R Venkateswara Sharma

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PUNGANUR.

Present: - Sri R.Venkateswara Sharma

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Madanapalle FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class Punganur

Friday, the Eighteenth (18th) day of December, 2020

C.C.No. 275 OF 2015

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

Between : -

Smt. G.Vanaja Kumari, W/o G.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, aged about 35 years, r/o D.No.24-16-3, Taj Nagar, K.G.N. Street, Punganur Town, Post and Mandal, Chittoor District (A.P.) ….COMPLAINANT

And : -

Smt.K.Bharathamma, W/o K.Sreenivasulu, aged about 40 years, Junior Telugu Pandit, Z.P. High School, Madanapalle, Chittoor District (A.P.) ….ACCUSED

This case coming on 11.12.2020 through physical hearing before me in the presence of Sri.Y.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for Complainant and of Sri.M.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for accused and this matter having stood over till this day, for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1)Smt.G.Vanaja Kumari, W/o G.Chandrasekhar, resident of

Punganur, has filed this complaint against accused, for the offence, under

Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act, (for short, “the Act”), with the following allegations : -

2)Case of the complainant, as was projected is that, accused approached her and borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, as hand loan, 2 upon receiving the said amount by the accused, she had issued a cheque bearing No.181657, dated 28/01/2013 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on

ING Vysya Bank Limited, Madanapalle Branch in favour of complainant towards satisfaction of the debt. Thereafter, inpsite of repeated demands made by her, accused did not choose to pay the amount. It is further alleged that, when she presented the said cheque in her banker, namely, Sapthagiri

Grameena Bank, Punganur Branch, on 28.01.2013, for collection, it was returned as unpaid on 30.01.2013 with a cheque return memo, with an endorsement of “Account closed referred by Drawee Bank”. Thereupon, she got issued a legal notice on 04.02.2013 demanding her to pay the cheque amount and that, accused having received the said notice on 06/02/2013, did not pay the amount to the complainant. Thus, the complainant after fulfilling all the legal formalities had come up with the present complaint against the accused.

3)After recording sworn statement of the complainant, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable u/s.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, against the accused.

4)On appearance, copies of documents have been supplied to the accused as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5)Accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., explaining substance of accusation made against her. Her plea is one of total denial and she pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6)During the course of enquiry, the complainant herself is examined as PW.1 and got examined PW2 and PW3 and marked Ex.P1 to

P9. After closure of the evidence, on behalf of the complainant’s side, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against her, in the evidence of complainant’s witnesses. Her plea is one of total denial. However, she herself is examined as D.W.1 and got examined D.W.2 and marked Ex.D.1 to D.4, in support of her case.

3

7)I have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

8)The points for consideration are : -

(i) Whether the complainant had succeeded in establishing her case that, there is legally enforceable debt, and the cheque covered by Ex.P.1 is issued towards discharge of the said debt?

(ii) Whether the accused has dispelled the presumption, as envisaged under section 139 of N.I.Act, with preponderance of probabilities?

(iii) To what relief?

9) POINTS 1 & 2:- It is the assertion of PW,1 that accused approached her and obtained hand loan of Rs.7,00,000/- and got issued a cheque covered by Ex.P.1 on 28.01.2013 towards discharge of the loan taken and that when she presented the same in her banker, namely, Sapthagiri

Grameena Bank, Pungaur on 28.01.2013 it was returned with a cheuqe return memo covered by Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 with an endorsement that “account closed” which made her to issue legal notice under Ex.P.5 but accused failed to make repayment having received the said notice under

Ex.P.7, according to her.

10)The version of PW.2 (P.Pavan) is that, on 28.01.2013 when himself and husband of PW.1 and one Y.Raviindra Reddy are talking with each other, accused came and borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- for the treatment of her husband and issued a cheque in her favour.

11)What PW.3 (Y.Ravindra Reddy) brother of PW.1 has stated is that, when himself, his brother-in-law and PW.2 were talking with each other on 28.01.2013 accused came and borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- for the treatment of her husband and issued a cheque in her favour.

12)Learned Counsel for the complainant, would maintain that, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 sufficiently establishes about borrowing of amount in question by the accused, and issuance of cheque under Ex.P.1, which was dishonored, when presented 4

before her banker. She further would contend that since the accused has

admitted her signature on Ex.P.1, cheque, which was dishonoured when presented before her banker, she is entitled for the benefit of presumption available u/section 118 and 139 of N I Act.

13)In a case of prosecution under Section 138 of the Act, the complainant is bound to prove that, there is a legally enforceable debt and in discharge of the said debt, accused had issued a cheque, either whole or in part, and the said cheque was returned by the bank unpaid, for want of ‘sufficient funds’. If, the holder of a cheque establishes that, he/she legally received the cheque from the drawer, the presumption under section 139 of the Act, follows to the effect that, there exists a legally enforceable debt, in between the parties and the cheque was issued, for discharge of the said debt, and unless contrary is proved, the Court shall presume that, every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and the said presumption is rebuttable in nature and those presumptions shall come into play, when once accused admits his/her signature, on the documents in question.

14) Per contra, learned counsel for accused has mainly focused and contends that, no transaction whatsoever, as alleged took place and in fact, no scrap of paper in the form of documentary evidence is brought on record by the complainant establishing the factum of lending the amount in question. It is his further contention that, the complainant is a stranger to her and by misusing the cheque in question, which she had lost, this false complaint is filed. He further would contend that, PW.1 had no financial capacity of offering loan of Rs.7,00,000/- and in the absence of any such evidence establishing the financial capacity, case of complaint is to be viewed with suspicion. It is his further contention that, her husband is a member of private chits run by husband of PW.1, and having advantage of the same, by misusing the cheque in question, she was falsely implicated in this case and by saying so, he prays for acquittal of the accused.

5

15)There can be no doubt that, there is initial presumption in favor of the complainant and such presumption can be rebutted in view of reverse onus by adducing independent evidence or by eliciting the material in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, which is favorable to the accused and when the accused could be able to dispel such presumption, the burden again will shift on to the complainant to say that, the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. I do agree that, nowhere accused has taken any plea of disputing her signature on Ex.P.1 and more so, she has admitted that Ex.P.1 cheque belongs to her and as such, invariably, the complainant is entitled for benefit of presumption under section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act, as per the expression made by the Hon’ble

Apex court in the case of RANGAPPA Vs. SRI MOHAN 1

16)Undisputedly, as per the evidence on record, no document whatsoever, has been got executed by PW.1 in her favour from the accused at the time of allegedly lending the amount in question, for the reason of admission of PW.1 in her cross examination that, she did not obtain any pronote from the accused. Though, PWs.2 and 3 have testified in support of the case of PW.1 about lending of amount in question, nothing was spoken to by them as to whether or not any document in writing has been executed reflecting the alleged transaction. It is not a small amount and the amount allegedly lent towards hand loan by PW.1 is of Rs.7,00,000/- and when accused has taken a specific stand, the complainant is a stranger to her, it is highly unsafe to believe that PW.1 lent such huge amount, without getting executed any document reflecting the alleged transaction in her favour.

Moreover, no where, PW.1 had spoken about the date and time on which she allegedly lent the amount. It is only PWs.2 and 3 have stated that, amount was lent towards hand loan on 28.01.2013 which in my considered view is an improved version. It is for the complainant to prove that, accused has issued the cheque in question for discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and the circumstances under which the cheque was issued in her favour and that, unless this initial burden is discharged by the complainant 12010(3) ALT (Crl.) 339 SC 6 the presumption available under section 139 cannot be made use of against the accused, as was laid down in the case of G.B.LINGAM VS. VITTA

MURALI KRISHNA MURTHY AND ANOTHER 2. relied on by the learned counsel for accused.

17)In the case of SHAIK AYAZ VS. ABDUL KHADAR AND

ANOTHER 3. It has been observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in para-6 thus : - “Albeit a statutory presumption is created u/s.139 of the Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of a subsisting debt, the preponderance of judicial view is that the onus is upon the holder of the cheque to show that the cheque was issued in discharge of a subsisting debt. It was held in G.B.Lingam’s case that the initial burden rests upon the drawer. Though it was held initially by the Supreme Court in Modi Cemens Ltd., Vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (3) 1998 Crl.L.J. 1379 that once a cheque is issued by the drawer, a presumption u/s.139 of the Act would arise and that the drawer, however, would be entitled to unsettle the presumption by rebuttal evidence, it was held in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G.Hegde (4) 2008 (2) ALT (Crl.) 170 (SC) = 2008 (4) SCJ 749 = 2008 Crl.L.J. 1172 (SC) that the existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption.”

18)If the facts of the case at hand are examined, keeping the ratio laid down in the cases referred above in mind, evidently no document got obtained by PW.1 from the accused and that no date and time was mentioned either in the complaint or in her evidence evidencing the alleged transaction as contended by PW.1. Even if presuming for a moment, that the case of PW.1 is true, as to issuance of cheque covered by Ex.P.1 on 28.01.2013 but according to PWs.2 and 3 accused has taken hand loan on the same day, and in such a case, PW.1 ought not have presented the said cheque on the same day for collection, for the reason that, if accused has got such amount in her bank, and asked PW.1 to present the same on the same day, there is no necessity for accused to approach her for borrowing

Rs.7,00,000/- towards hand loan. This obviously suggests this court that, 21997(2) ALT (Crl.) 100 AP 32012(1) ALT (Crl.) 110 AP 7

PW.1 appears to have created a story, as if accused borrowed the said amount in the presence of PWs.2 and 3 on 28.01.2013, issued a cheque covered by Ex.P.1 asking her to present before the bank on the same day and thus, if the case of PW.1 coupled with the documents filed by her is tested on the touch stone of probabilities, there appears no nexus in the evidence brought on record for believing her version.

19)Nextly, it is canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused that, PW.1 had no financial capacity of offering the amount in question and in the absence of establishing the factum of financial capacity of PW.1 with legal and acceptable evidence, it cannot be said that the complainant is able to discharge the burden lies on her and in support of her case, she has placed reliance on a decision reported in JOHN K.ABRAHAM VS. SIMON

C.ABRAHAM AND ANOTHER 4 .

20)PW.1 in her cross examination has stated that, she is house wife and that she is not doing any work or business. She denied when suggested that one Chenga Reddy, junior paternal uncle of her husband is doing chit business. PWs.1 to 3 though in one voice, have stated that parents of PW.1 had given some amount for purchasing a new house and out of the said amount, she gave the amount to the accused, in fact, there is no consistency in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 on the said aspect for the reason that, according to PW.1, she is living in a rented house, whereas, PW.2 has stated that, he is tenant of PW.1. To strengthen her case that she has got financial capacity, PW.1 had exhibited Ex.P.8 pass book stands in her name of

Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Punganur and Ex.P.9 certificate issued by Chief

Manager, Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Punganur. It is of course, true that, some amounts have been transferred from the account of complainant to the account of one Veeramma, which is evident from Ex.P.9, but the said transaction was made on 31.10.2011. The recitals under Ex.P.8 pass book though speaks about the transactions which runs into lakhs of rupees, but the fact remains is that, as on the date of alleged issuance of cheque by the accused i.e., on 28.01.2013 the balance amount standing at the credit of 42014(2) ALD (Crl.) 61 SC 8

PW.1 is only Rs.3,06,733/-. It is not the case of the complainant that, she had lent the amount from her savings kept in her house or by withdrawing amount from some of her accounts relating to other branches. When the complainant is not even aware of the date when substantial amount of

Rs.700000 was advanced by her apart from the factum of her failure to place sufficient documentary evidence, showing her financial capacity of lending such huge amount, without any hesitation, it can be said that the amount allegedly lent by her is an unaccounted money. The burden of establishing the financial capacity heavily lies on the complainant to have shown that, she had required funds for having advanced money to the accused and failure on her part to substantiate the same with legal and acceptable evidence entitles the accused to get benefit of dispelling the presumption.

21)In the case ofBASA LINGAPPA VS. MUDI

BASAPPA 5decided on 09.04.2019 by the Hon’ble Apex court after referring to a catena of decisions including the presumptions under section 118 and 139 of the Act has held that, it was incumbent upon the complainant to have explained his financial capacity and the court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence. Therefore, if the case of complainant and accused is examined, with reference to the materials brought on record, case of accused appears to be more probable than the case of complainant and that, when the complainant failed to establish with positive material as to her financial affluence of lending such huge sum, the conclusion that can be arrived is that, the amount allegedly lent is not legally recoverable and in such a case, it is difficult to say that the cheque in question was issued towards legally enforceable debt and that the complainant has got financial affluence of lending such huge amount.

22)It is further canvassed by the learned counsel for accused that,

DW.1 (accused herein) came to know after the death of her husband that, her husband has got acquaintance with one Chenga Reddy, father-in-law of

PW.1 who is running private chits whereof, he joined as a member and 5CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.636 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8641/2018) 9 during search in her house, she found noticed Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 where under it reveals that her husband has paid an amount of Rs.7,19,000/- under Ex.D.1 on 09.02.2013 and Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.18,500/- under Ex.D.2 and that

Rs.86,650/- on 23.01.2013 under Ex.D.3 and on the same day another amount of Rs.56,000/- has been received by Chandra Sekhar Reddy towards chit transaction under Ex.D.4. PW.1 has bluntly denied about her husband doing chits business along with her father-in-law. DW.1 in her cross examination denied when suggested by the complainant that her father-in- law and her husband run the private chits. When DW.1 has categorically stated that she does not know G.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, husband of PW.1 and the chit transaction in between her husband and husband and father-in- law of PW.1, and taken a specific stand by producing Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 that, she came to know about the payments made by her husband to the father-in- law and husband of PW.1, burden again shifts on the complainant to disprove the said factum by summoning the elders in whose presence the alleged transaction took place, in order to discharge the reverse onus lies on the complainant. However, admittedly, no such effort has been made by the complainant, for the obvious reasons known to her and that except denying that her husband and father-in-law used to run private chits, no contra evidence is let in by the complainant disputing the signatures of Chenga

Reddy and Chandra Sekhar Reddy on Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. Had the complainant examined any one of the elder to the said transactions under

Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4, there could be some justification in believing the version of PW.1. On the other hand, accused got examined DW.2 A.Krishna

Murthy, one of the elder to Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 to prove the factum of the transaction allegedly took place under Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. In his cross examination what DW.2 has stated is that husband of accused personally came to him and asked him to act as mediator and according to him, all the endorsements under Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 are written by Chenga Reddy.

Nothing necessiated DW.2, an independent witness to speak against the complainant and in support of accused.

10

23)In the case of KALI RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL

PRADESH 6, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that one of the cordial principles which has always to be kept in view in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases is that, a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of offence with which he is charged. It was further observed that there are certain cases in which statutory presumptions arise regarding guilt of accused but the burden even in those cases is upon the prosecution to prove the existence of facts which have to be present before presumption can be drawn.

24)On a careful scanning of oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties, despite accused has taken a stand that she came to know about the chit transactions held in between her husband and husband of

PW.1 and her father-in-law only after the death of her husband and produced

Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4, evidently, the complainant has not placed any contra evidence to disprove the factum of alleged transactions covered by Ex.D.1 to

Ex.D.4 where under husband of accused has paid the amounts. The onus in these type of cases upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of accused which may reasonably be true, even though it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal. Thus, I am of the considered view that the complainant failed to discharge the reverse onus lies on her, in order to disprove the factum of the alleged transaction that took place in between the husband of accused and her husband and father-in-law as was depicted in Ex.D.1 to

Ex.D.4 and as such I have no hesitation to say that case of accused appears to be more probable than the case of complainant and thereby I hold that accused could be able to dispel the presumption envisaged under section 139 of the Act by adducing probable defence. These points are answered accordingly, in favour of accused and against the complainant.

61973(2) SCC 808 11

25)POINT NO.3 : -In view of my findings on points 1 and 2, I hold that the complainant failed to establish her case within the parameters of section 138 of the Act against the accused and as such, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed and consequently, accused is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stands cancelled.

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

pronounced by me in open Court by uploading the judgment in e-courts, on

this 18 th day of December, 2020.

Sd/- R.VENKATESWARA SHARMA

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MADANAPALLE

FAC JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

PUNGANUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for :

ComplainantAccused

PW.1G.Vanaja KumariDW.1Bharathamma

PW.2P.PavanDW.2K.Krishna Murthy

PW.3Y.Raveedra Reddy

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant

Ex.P.128.01.2013Original Cheque bearing No.181657 drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Madanapalle Branch, for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-

Ex.P.228.01.2013Original Counter foil of Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Punganur Branch

Ex.P.330.01.2013Original Cheque return memo issued by ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Madanapalle Branch

Ex.P.431.01.2013Original Cheque return memo issued by 12

Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Punganur Branch

Ex.P.504.02.2013Office Copy of Legal Notice

Ex.P.604.02.2013Original Postal Receipt

Ex.P.7--Original Postal Acknowledgment Card

Ex.P.8--S.B. A/c. No.82740879 Pass Book of Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Punganur

Ex.P.9--Certificate issued by Chief Manager, Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Punganur

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Accused

Ex.D.109.02.2013Entry in the Note Book for Rs.7,19,000/-, transaction between the husband of accused and husband of P.W.1

Ex.D.209.02.2013Entry in the Note Book, for Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.18,500/-, transaction between accused husband and G.Chenga Reddy, which was signed by G.Chenga Reddy(Father-in-law of P.W.1).

Ex.D.323.01.2013Entry in the Note Book, for Rs.86,650/- transaction between accused husband and G.Chenga Reddy, in respect of chits, which was signed by G.Chenga Reddy (Father-in-law of P.W.1).

Ex.D.423.01.2013Entry in the Note Book, for Rs.56,000/-, transaction between accused husband and G.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, in respect of chits, which was signed by G.Chandra Sekhar Reddy (Husband of P.W.1) Id/- RVS

II AJMFC, MPL

FAC JMFC, PGR

//True copy//

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MADANAPALLE

FAC JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

PUNGANUR

13

FORM NO.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calendar and cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur

1.Offence:30.01.2013

2.Report of complaint: 25.02.2013

3.Apprehension of accused:26.06.2013

4.Release on bail:26.06.2013

5.Commencement of trial:04.05.2015

6.Close of trial:13.12.2019

7.Sentence of order:18.12.2020

8.Explanation of delay and :For non production of witnesses remarks

Judgment in Calendar Case No.275 of 2015 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Punganur

Complainant : Smt. G.Vanaja Kumari, W/o G.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, aged about 35 years, r/o D.No.24-16-3, Taj Nagar, K.G.N. Street, Punganur Town, Post and Mandal, Chittoor District (A.P.)

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

K.Bharathamma40K.Sreenivasulu

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

Junior Telugu Pandit HinduMadanapalleMadanapalle ZP High School

Offence:Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act –

Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the 14 account.

Finding:Accused is found not guilty of the offence u/s.138 r/w 142 of

N.I. Act

Sentence:In view of my findings on points 1 and 2, I hold that the complainant failed to establish her case within the parameters of section 138 of the Act against the accused and as such, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed and consequently, accused is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stands cancelled

Sd/- R.VENKATESWARA SHARMA

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MADANAPALLE

FAC JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

PUNGANUR

//True copy//

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MADANAPALLE

FAC JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

PUNGANUR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUNGANUR

Present : - Sri.R.Venkateswara Sharma II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Madanapalle FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class Punganur

Friday, the Eighteenth (18th) day of December, 2020

C.C.No.229 of 2015

[Crime No.39/2015 of Somala PS] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Between : -

The State of A.P. represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Somala Police Station ….COMPLAINANT

And : -

1. Masagani Gopi, S/o Late Krishnaiah, 32 years, Pasalamanda, H/o Pedda Upparapalle, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District (A.P.)

2. Masagani Usha, W/o M.Gopi, 28 years, Pasalamanda, H/o Pedda Upparapalle, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District (A.P.)

3. Jalipeti Chinna Papa, W/o Ramaiah, 48 years, Matam Voddipalle, H/o Avulapalle, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District (A.P.) ….ACCUSED

This case coming on 11.12.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri.K.V.Suryanarayana Rao, Advocate for accused; upon perusing the documents on record, and after hearing both sides 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)This case arises out of Crime No.39/2015 for the offence u/s.353, 448, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, registered by Somala PS on the complaint given by P.W.1 (K.Sreenivasulu, VRO), with the following allegations: - 2

2)Succinctly stated, the case of prosecution, according to P.W.1, in a nutshell, is that, under Indiramma scheme Government has sanctioned a house to A3, resident of Pasalamanda, who in turn sold the said house to A1 and A2 and later on coming to know the same, PW.3 daughter-in-law of A3 approached the District Collector claiming share in the said house.

Thereafter, on the instructions of District Collector, Mandal Revenue

Officer, Somala directed Deputy Tashildar, Somala to enquire into the matter and in pursuance thereof, PW.4. the Deputy Tahsildar after conducting enquiry, seized the said house under a cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and taken over its possession. It is further alleged that, A1 and A2 break open the locks and entered into the house and inspite of directions given by him, they did not vacate and while so, on 04.08.2015, when himself and VRA went there to serve notice, both A1 and A2 abused them in filthy language by caught holding his shirt. A3 also abused them in filthy language and in that connection, he filed report.

3)On the strength of the report given by him, P.W.5 (A.Lakshminarayana) Sub-Inspector of Police, Yerravaripalem Police

Station, registered crime, recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene, issued notice to accused u/s.41(A) Cr.P.C. Notice. Later, on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences indicated above.

4)In this case, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable u/s.353, 448, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, against A1 to A3.

5)On appearance made by accused, copies of documents along with relevant material, have been supplied to them, as required u/s.207

Cr.P.C.

6)On the epitome of the facts and the documentation relevant, placed on record by the prosecution, enabling the prosecution to discharge its initial onus, accused were examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against them for the offences u/s.353, 448, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC, read over and explained to him, in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

3

7)In order to substantiate the allegations leveled by the prosecution, against the accused, it had examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7.

8)Having concluded the evidence, on behalf of prosecution, the incriminating material found against accused, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, was put to them, in the form of a questionnaire, as required

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. Their plea is one of total denial. They did not examine any witnesses on their behalf.

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

10)Now the question that arises for the consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences u/s.353, 448, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11)POINT: -The crux of the case of the prosecution, as was depicted from the material brought on record, is that, A3, in whose favour

Government has sanctioned house under Indiramma scheme she, without any manner of right, sold away the same to A1 and A2 and later, on the petition filed by PW.3, daughter-in-law of A3 before the District Collector, and on the instructions of the District Collector, PW.4 the Deputy Tahsildar enquired into the matter got A1 and A2 vacated from the house and when

PW.1 and VRA went to the scene of offence on 04.08.2015 at 10.30 AM, for serving notice on accused, they allegedly attacked on them, abused them in filthy language which made PW.1 to file the present complaint.

12)As could be seen from the testimony of PW.1, (K.Sreenivasulu), VRO, that on the instructions of Tahsildar, covered by

Ex.P.5 proceedings, himself, PW.2 and PW.4 went to the house of A3 which was assigned to her by the Government under Indiramma scheme and found

A1 and A2 residing in the said house and as the said house was assigned to

A3 under Indiramma scheme and that selling and purchasing is not valid, instructed A1 and A2 to vacate the house, kept their belongings outside the house, locked and sealed in the presence of Bathala Chinnabba (LW.4), 4

Derangula Ramakrishna (LW.5), Bathala Venkatramana (LW.6), Derangula

Dhanalakshmi (LW.7), Bandi Veerappa (LW.8) and PW.3 under a cover of panchanama covered by Ex.P.2. It is his contention that thereafter A1 break open the lock of the gate and entered into the said house and on coming to know the same through PW.2, both went to the scene asked them to vacate and that on 04.08.2015, when they went to serve notice, accused obstructed them in discharging their duties and abused them in filthy language.

According to him, Lws.3 to 8 [Yeddula Chote Saheb (LW.3), Bathala

Chinnabba (LW.4), Derangula Ramakrishna (LW.5), Bathala Venkatramana (LW.6), Derangula Dhanalakshmi (LW.7) and Bandi Veerappa (LW.8) ] rescued them.

13)The testimony of PW.2 (G.Muneswara), VRA, indicates about himself, Pws.1 and 4 visiting the scene of offence, got the house vacated by

A1 and A2 on 30.04.2015 and later on coming to know that A1 break open the locks and residing therein, they went to the said house to serve notice and at that time, accused caught hold the shirt of PW.1 and obstructed them in discharging their duties.

14)The version of PW.4 (P.Venkataswamy), Deputy Tahsildar then, worked at Somala is that, on the report given by PW.3, Tahsildar directed him to conduct enquiry under Ex.P.5 and in pursuance thereof, he along with Pws.1 and 2 went to the scene along with police, informed to the accused to vacate the said house, kept their belongings outside the house, locked and sealed under a cover of mahazar under Ex.P.2 and to that effect, he submitted report under Ex.P.3 to Tahsildar, and under Ex.P.4 to Joint

Collector. Thereafter, on 04.08.2015, Pws.1 and 2 on coming to know that accused break open the locks in violation of proceedings covered under

Ex.P.2, Pws.1 and 2 went there to serve final notice and at that time accused obstructed their duties.

15)Learned counsel for the accused has conceded mainly questioning the procedure that was adopted under section 145 Cr.P.C. by the officials concerned and tried to draw the attention of this court that due process of law has not been followed, in promulgating the said proceedings 5 and that at the behest of PW.3, daughter-in-law of A3, who never resided in the said house, this false complaint has been filed against accused and that the inconsistency found noticed in the evidence on record, apart from failure of prosecution in not filing the relevant documentary proof and uncorroborated testimony of witnesses examined are some of the circumstances for entertaining reasonable doubt about the story set out by the prosecution and hence, he prays for acquittal of the accused.

16)Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would maintain that, the evidence brought on record is sufficient enough for recording a finding of guilt against the accused and nothing necessitated the official witnesses to speak against them with whom, they had no enmity at any point of time and thus, prays for appropriate punishment.

17)Though there cannot be any dispute about assigning the house in question to A3 under Indiramma scheme, including selling and purchasing of houses under the said scheme is invalid, the fact remains which is evident from the testimony of Pws.1, 2 and 4 is that, they have no record to show that, the house was allotted to A3 under ‘Indiramma Gruha

Pathakam’. Pws.1 and 2 have admitted in their cross examination that, they have no record to show that, the house was allotted to A3 under Indiramma scheme. PW.2 has further stated in his cross examination that, he cannot say whether the said house was constructed under Indiramma scheme or not.

PW.4 Deputy Tahsildar, who said to have conducted enquiry, on the instructions of Tahsildar has stated that, he did not enquire when the house was constructed by A3. PW.5 Sub Inspector of police, in his cross examination has stated that, he had not collected any record to show that the disputed house was assigned to A3 under Indiramma housing scheme. It is for the prosecution to come up with specific documentary evidence establishing the factum of ownership of house in question, in order to attract the ingredients of section 448 of IPC and such material for the obvious reasons known to investigating agency has not been placed on record, which in my considered view is certainly fatal. Be that as it may.

6

18)The short question involved in the instant case is, whether or not, accused have obstructed the duties of Pws.1, 2 and 4 when they came to discharge their duties on 04.08.2015 and that, the material brought on record is sufficient for believing the case against the accused as was projected by the prosecution.

19)Undisputedly, issue in question, came to light when PW.3

J.Subhashini, daughter-in-law of A3 allegedly gave a representation before the District Collector, claiming her right in the house in question, who according to prosecution case, directed the MRO to enquire into the matter, who in turn, instructed PW.4 to enquire and in consequence thereof, PW.4 allegedly conducted enquiries, seized the house under Ex.P.2 and furnished his report to all the concerned under Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.

20)The procedure that is required to be adopted in case of breach of peace where a dispute concerning land or water has been clearly adumbrated in Section 145 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case, there is no scrap of material showing that, there is breach of peace. PW.5 the Investigating

Officer, in his cross examination has stated that, prior to issuance of proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., no incident was brought to his notice in respect of the disputed house. PW.5 ought to have enquired about proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. issued under Ex.P.5 and enquired in those lines, however, his evidence, indicates that he had no knowledge about issuance of section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings. His evidence would clearly indicates that, no evidence was brought to his notice in respect of disputed house. The proceedings under Ex.P.5 would indicate directions to PW.5 to promulgate the orders and book a case against both parties under section 107

Cr.P.C. It appears that, no such necessity of registering case under section 107 Cr.P.C. against both parties arose, according to the testimony of PW.5, the Investigating Officer. The said proceedings were issued on 11.11.2014.

Though PW.4, Deputy Tahsildar claimed to have seized the house in question on 30.04.2015 in the presence of witnesses, whose names have been referred under Ex.P.2, the prosecution could not examine any of the witnesses, except the official witness PW.1. Had the prosecution examined independent witnesses, the fact should have come to light as to whether there 7 was any breach of peace, at the scene of offence as alleged. More so, the report covered by Ex.P.2 does not contain the signatures of accused which is in clear violation of the procedure mentioned under section 145 of Cr.P.C.

Though PW.4 claims that, he has conducted enquiry, by examining the witnesses, no material whatsoever, is brought on record in support of his claim. Had PW.4 filed necessary documentary evidence, as to the enquiry, he allegedly conducted, this court would have got an opportunity of appreciating the case of prosecution, but no such material evidently has not been collected either by the Investigating Officer or produced by PW.4.

Moreover, in his cross examination, what PW.4 had stated is that, he does not know the procedure of issuance of proceedings under section 145

Cr.P.C. and how long A1 and A2 are residing in the said house. He further stated that, he does not know whether there were any disputes with regard to the house prior to the date of complaint given by PW.3 and that whether

Tahsildar has conducted any enquiry by recording the statements of both parties before issuance of Ex.P.5. He stated that no proceedings under

Roc.No.393/2015, dt.15.04.2015 were issued by Tahsildar. His self contradicting evidence goes to the root of the case of prosecution.

21)Though, it is the case of prosecution that, A3 sold away the house to A1 and A2 and husband of PW.3 had given away his right in the said house, virtually, no such documentary evidence is brought on record by the prosecution as has been admitted by PW.5 in his cross examination.

Even the copy of report or representation said to have been given by PW.3 to the District Collector also has not been filed before this court by the

Investigating Agency. PW.3 though has stated in her cross examination that she had given copy of petition submitted to District Collector to the

Tahsildar, PW.5 for the obvious reasons known to him, did not collect it and filed. He did not even examine the MRO. The material secured by the

Investigating Agency in so far as selling and purchasing of the house in question, by A3 in favour of A1 and A2 ignoring the right of PW.3 has not been satisfactory and placing on such inconsistency material, it is highly unsafe to say that A1 to A3 have violated the proceedings under section 145 8 of Cr.P.C. particularly, when the issuance of said proceedings itself is not in accordance with law.

22)According to PW.5, the Investigating Officer, duty of PW.1 is to maintain village revenue records pertaining to land and collection of land revenue taxes and issuance of caste certificates. He further admitted that

PW.3 has lodged a report against her husband A3 and husband of A3 under section 498-A of IPC. Though PW.3 has admitted that subsequently the matter was compromised and they are living together, the fact remains is that, there was enmity between PW.3, A3 and her husband. Though Pws.`1 and 2 claims that, they have visited the house in question for serving final notice to A1 and A2 on 04.08.2015, he admitted in his cross examination that on 30.05.2015 their office has received notice sent by A1 and A2 stating that without following due procedure, they have taken the law in to their hands and got vacated them. If that could be so, it is for PW.1 to properly explain under what circumstances and under whose instructions, they proceeded to the house of accused on 04.08.2015 for serving final notice. In fact, there is no record to that effect. It is not their case that, on the instructions of either MRO or PW.4, they proceeded to the said house for serving final notice, having admitted that PW.3 never resided in the said house. He further admitted that, they have not served any written notices on

A1 and A2 directing them to vacate the house or to attend enquiry. PW.1 further admitted about the case filed by PW.3 against A3. Either PW.1 or

PW.5 ought to have filed proceedings of the Collector, however, for the reasons best known to them, they did not produce. PW.5 in his cross examination has admitted that, the locks of the doors of the house were not break open by the accused, but the locks of the main gate of the house are break open. If that could be so, PW.5 ought to have conducted a panchamana and should have seized the lock and key. Such effort for the obvious reasons known to him has not been made. There are number of material inconsistencies in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and the said inconsistencies and omissions in my considered view are certainly material to the case of prosecution. Non examination of independent witnesses and failure of prosecution in filing relevant 9 documentary evidence are some of the important circumstances for doubting the case of prosecution as was set out. The prosecution ought to have filed relevant material showing the nature of the duties of PW.1 and PW.2 and the proceedings if any, under which Pws.1 and 2 allegedly went to the house of accused on 04.08.2015 for coming to the conclusion that, the duties entrusted to Pws.1 and 2 are integrally connected to their regular duties and in the absence of such positive material, particularly, in the absence of examining any independent witnesses, no significance can be attached to the testimony of PW.3, who is interested in prosecuting A3.

23)Therefore, for all these reasons indicated supra, I am of the considered view that, the material placed on record is not sufficient to record a finding of guilt against the accused, for any of the charges made and something more is required to be produced by the prosecution and apparently, the prosecution has suppressed some material facts in the form of oral and documentary evidence and thus without there being any such material, accused cannot be made to suffer by recording a finding of guilt. In other words, I hold that, the material brought on record is not reliable, consistent and trustworthy and as such, A1 to A3 are entitled for benefit of doubt for the failure of the prosecution in bringing legal and acceptable evidence against them beyond all reasonable doubt.

24)In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, I find that, A1 to A3 are not guilty of the offences punishable u/s.353, 448, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C by extending benefit of doubt. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force till 6 months as provided u/s.437(A) Cr.P.C. and thereafter, they shall stand cancelled.

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

pronounced by me, on this the 18 th day of December, 2020.

Sd/- R.VENKATESWARA SHARMA

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MADANAPALLE

FAC JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

PUNGANUR

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for :

ProsecutionAccused

PW.1K.Sreenivasulu

PW.2T.Muneeswara

PW.3J.Subhashini

PW.4E.Venkataswamy

PW.5A.Lakshminarayana

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution

Ex.P.104.08.2015Report given by PW.1 to the police

Ex.P.230.04.2015Attested copy of panchanama

Ex.P.330.04.2015Report of PW.4 submitted to the Tahsildar, Somala

Ex.P.430.04.2015Attested true copy of report of PW.4 to the Joint Collector, Chittoor

Ex.P.511.11.2014Attested true copy of proceedings in Roc.A/393/2014 issued by the Tahsildar, Somala

Ex.P.604.08.2015FIR in Cr.No.39/2015 of Somala PS

Ex.P.704.08.2015Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Accused Nil

Id/-RVS

II AJMFC, MPL

FAC JMFC, PGR

//True copy//

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MADANAPALLE

FAC JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

PUNGANUR

11

FORM NO.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calendar and cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur

1.Offence:04.08.2015

2.Report of complaint: 04.08.2015

3.Apprehension of accused:A1 to A3 : 05.09.2015

4.Release on bail:A1 to A3 : 05.09.2015

5.Commencement of trial:02.01.2020

6.Close of trial:26.02.2020

7.Sentence of order:18.12.2020

8.Explanation of delay and :For non production of witnesses remarks

Judgment in Calendar Case No.229 of 2015 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Punganur

Complainant : The Sub Inspector of Police, Somala [Cr.No.39/2015]

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

1. Masagani Gopi1. 321. Late Krishnaiah

2. Masagani Usha2. 282. M.Gopi

3. Jalipeti Chinna Papa3. 483. Ramaiah

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

1. Pasalamanda, H/o Pedda Upparapalle All are All are2. Pasalamanda, H/o Pedda All belongs to living by HindusUpparapalleSomala Mandal coolie

3. Matam Voddipalle, H/o Avulapalle

Offence:Section 353 IPC – Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty

Section 448 IPC – Punishment for house trespass

Section 506 r/w 34 IPC – Punishment for criminal intimidation 12

Finding:A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable u/s.353, 448, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

Sentence:In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, I find that,

A1 to A3 are not guilty of the offences punishable u/s.353, 448, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C by extending benefit of doubt. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force till 6 months as provided u/s.437(A) Cr.P.C. and thereafter, they shall stand cancelled.

SD/-R.VENKATESWARA SHARMA

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MADANAPALLE

FAC JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

PUNGANUR

//True copy//

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MADANAPALLE

FAC JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

PUNGANUR

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur

PRESENT:- Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madanapalle.

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Punganur

CC. No. 479 OF 2019

Friday, this the 18th (Eighteenth) day of December, 2020. Between:­

The State of A.P. represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Somala P.S.

…Complainant And:

Peddineni Tirupathi Swamy @ Vamsi, Age 27 years, S/o Guravaiah, Caste by Kamma, Car Driver, Salakanuthala Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District, Now at Behind MRO Office, Bangarupalem Village, Chittoor District. …Accused / A1 

This case is coming on this day before me, for hearing, in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for Sate and the accused appeared in person and the accused having admitted the offences, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, SomalaP.S. laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.59/2019 for the offences punishable Under Secs. 457, 380 or 411 IPC. 

2.The case of prosecution is that the case of house breaking by night that occurred on the intervening night of 25/26.05.2019 at the house of the complainant / Shaik Anwer Basha and reported in the PS on 27.05.2019 at 11.30 AM, where in some unknown offenders gained ingress in to the resident house of LW1 / Shaik Anwer Basha by breaking main door locks and committed theft of (1) Two Gold rings weighing about 20 grams, worth about Rs.30,000/­ (2) One Silver leg chains and one silver waist (Vaddanam), weighing about 600 grams, worth about Rs. 12000/­ total worth of Rs. 42000/­ from almerach located at bed room and absconding along with stolen properties.

3.During the course of investigation, LW11 / D. Sreenivasulu / SI of Police examined witnesses Lws 1 to 5 and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and handed over the case file to LW13 / C. Lakshmikath / SI of Police and LW13 / SI of police investigation from LW11 and investigated the case and on 25.10.2019, LW13 / SI of Police received information through the phone call from LW12 / Ramachandra / Inspector of Police Nellore Rural Circle, AP Regarding the involvement of the accused / A1 to A3 concerned in Indukurupeta P.S. in Cr. No. 121/2019 U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC and arrested the accused seized the property i.e., two pairs silver anklets and one silver vaddanam (Molathadu), weighing about 500 grams and one gold ring, weighing about 6 grams, concerned in Somala PS in Cr. No. 59/2019 and send the accused to Judicial Custody.

2

4.During the course of investigation on 28.10.2019 LW13 / SI of Police obtained attested copies FIR, arrest, confession, seizure mahazarnama and remand report concerned in Cr. No. 121/2019 of Indukurupeta PS Nellore and also received case property i.e., two pairs silver anklets and one silver vaddanam (Molathadu), weighing about 500 grams and one gold ring, weighing about 6 gram which is stolen property in Somala PS case from SHO Indukurupeta PS through HC 2479 of Somala PS and on 30.10.2019 LW13 / SI of Police received PT Warrant against the accused / A1 to A3 from Hon’ble Court of JMFC Court, Punganur and brought the accused / A1 to A3 from District Jail, Ongole, Prakasham District, AP and produced the accused / A1 to A3 before the Hon’ble Court of JMFC, Punganur on 01.11.2019 and LW9 / Sd Masthan / VRO Kanduru Village of Somala Mandal, who conducted the indentification pared, identifies the stolen property with LW1 / Shaik Anwer Basha and prepared the indentification mahazar of the instruction of LW13 / SI of Police and LW13 obtained certified copies in Cr. No. 121/2019 of Indukurupeta PS through HC 2649 from Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Court Nellore and send the case property ie., two pairs silver anklets and one silver vaddanam (Molathadu), weighing about 500 grams and one gold ring, weighing about 6 grams filed in this court, along with 66 through Court Constable.

5. After filing of charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of offence Under Sec.457, 380 or 411 IPC against the accused / A1.

6. On appearance of the accused / A1, the copies of documents furnished, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

7.A2 and A3 called absent. As could be seen from the record, on account of Covid­19, both the accused are not appearing since many adjournments. However, A1, who is detained in jail is being produced from jail through video linkage from time to time. Record further indicates that A1 has been in jail since 04.11.2019, but for the absence of A2 and A3, matter could not be proceeded with. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice, case against A2 and A3 can be separated and case against A1 can be proceeded with.

Accordingly, case against A2 and A3 is separated and renumbered. Office to assign new number to the case against A2 and A3. Police are directed to file fresh copies of papers in the new case.

8.A1 produced from Central Prison, Kadapa. He is examined u/s.239

Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences u/s.457 and 380 of IPC framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he voluntarily admitted about committing the offence alleged against him. His admission appears to be purely voluntary without any threat or coercion. Recording the admission of A1 which is made purely voluntary without any threat and coercion, I find A1 is guilty of the offences u/s.457 and 380 of IPC.

3

9.Heard A1 regarding quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. He submits that, he is having wife and children, who are totally depending on him. It appears from the record that, A1 is in jail from 04.11.2019. Therefore, taking into consideration of the properties involved in this case and the period for which A1 is in jail, I sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone, apart from paying fine of Rs.100/­ each for the offences u/s.457 and 380 of IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The period of remand i.e., from 04.11.2019 to 18.12.2020 [409 days], which A1 has already undergone in jail during enquiry of trial is ordered to be given set off as provided u/s.428 of

Cr.P.C. The sentences ordered under two heads indicated above, shall run concurrently. Unmarked case property is concerned, separate orders will be passed at the time of disposal of case against A2 and A3.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 18th day of December, 2020.

Sd/­ R. Venkateswara Sharma II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

­NIL­

R. Venkateswara Sharma II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur

PRESENT:- Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madanapalle.

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Punganur

CC. No. 102 OF 2020

Friday, this the 18th (Eighteenth) day of December, 2020.

Between:­

The State of A.P. represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Somala P.S.

…Complainant And:

Peddineni Tirupathi Swamy @ Vamsi, Age 27 years, S/o Guravaiah, Caste by Kamma, Car Driver, Salakanuthala Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District, Now at Behind MRO Office, Bangarupalem Village, Chittoor District. …Accused / A3 

This case is coming on this day before me, for hearing, in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for Sate and the accused appeared in person and the accused having admitted the offences, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chowdepalle P.S. laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.55/2019 for the offences punishable Under Secs. 457, 380 or 411 IPC. 

2.The case of prosecution is that; on 23.06.2019 at 9.00 PM and 24.06.2019 at 6.00 AM at the house of the Munaswamy Naidu house, Singirigunta Village in which unknown offenders gained ingress in to the house of the complainant / P. Munaswamy Naidu by break open the lock of the door, then break open the cupboard and committed theft of (1) one pair of big silver candles sticks. (2) One pair of small silver candle sticks all weighing about 500 grams, while the complainant / P. Munaswamy Naiud and his family members temporarily absent in the house and LW1 registered the case and investigated by case, examined the witnesses and drafted scene observation mahazar in the presence of Lws 7 and 8 and prepared rough sketch of it and A1 produced on 06.11.2019 before the Hon’ble Court on PT Warrant, who was arrested on 24.09.2019 at 4.30 PM under the covert of a mahazar in the presence of mediators (Lws 9 and 10) by LW13 Inspector of Police Nellore Rural Circle in Cr. No. 121/2019 of Indukurupeta PS and interrogation of the accused and admitted that the accused along with A2 and A3, accused have also committed this commission of offence along with similar offences, under the cover of mahazar in the presence of mediators duly signed by them and accused / A2 and A3 were produced on 12.10.2019 before the Hon’ble Court on PT Warrant, who was arrested on 01.10.2019 at 01.10.2019 at 1.00 PM by LW13 / Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Circel in Cr. No. 121/2019 and recorded their confession statement and recovered stolen property.

2

3.That on 09.12.2019 at 10.30 AM the LW14 / VRO conducted property identification parade with LW1 / P. Munaswamy Naidu and submitting mahazar accordingly and during the parade the LW1 / P. Munaswamy Naidu duly identified the stolen property as it is own and the accused / A1 to A3 have liable for punishment U/.Sec. 457, 380 or 411 IPC for having possession of stolen property concerned in this case. 

4. After filing of charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of offence Under Sec.457, 380 or 411 IPC against the accused / A3.

5. On appearance of the accused / A3, the copies of documents furnished, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.A1 and A2 called absent. As could be seen from the record, on account of Covid­19, both the accused are not appearing since many adjournments. However, A3, who is detained in jail is being produced from jail through video linkage from time to time. Record further indicates that A3 has been in jail since 08.11.2019, but for the absence of A1 and A2, matter could not be proceeded with. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice, case against A1 and A2 can be separated and case against A3 can be proceeded with. Accordingly, case against A1 and A2 is separated and renumbered. Office to assign new number to the case against A1 and A2. Police are directed to file fresh copies of papers in the new case.

7.A3 produced from Central Prison, Kadapa. He is examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences u/s.457 and 380 of IPC framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he voluntarily admitted about committing the offence alleged against him. His admission appears to be purely voluntary without any threat or coercion. Recording the admission of A3 which is made purely voluntary without any threat and coercion, I find A3 is guilty of the offences u/s.457 and 380 of IPC.

8.Heard A3 regarding quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. He submits that, he is having wife and children, who are totally depending on him. It appears from the record that, A3 is in jail from 08.11.2019. Therefore, taking into consideration of the properties involved in this case and the period for which A3 is in jail, I sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone, apart from paying fine of Rs.100/­ each for the offences u/s.457 and 380 of IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The period of remand i.e., from 08.11.2019 to 18.12.2020 [405 days], which A3 has already undergone in jail during enquiry of trial is ordered to be given set off as provided u/s.428 of Cr.P.C. The sentences ordered under two heads indicated above, shall run concurrently. Unmarked case property is concerned, separate orders will be passed at the time of disposal of case against A1 and A2.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 18th day of December, 2020.

Sd/­ R. Venkateswara Sharma II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

­NIL­

Sd/­ R. Venkateswara Sharma II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle. FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur

PRESENT:- Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Madanapalle

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Punganur

CC. No. 244 OF 2020

Cr. No. 18/2020 of Chowdepalle P.S.

Friday, this the 6th (Sixth) day of November, 2020.

Between:­

The State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Chowdepalle P.S.

…Complainant And:

Nallanaboyani Sailaja, Age 17 years, D/o Late Siva Sankar, Mitturu Village, H/o Pudipatla, Chowdepalle Mandal, Caste by Vaddi, Student. …Accused 

This case is coming on this day before me, for hearing, in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for Sate and the accused appeared in person and the accused having admitted the offence, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chowdepalle P.S. laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 18/2020 for the offence punishable Under Secs. 309 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are :­ The Sub Inspector of Police, Chowdepalle

P.S. has laid charge sheet in Cr. No. 18/2020 against the accused by name

Nallanaboyani Sailaja alleging that, the accused left home as her parents were seeing proposals for her marriage and so she reached the house of one Gopi, who is her relative, situated at Avulapalle, near Bangalore and in this regard, a girl missing case was registered in Cr. No. 14/2020. It is further alleged that, on 04.02.2020 the accused along with her brother Naveen Kumar (LW2), S.

Bharathamma (LW3) and Vaddi Radhamma (LW4) came to the Police Station,

Chowdepalle and narrated the facts and further the accused gave statement to the police. It is further alleged that all of a sudden, due to fear that on her return to home, her parents might arrange for marriage and beat the accused, the accused vexed with life, and consumed penile and attempted to commit 2 suicide and immediately, the accused was shifted to Government Hospital,

Punganur for treatment. Basing on her statement, a case was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined and recorded their statements. A rough sketch was prepared for the scene of offence. The penile bottle was seized by the police under cover of police proceedings on 05.02.2020. After serving section 41A Cr.P.C. notice, after completion of investigation laid this case against the accused for the offence

U/Sec. 309 IPC. 

3. After filing of charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of offence

Under Sec.309 IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents furnished, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. On 06.11.2020 the accused was present and she was examined U/Sec.

251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of the accusation is read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded guilty and voluntarily admitted the offence. 

6.Accordingly, the accused is found guilty and convicted under Sec.252

Cr.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/­ IDSI for three months for the offence under Sec.309 IPC.

Total fine of Rs. 2000/­ (Rupees Two Thousand only)

Pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 6th day of November, 2020.

Sd/­ R. Venkateswara Sharma II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

­NIL­

Sd/­ R. Venkateswara Sharma II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.