and that, the land of Mukkayya was obtained in the form of patta.

She admitted that, the road leading to main road of her village is having houses of Elika Rukminamma, Chimata Ramu and Chimata Siva and on the western side of their houses, Parasa Lakshmana and Chimata Venkateswara Rao lands are situated. P.w.2 has denied when suggested that, panchayat authorities placed mud till Chimata Siva house, but they have forcibly removed the fencing and adjusted the mud at their house on the road and intentionally quarreled with accused. P.w.3 admitted in her cross examination that, coconut trees situated at the scene belongs to Chimata Siva. She admitted that, there was a road situated on western side of her brother in law by name Satyanarayana and that, her 5

CC No.238 of 2018

J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi husband and brothers are residing in the house of P.w.2 till their marriage and later they have separated.

16. What matters is that, incident took place in connection with arranging of fencing by P.W.1 obstructing the way of accused. Either P.W.1 or the

Investigating Officer P.W.7 did not file any documentary evidence establishing the exclusive right of either prosecuting party or the accused to use the disputed passage. Though P.w.7 the investigating officer claims that, he had carried out the investigation, basing on the receipt of hospital intimation, he registered FIR,

He admitted in his cross examination that, he did not verify any panchayat record and examine any Panchayat officer regarding the disputed road. He also admitted that, there are coconut trees at the place of offence, which belongs to accused. Had the investigating officer examined the Village Revenue officer or

Mandal Revenue Officer of the said village, factual disputes in between prosecuting party and accused should have come to light. But that has not been done.

17. In so far as, the injuries said to have been caused on the injured is concerned, there is no specific material attributing specific overacts against the accused, in the evidence brought on record. P.W.1 to P.W.3 though stated that, all the accused came upon them and beat them, none of them have deposed any specific overt act against each of the accused. The fact remains is that, the

Investigating Officer having claimed that, he visited the scene of offence for the obvious reasons known to him, he did not seize any material objects at the place of offence. According to P.W.1, A1 and A2 thrown stones upon her, causing injury on her stomach and contusion injuries to P.W.2 and P.W.3 and that A3 to

A6 beat her with sticks. However, the doctor who examined P.w.1 to P.W.3, found no external injuries and issued Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 wound certificates. If really

A1 and A2 beat P.W.1 with stick and thrown stones on her, causing injuries on 6

CC No.238 of 2018

J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi her stomach and contusion injuries on the person of P.w.2 and P.W.3, certainly the doctor P.w.6 who examined them and issued wound certificates should have found the some visible injuries at least on the person of injured. The ocular evidence of P.w.1 to P.W.3 is not corroborated with the medical evidence brought on record, which is evident from Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 wound certificates. The testimony of P.w.4-Parasa Lakshmana Rao is of no help to the case of prosecution, as he turned down to the story set out by P.w.1. In his evidence, he stated that, he did not witness as to who sustained injuries in the said incident.

Pw5 though stated that, some galata took place in between prosecuting party and accused for which, he acted as elder, he consistently has deposed that, none of the persons sustained injuries in the said galata, except exchange of dialogues.

18. Thus it is evident from the material brought on record that, none of the prosecuting party sustained injuries, except occurring of some galata took place on the date of incident. It appears that, the witnesses have exaggerated the version during evidence than what was actually happened. No doubt some incident might have taken place on 20.5.2018 in respect of that disputed passage way, whereby both parties have filed case and counter cases and though, the prosecution witnesses’ claims that, they sustained injuries as deposed by them, the medical evidence brought on record is not corroborating with ocular evidence. Therefore, offence under section 324 read with 34 of IPC cannot be said to have been proved against the accused, for want of legal and acceptable evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt. In other words, I am of the considered view that, the material on record is not inspiring confidence, for connecting the accused, with the offence charged, and as such, they are entitled for acquittal.

7

CC No.238 of 2018

J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi

19. In the result, I find that, accused Nos 1 to 6 are not guilty of the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bond of the accused shall stand canceled.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and

pronounced by me, virtual court, on this the 19th day of June, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For PROSECUTION: For DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Elike Nagalakshmi -NONE-

P.W.2: Elike Savithri

P.W.3: Elike Ramadevi

P.W.4: Parasa Lakshmana Rao

P.W.5: Chimata Jagannadha Rao

P.W.6: Doctor.Md.Rasool

P.W.7: Ch.Venkateswara Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi

EXHBITS MARKED:

For Prosecution: Defence: NIL

Ex.P.1: Report of PW.1

Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.w.4

Ex.P.3: Wound Certificate of P.W.3

Ex.P.4: Wound Certificate of P.W.2

Ex.P.5: Wound Certificate of P.W.1

Ex.P.6: hospital intimation

Ex.P.7: FIR

Ex.P.8: rough sketch

M.Os.Marked: NIL

JFCM, SMC (E).

FAC.JFCM, CTP

Typed by:S.N.Raju 8

CC No.238 of 2018

J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO: 238 of 2018 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, CHINTALAPUDI

Date of

Offence Complaint Apprehension Release on Commence-Close of Sentence of accused or report bail ment of trial trial of Order 20.05.201821.05.2018--09.05.201929.11.201919.06.2020 --

Explanation for delay: NIL Cr.No. : 173/2018 of Chintalapudi Police Station Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi Police Station

Offence : Under section 324 read with 34 of IPC

Name of the accused:

1. Chimata Nagaraju, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 30 yrs, Yadava, Lingagudem, Chintalapudi mandal.

2. Chimata Ratnakar, S/o Mareswara Rao, 23 yrs, Yadava, Lingagudedm, Chintalapudi mandal.

3. Chimata Savithri, W/o Venkateswara Rao, 48 yrs, Yadava, Lingagudem, Chintalapudi mandal.

4. Chimata Krishnaveni, W/o Siva, 22 yrs, Yadava, Lingagudem, Chintalapudi mandal.

5. Chimata Gangamma, W/o Mareswara Rao, 38 yrs, Yadava, Lingagudem village, Chintalapudi mandal.

6. Chimata Lakshmi, W/o Narasimharao, 38 yrs, Yadava, Lingagudem village, Chintalapudi mandal.

Finding: Found not guilty

Result In the result, I find that, accused Nos 1 to 6 are not guilty of the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bond of the accused shall stand canceled.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

1

CC No.176 of 2019

.J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::CHINTALAPUDI

Present:- Sri R Venkateswara Sharma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi.

Friday, this the 5th day of June, 2020

C.C.NO.176 of 2019

(Cr.No.61/2019 of Prohibition&Excise Act of Chintalapudi Police Station)

Between: Prohibition&Excise Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi Police Station -- Complainant -vs- Dara Boyina Venkateswara Rao, S/o Pentayya, age 37 yrs, Koya, R/o Lankalapalli village, T.Narasapuram mandal. --Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 13.05.2020 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri L.D.L.Achari, Advocate for Accused and having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following, through Video Conferencing.

J U D G M E N T

1. This case arises out of Cr.No.61/2019 for the offence under section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act 1968 (for short “Excise Act”) registered by Prohibition & Excise Sub-

Inspector of Chintalapudi, with the following allegations:

2. In brief, it is the case of prosecution that, on 01.04.2019 at 6.30 p.m., on receipt of reliable information, PW1 along with mediators LW1-Sk.Shamsuddin, L.W.2-K.Ramu and staff LW4-B.V.Krishna, Proh&EC, Chintalapudi, proceeded to Lankalapalli village in front of Daraboyina Venkateswara Rao’s house vacant place, found a person with one mica bag, and on seeing them, when he tried to escape, the team detained him, having found a bag containing with Golden Style Whisky 180ml-25 i.e., twenty five bottles and on enquiry, the said person furnished his particulars and confessed that, he brought the liquor bottles from local shop for sale to public at higher price, and thereupon, P.w.1 apprehended the accused, as his possession of liquor bottles for sale, without permit and bills would attract the offence and seized the same under a mediators report, arrested him brought him to Police Station for further enquires. Later, she issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused.

2

CC No.176 of 2019

.J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi

3. On the strength of the mediators report, P.w.1 registered a crime, recorded the statements of her officials, sent the samples to Chemical Analysis and on receipt of the report of Chemical Analyst, she filed charge sheet against the accused.

4. The Court took cognizance of the offence u/Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

5. Accused put in appearance before the Court, copies of all documents as contemplated under section 207 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 charges under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act have 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 P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and M.O.1 is marked.

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 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 offences

punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968, as

alleged by the prosecution”?

11. POINT:

Accused has been charged on the allegation that, he was found in possession of

M.O.1 liquor bottles without license, attracting the offence under Section 34(a) of the Act and having noticed the same, P.w.1-A.F.Begam, Proh&Excise, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Chintalapudi seized the property, conducted enquiries in the presence of mediators, and later, she sent the samples for chemical examination and on receipt of the report, she filed final report and basing on the material gathered by prosecution, accused was put a questionnaire, explaining the contents of charge, however, his plea is one of total denial.

3

CC No.176 of 2019

.J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi

12. According to Pw.1-Prohibition&Excise, Sub-Inspector of Police, then worked at

Chintalapudi, she visited the place of offence, arrested the accused seized property covered by M.O.1 from the possession of the accused on 01.04.2019, basing on which, she registered FIR under Ex.P2 and sent the samples under seizure for chemical analysis, and released the accused after satisfying the requirements u/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

13. Thus, it appears from the testimony of P.w.1, who claimed to have visited the scene of offence along with her team, found the accused in possession of a bag containing Golden Style Whisky 180ml-25 i.e., twenty five bottles and when enquired, accused confessed that, he purchased said liquor in open market, with a view to sell the same to the public for higher price. Thereupon, she having come to the conclusion that, the possession of the accused with MO1 is without license and bills, seized the same under Ex.P1.

14. It is in this back drop of the facts of the prosecution case, accused was charged for the offence indicted above. It is evident from the material on record that, certain contraband was seized by P.w.1 from the alleged possession of accused, on the ground that, he was selling the liquor bottles without any valid license for higher price. It is not the case of prosecution that, the place of offence is an isolated one and far away from public view. Though, PW1 secured the mediators, the prosecution could not examine them, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up their evidence and the said circumstance throws any amount of doubt with regard to the alleged confession of the accused and seizure of property in question. If really the evidence of P.w.1 that accused confessed before her that, he was selling the liquor bottles for higher price without license is true, she should have seized some amounts from the possession of the accused, but that it is not the case of prosecution. Thereafter, PW1 forwarded the samples for chemical examination and filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation. The Analyst report covered by Ex.P3 indicates that, the sample was received on 16.04.2019, whereas, according to P.w.1, it was seized on 01/04/2019.

There appears delay of more than fifteen days in sending the sample for chemical examination. No plausible explanation, whatsoever has been offered by the prosecution about the delay in sending the sample bottles to the Analyst and it is one of the 4

CC No.176 of 2019

.J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi important circumstances for doubting the case of prosecution. In the case at hand, except the interested testimony of Police Official, no independent witnesses are examined and the alleged confession of the accused is not based on sound principle of law. These circumstance makes this court to return a finding of not guilt against the accused, for want of legal and acceptable evidence, which I do accordingly.

15. In the result, I find that, accused is not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time is over.

Prepared on the computer to my direct dictation and after correction and pronounced by me, through Video Conferencing, on this the 5th day of June, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru. FAC/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chintalapudi.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For PROSECUTION: For DEFENCE: P.W.1:A.F.Begam, Proh&Excise, Sub-Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi. --Nil--

EXHBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1: Mediators report Ex.P2: FIR --NIL-- Ex.P3: Analysis report Ex.P4: Destruction proceedings MOS marked: MO1-Golden Style Whisky

J.F.C.M.SMC, Eluru FAC/J.F.C.M/C.T.P. Typed by:S.Narasimharaju Stenographer 5

CC No.176 of 2019

.J.F.C.M., Chintalapudi

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO:176 of 2019 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:: CHINTALAPUDI.

Date of

Offence Complaint Apprehension Release0 Commence-Close of Sentence of accused or report on bail ment of trial trial of Order 01.04.2019 01.04.2019 -- -- 12.03.2020 12.03.2020 05.06.2020

Explanation for delay: --nil

Cr.No. : 61/2019 of Proh&Excise of Police Station

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Proh&Excise P.S.

Offence : Under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act

Name of the accused: Dara Boyina Venkateswara Rao, S/o Pentayya, age 37 yrs, Koya, R/o Lankalapalli village, T.Narasapuram mandal.

Finding: Found not guilty

Result: In the result, I find that, accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months, as per under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time is over.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC/JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHINTALAPUDI.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.