Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Proh. and Excise Act at Eluru -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

PDJ Court Complex Eluru · West Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Proh. and Excise Act at Eluru -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, is posted at PDJ Court Complex Eluru, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,532 court orders on record since 2017. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, DVC, MC cases.

1,532

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/452/2018 Acquitted

SHO Eluru III Town P.S. vs Sonti Durga Rao

23 Jul 2018

1 C.C.No.452 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::ELURU

Present:- Sri R.Venkateswara Sharma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

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

Monday, this the 23rd day of July, 2018

C.C.No.452 of 2018

(Crime No.229/2017 of Eluru III Town Police Station)

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police Eluru III Town Police Station. … Complainant

And

Sonti Durga Rao …. Accused

This case is coming before me on 12/07/2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Venkata Ratnam Babu, Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri M.Narasimhulu, Advocate for the 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. The facts emanating from the record are that, on the complaint of complainant/Vadlani Kavitha, a criminal case was registered against accused vide

F.I.R.No.229/2017 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 457,380 and 411 of IPC by the Police, Eluru III Town, with the following allegations:

Facts in brief as was set out by prosecution in so far as relevant was that, prior to 11/11/2017 some unknown offenders gained entry into the house of PW1 in her absence, by break open the locks of the doors and committed theft of gold mangalasutralatradu weighing three sovereigns, gold black beads chain weighing two sovereigns, gold ear rings weighing 1/4th sovereigns, gold children ear rings weighing 1/2 sovereigns, gold bangles-2 each weighing one sovereign, gold bracelet weighing three sovereigns, silver anklets, silver waist thread worth about Rs.90,000/- and in that connection, she filed report.

2 C.C.No.452 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

Having received the said report, P.W.3 (B.Someswara Rao), Head Constable, registered crime, and visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and later, P.W.5,

Inspector of police, during the course of his investigation in Cr. No.131/17, arrested the accused in the presence of mediators and enquired whereof he confessed to have committed property offences and in pursuance to his confession, accused has produced eleven packets and two silver glasses from his possession including the property relating to this case and later, PW4 filed petition for issuance of PT Warrant and produced him in this case and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

3. The Court took cognizance of the offence under sections 457 & 380 or 411 of

IPC.

4. On the appearance made by Accused, copies of documents along with relevant material, have been supplied to him, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. 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 was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against him, and charges for the offences, under sections 457 & 380 or 411 of IPC against accused have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6. In order to substantiate, the variety of allegations leveled by the prosecution, against the accused, it had examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4 apart from M.O.1 to M.O.5.

7. Having concluded the evidence on behalf of prosecution, the incriminating material found against accused, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, was put to him, in the form of a questionnaire, as required under section 313 Cr.P.C. His plea is one of total denial. He did not choose to examine any person on his behalf and marked no documents.

3 C.C.No.452 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

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

9. Now the question that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence under sections 457 & 380 or 411 of IPC?”

10. P O I N T:

Brief history of the prosecution case:

The sum and substance of the prosecution case alleged against the accused is that, he committed theft of property relating to the defacto complainant, and on her complaint, the Investigating agency enquired into the matter and found him in possession of the property covered by M.O.1 to MO5 on 01/05/2018 at about 5.00 P.M, at new bus stand in gate, Eluru, and when questioned, as the accused did not offer any explanation, accounting for the said property, he was asked to answer the charges leveled against him, and as he denied the said charges, the prosecution has produced its evidence, both oral and documentary, in order to connect him, with the said offence.

11. Evidence on behalf of prosecution:

To prove the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and it is now relevant to refer the necessary evidence on record to prove the specific charges framed against the accused.

12. I get from the testimony of P.W.1 the defacto complainant that, on 09/11/2017 she went to the house of her sister-in-law at about 5.00 PM by locking the doors of the house and on the next day i.e., on 10/11/2017 at about 6.00 PM, she returned to home and found noticed that, the doors of house were kept broken and found noticed that, the articles in the almyrah were committed theft, by some unknown offenders and during search, she found missing of gold black beads chain,

Gold mangal sutram, gold ear studs, gold children ear rings, two bangles, one 4 C.C.No.452 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru bracelet, two pairs of silver anklets and silver waist thread and in that connection, she filed Ex.P.1 report and thereupon, police on investigation, informed her about recovery of property covered by MO1 to MO5. Her evidence did not indicate any incriminating material against the accused. The evidence of LW2 M.Anil, LW3 K.Raju,

LW4 A.Shankar and LW6 K.Naga Babu is given up by learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor.

13. Submissions of defence and reasons for decision:-

Referring to the said evidence brought on the record, what the learned counsel

for the accused would contend is that, there is no satisfactory evidence indicating the

direct involvement of accused in the offence alleged and in the absence of placing sufficient material showing that, the property in question belongs to P.W.1 and that, in the absence of any material satisfying the ingredients of Section 457 and 380 of IPC that accused commits lurking house trespass at night or house breaking at night with the intention of committing theft, in the building and then commits theft in pursuance of his intention, this crime will not fall under section 380 of IPC.

14. In the case at hand, admittedly, the testimony of P.W.1 did not indicate any incriminating material against the accused to the effect that, he commits lurking house trespass at night or house breaking at night with the intention of committing theft. The presumption under section 114(a) of the Evidence Act, applies to the offence of theft and not a lurking house trespass at night or house breaking at night with the intent of committing theft and such a presumption can be drawn only, if the miscreant is caught immediately after the incident with the stolen articles. There is no whisper in his testimony showing that, accused was caught immediately after the incident. Even, it is not the case of the Investigating agency that, accused was caught immediately after the incident. There is no other direct evidence establishing the factum of involvement of accused, in lurking house trespass at night, or house breaking at night, with the intent of committing theft, and hence, I am of the definite opinion that, the evidence let-in by prosecution is not inspiring confidence either on facts or on law for connecting him with the offence under section 457 and 380 of IPC.

5 C.C.No.452 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

15. Evidence of Prosecution, submissions of defence and reasons for decision on the charge for the offence under section 411 of IPC.

Coming to the charge framed under section 411 of IPC is concerned, the prosecution relies on the testimony of P.W.2 one of the mediator and P.W.5 the

Investigating Officer, coupled with Ex.P.2 mediators report, and contends that, accused was found in possession of stolen property having knowledge that, it was in possession of some others prior to his committing theft of the same and that, knowingly that, the property found in his possession is of stolen property, he retained the same in his possession, without offering any explanation, accounting for the said property, and as such this court can safely presume under section 114(a) of Evidence

Act that, his possession over the property, in question is quite unlawful.

16. It is in the testimony of P.W.3, the Investigating Officer that, he registered,

Ex.P.3 FIR on the complaint given by P.W.1, visited the place of offence and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.4, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. In his cross examination, he stated that, PW1 did not furnish any bills showing that, he is the owner of the property in question. PW4 appears to have filed PT warrant and produced the accused before the court

17. What needs to be examined in the given case is, as to whether the testimony of P.W.5 the succeeding investigating officer about his apprehending the accused on 01/05/2018 at about 5.00 P.M, on receipt of credible information about his movements, effecting his arrest and seizure of the property in question, is supported by other evidence brought on record. According to P.W.5, he received information on 01/05/2018 about the movements of suspect in cr.No.131/2017 in course of his investigation , whereupon he along with PW2 and another mediator LW6

K.Naga Babu proceeded to new bus stand in gate, apprehended a person, accused herein and enquired him who disclosed his complicity not only in the case at hand, but also about his committing theft of property, relating to various crimes, in and around Machilipatnam, Gudiwada, Guntur and III Town area at Eluru, and kept the same in his possession. The testimony of P.W.2 T.Sadasivarao, one of the mediator, 6 C.C.No.452 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru speaks supporting the investigation claimed to have been undertaken by P.W.5, the

Investigating Officer, about arrest of accused and seizure of property not only in

Cr.No.131/2017 but also property relating to various crimes including this crime, covered by M.O.1 to MO5 which had been identified by P.W.1 during evidence.

18. Learned counsel for the accused would maintain that, the investigation claimed to have been carried out by P.W.5 is table made and with the help of interested witnesses, he falsely implicated the accused, in various cases. It has to be seen, whether the testimony of P.W.2, one of the mediator, has been shaken, when he was subjected to cross examination. He denied when suggested that, he does not know the details of property allegedly seized in each case. He further denied when suggested that, the accused never confessed admitting the offences that were committed, which lead to seizure of property relating to various crimes including this case. Merely because P.W.2 is not resident of the place of arrest of accused, the entire case of prosecution showing arrest of accused and recording his confession in the presence of P.W.2 and another mediator, which lead to recovery of bulk gold and silver property from his possession, cannot be doubted, for the reason that Ex.P.2 mediators report, whereunder, the property in question was recovered contains the signatures of not only both the mediators, but also thumb impression of accused, acknowledging its contents. Nothing was elicited by the accused, in the cross examination of P.W.5, the Investigating Officer, except denying the investigation undertaken by him. PW5 though did not examine any witnesses at the place of arrest of accused, his investigation cannot be doubted in any manner in view of recovery of huge property from the possession of accused including property relating to this case.

19. It is now appropriate to refer to the contents of Ex.P.2 mediators report, whereunder, accused said to have confessed admitting the offences that were committed by him, leading to recovery of bulk property pertaining to various crimes.

The contents of Ex.P.2 in specific terms indicates that, on the death of his wife in

January, 2018 having addicted to bad vices started committing theft of properties from the houses, after having been identified by him, which were under lock and key 7 C.C.No.452 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru and that, his confession apparently discloses that, he committed property offences at various places namely, Machilipatnam, Bapatla, Vijayawada, Guntur and Eluru since 2001 and when he came to the place of arrest, for selling the stolen property, not only relating to this case, but also relating to various crimes, he was apprehended by police. Thereafter P.W.5 having identified that, the property covered by M.O.1 to

MO5 relates to this case had seized the same along with other property of different crimes. Apparently, the confessional statement of accused made before P.W.2 and

L.W.6 K.Naga Babu discloses that, his confession lead to recovery of M.O.1 to MO5 including other property and as such, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the alleged confession of accused under Ex.P.2. Moreover, accused did not offer any explanation accounting for the property found in his possession when questioned and knowingly that the property covered by MO1 to MO5 belongs to some others prior to his committing theft, he retained the same and therefore, it can be safely presumed that, accused was found in possession of MO1 to MO5 unlawfully.

20. Needless to say that, Section 27 of the Evidence Act allows part of the statement made by the accused to the police, whether it amounts to a confession or not which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved and thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of fact may be proved under section 27. Therefore, the part of confessional statement covered under Ex.P.2 which distinctly relates to the discovery of property covered by

M.O.1 to MO5 are admissible. The whole of the statement of accused in my opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of property covered by M.O.1 to MO5 and hence it is admissible under section 27 of the Act.

21. Viewed from any angle, the fact that the stolen property is found in his possession which was seized under Ex.P.2 would be sufficient to raise a presumption that, he knew that the property is of stolen property for the reason of his failure to offer any explanation as to how and in what circumstances, he got possession of such property and therefore, I have no remote doubt in my mind, for coming to a definite 8 C.C.No.452 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru conclusion that, the prosecution is able to bring home to the guilt of accused for the offence under section 411 of IPC.

22. In the light of the above discussion and on a conspicuous reading of oral and documentary evidence brought on record by both sides, I hold that, the prosecution failed to place any positive material, for connecting the accused with the offence under sections 457, 380 of IPC and hence, I find that, accused is not guilty of the offence on the said count. I further hold that the prosecution is able to succeed in bringing home the guilt of accused for the offence under section 411 of IPC and consequently, I find that, the accused is guilty of the offence, on the said count, for having in possession of property in possession unlawfully.

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

pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of July, 2018.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC. II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Accused is heard about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. He submits that, he is suffering from ill health and hence prays for lenient view. It is a case, where accused was found in possession of bulk quantity of gold and silver properties, belonging to various crimes and it is not even possible to infer that the prosecution invented such property just to implicate the accused in this case. The confessional statement of accused covered by Ex.P.2 itself is self explanatory showing the circumstances which drove him to commit series of property offences and in pursuance to his confession the property in question was found in his possession along with other property relating to different crimes when he was caught hold by the

Investigating Officer.

Therefore, taking into consideration of not only oral and documentary evidence placed on record, I have no hesitation to say that, accused is not entitled for any benefits of P.O.Act for taking lenient view. Thus, circumstances warrants this Court that, to sentence the accused to undergo R.I for six months which could meet the ends of justice in this case.

9 C.C.No.452 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

23. In the result, I find that, accused is not guilty for the offence under section 457 or 380 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. I further find that, accused is guilty of offence under section 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I for six months. The property covered by M.O.1 to M O5 are ordered to be returned to P.W.1 (Vadlani Kavitha) on expiry of appeal time, if not already done. The period from 21/05/2018 to 23/07/2018 for which the accused is in Jail during investigation or trial, is ordered to be given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. It is made clear that, the period of sentence of six months ordered against the accused, in this case, shall run concurrently, along with the period of sentence of six months ordered in CC 431/2018, CC No. 434/2018, CC No.451/2018, CC No.462/2018, CC No.463/2018, CC

No.471/2018 and CC No.472/2018 respectively. The accused is informed about his right to carry the matter in appeal.

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

pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of July, 2018.

Sd/-R.Venkateswara Sharma

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC. II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: V.Kavitha, Complainant - None – PW2: T.Sada Siva Rao, Mediator PW3: B.Someswara Rao, Head Constable PW4: A. Pydi Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police PW5: P Srinivbasa Rao, Inspector of police

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Prosecution: For Defence: -Nil – Ex.P.1: Report of PW1 Ex.P.2: Mediators report Ex.P.3: First Information Report Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch Material Objects marked:

MO1: Gold black beads chain MO2: Two small gold bangles MO3: One pair of gold ear studs MO4: One pair of silver anklets MO5: one silver waist thread

J.F.C.M. SMC,ELURU

FAC. II AJFCM, Eluru.

10 C.C.No.452 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.452/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:: W.G.::ELURU

Date of

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

Prior to 11/11/17 21/05/18 Till he was 20/06/18 12/07/18 23/07/18 11/11/17 in jail

Explanation for delay: NIL

Cr.No. : 229/2017 of Eluru III Town Police Station

Complainant: Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station

Offence : Under sections 457,380 or 411 of IPC

Name of the accused:

Sonti Durga Rao, S/o Subba Rao, 30 years, Gowda, Temple Colony, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

Finding: Found not guilty for the offence under sections 457 & 380 of IPC and found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC

Result: In the result, I find that, accused is not guilty for the offence under section 457 or 380 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. I further find that, accused is guilty of offence under section 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I for six months. The property covered by M.O.1 to MO5 are ordered to be returned to P.W.1 (Vadlani Kavitha) on expiry of appeal time, if not already done. The period from 21/05/2018 to 23/07/2018 for which the accused is in Jail during investigation or trial, is ordered to be given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. It is made clear that, the period of sentence of six months ordered against the accused, in this case, shall run concurrently, along with the period of sentence of six months ordered in CC 431/2018, CC No. 434/2018, CC No.451/2018, CC No.462/2018, CC No.463/2018, CC No.471/2018 and CC No.472/2018 respectively. The accused is informed about his right to carry the matter in appeal.

Sd/-R.Venkateswara Sharma

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC.II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Copy submitted to:

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

2. The Superintendent of Police, Eluru.

CC/451/2018 Acquitted

SHO Eluru III Town P.S. vs Sonti Durga Rao

23 Jul 2018

1 C.C.No.451 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::ELURU

Present:- Sri R.Venkateswara Sharma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

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

Monday, this the 23rd day of July, 2018

C.C.No.451 of 2018

(Crime No.56/2018 of Eluru III Town Police Station)

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police Eluru III Town Police Station. … Complainant

And

Sonti Durga Rao …. Accused

J U D G M E N T

1. The facts emanating from the record are that, on the complaint of complainant/Bhuma Lakshmi Rajyam, a criminal case was registered against accused vide F.I.R.No. 56/2018 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 457,380 and 411 of IPC by the Police, Eluru III Town, with the following allegations:

Facts in brief as was set out by prosecution in so far as relevant was that, on 10/02/2018 P.W.1(Bhuma Lakshmi Rajyam) went to the house of her daughter situated at Gudiwada, by locking the doors and again returned on 13/02/2018 and found noticed that, the doors of the house were kept opened and on her search, it was found that, one gold papidibilla, one pair of gold ear studs, gold stoned ear rings, one gold ring, cash of Rs.7,000/-, I-Phone and Sony camera were committed theft by some unknown offenders and in that connection, she filed report.

2 C.C.No.451 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

Having received the said report, P.W.3 (K.Govinda Raju), Assistant Sub

Inspector of police, registered crime, and visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and later, P.W.5 Inspector of police, during the course of his investigation in Cr.

No.131/17, arrested the accused in the presence of mediators and enquired whereof he confessed to have committed property offences and in pursuance to his confession, accused has produced eleven packets and two silver glasses from his possession including the property relating to this case and later, PW4 filed petition for issuance of PT Warrant and produced him in this case and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

3. The Court took cognizance of the offence u/Secs. 457 & 380 or 411 of IPC.

4. On the appearance made by Accused, copies of documents along with relevant material, have been supplied to him, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6. In order to substantiate, the variety of allegations leveled by the prosecution, against the accused, it had examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4 apart from M.O.1 to MO3.

3 C.C.No.451 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

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

9. Now the question that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence under sections 457 & 380 or 411 of IPC?”

10. P O I N T:

Brief history of the prosecution case:

The sum and substance of the prosecution case alleged against the accused is that, he committed theft of property relating to the defacto complainant, and on her complaint, the Investigating agency enquired into the matter and found him in possession of the property covered by M.O.1 to MO3 on 01/05/2018 at about 5.00 P.M, at new bus stand in gate, Eluru, and when questioned, as the accused did not offer any explanation, accounting for the said property, he was asked to answer the charges leveled against him, and as he denied the said charges, the prosecution has produced its evidence, both oral and documentary, in order to connect him, with the said offence.

11. Evidence on behalf of prosecution:

12. I get from the testimony of P.W.1 the defacto complainant that, on 10/02/2018, she went to the house of her daughter situated at Gudiwada, by locking the doors of the house and on 13/02/2018 she returned and found the articles in the almyrah were committed theft, by some unknown offenders and during search, she found missing of one gold papidibilla, one pair of gold ear studs, gold stoned ear rings, one gold ring, cash of Rs.7,000/-, I-Phone and Sony camera and in that connection, 4 C.C.No.451 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru she filed Ex.P.1 report and thereupon, police on investigation, informed her about recovery of property covered by MO1to MO3. Her evidence did not indicate any incriminating material against the accused. The evidence of LW2 B.Vijayalakshmi,

LW3 Venna Durga, LW4 A. V.V. Satyanarayana, LW5 M.Sivaji and LW7 K. Naga Babu is given up by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

13. Submissions of defence and reasons for decision:-

Referring to the said evidence brought on the record, what the learned counsel for the accused would contend is that, there is no satisfactory evidence indicating the direct involvement of accused in the offence alleged and in the absence of placing sufficient material showing that, the property in question belongs to P.W.1 and that, in the absence of any material satisfying the ingredients of Section 457 and 380 of IPC that accused commits lurking house trespass at night or house breaking at night with the intention of committing theft, in the building and then commits theft in pursuance of his intention, this crime will not fall under section 380 of IPC.

14. In the case at hand, admittedly, the testimony of P.W.1 did not indicate any incriminating material against the accused to the effect that, he commits lurking house trespass at night or house breaking at night with the intention of committing theft. The presumption under section 114(a) of the Evidence Act, applies to the offence of theft and not a lurking house trespass at night or house breaking at night with the intent of committing theft and such a presumption can be drawn only, if the miscreant is caught immediately after the incident with the stolen articles. There is no whisper in his testimony showing that, accused was caught immediately after the incident. Even, it is not the case of the Investigating agency that, accused was caught immediately after the incident. There is no other direct evidence establishing the factum of involvement of accused, in lurking house trespass at night, or house breaking at night, with the intent of committing theft, and hence, I am of the definite 5 C.C.No.451 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru opinion that, the evidence let-in by prosecution is not inspiring confidence either on facts or on law for connecting him with the offence under section 457 and 380 of IPC.

15.Evidence of Prosecution, submissions of defence and reasons for decision on the charge for the offence under section 411 of IPC.

Coming to the charge framed under section 411 of IPC is concerned, the prosecution relies on the testimony of P.W.2 one of the mediator and P.W.5 the

Act that, his possession over the property, in question is quite unlawful.

16. It is in the testimony of P.W.3, the Investigating Officer that, he registered,

Ex.P.3 FIR on the complaint given by P.W.1, visited the place of offence and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.4, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. In his cross examination, he stated that, PW1 did not furnish any bills showing that, he is the owner of the property in question. PW4 said to have filed PT warrant and produced the accused before the court.

Naga Babu proceeded to new bus stand in gate, apprehended a person, accused 6 C.C.No.451 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru herein and enquired him who disclosed his complicity not only in the case at hand, but also about his committing theft of property, relating to various crimes, in and around Machilipatnam, Gudiwada, Guntur and III Town area at Eluru, and kept the same in his possession. The testimony of P.W.2 T.Sadasivarao, one of the mediator, speaks supporting the investigation claimed to have been undertaken by P.W.5, the

Investigating Officer, about arrest of accused and seizure of property not only in

Cr.No.131/2017 but also property relating to various crimes including this crime, covered by M.O.1to MO3 which had been identified by P.W.1 during evidence.

18. Learned counsel for the accused would maintain that, the investigation claimed to have been carried out by P.W.5 is table made and with the help of interested witnesses, he falsely implicated the accused, in various cases. It has to be seen, whether the testimony of P.W.2, one of the mediator, has been shaken, when he was subjected to cross examination. He denied when suggested that, he does not know the details of property allegedly seized in each case. He further denied when suggested that, the accused never confessed admitting the offences that were committed, which lead to seizure of property relating to various crimes including this case. Merely because P.W.2 is not resident of the place of arrest of accused, the entire case of prosecution showing arrest of accused and recording his confession in the presence of P.W.2 and another mediator, which lead to recovery of bulk gold and silver property from his possession, cannot be doubted, for the reason that Ex.P.2 mediators report, whereunder, the property in question was recovered contains the signatures of not only both the mediators, but also thumb impression of accused, acknowledging its contents. Nothing was elicited by the accused, in the cross examination of P.W.5, the Investigating Officer, except denying the investigation undertaken by him. PW4though did not examine any witnesses at the place of arrest of accused, his investigation cannot be doubted in any manner in view of recovery of huge property from the possession of accused including property relating to this case.

7 C.C.No.451 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

The contents of Ex.P.2 in specific terms indicates that, on the death of his wife in

January, 2018 having addicted to bad vices started committing theft of properties from the houses, after having been identified by him, which were under lock and key and that, his confession apparently discloses that, he committed property offences at various places namely, Machilipatnam, Bapatla, Vijayawada, Guntur and Eluru since 2001 and when he came to the place of arrest, for selling the stolen property, not only relating to this case, but also relating to various crimes, he was apprehended by police. Thereafter P.W.5 having identified that, the property covered by M.O.1 to

MO3 relates to this case had seized the same along with other property of different crimes. Apparently, the confessional statement of accused made before P.W.2 and

L.W.7 K.Naga Babu discloses that, his confession lead to recovery of M.O.1 to MO3 including other property and as such, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the alleged confession of accused under Ex.P.2. Moreover, accused did not offer any explanation accounting for the property found in his possession when questioned and knowingly that the property covered by MO1to MO3 belongs to some others prior to his committing theft, he retained the same and therefore, it can be safely presumed that, accused was found in possession of MO1 unlawfully. That apart, the alleged recovery made by PW5 appears to be made within three months from the date of offence which is evident from the material brought on record.

M.O.1 to MO3 is admissible. The whole of the statement of accused in my opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of property covered by M.O.1 to MO3 and hence it is admissible under section 27 of the Act.

21. Viewed from any angle, the fact that the stolen property is found in his possession which was seized under Ex.P.2 would be sufficient to raise a presumption that, he knew that the property is of stolen property for the reason of his failure to offer any explanation as to how and in what circumstances, he got possession of such property and therefore, I have no remote doubt in my mind, for coming to a definite conclusion that, the prosecution is able to bring home to the guilt of accused for the offence under section 411 of IPC.

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

pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of July, 2018.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC. II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Accused is heard about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. He submits that, he is suffering from ill health and hence prays for lenient view. It is a case, where accused was found in possession of bulk quantity of gold and silver properties, belonging to various crimes and it is not even possible to infer that the prosecution invented such property just to implicate the accused in this case. The confessional statement of accused covered by Ex.P.2 itself is self explanatory showing 9 C.C.No.451 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru the circumstances which drove him to commit series of property offences and in pursuance to his confession the property in question was found in his possession along with other property relating to different crimes when he was caught hold by the

Investigating Officer.

23. In the result, I find that, accused is not guilty for the offence under section 457 or 380 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. I further find that, accused is guilty of offence under section 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I for six months. The property covered by M.O.1 to MO3 are ordered to be returned to P.W.1 (Bhuma Lakshmi Rajyam) on expiry of appeal time, if not already done. The period from 21/05/2018 to 23/07/2018 for which the accused is in Jail during investigation or trial, is ordered to be given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. It is made clear that, the period of sentence of six months ordered against the accused, in this case, shall run concurrently, along with the period of sentence of six months ordered in CC

No.431/2018, CC No. 434/2018, CC No.452/2018, CC No.462/2018, CC No.463/2018,

CC No.471/2018 and CC No.472/2018 respectively. The accused is informed about his

right to carry the matter in appeal.

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

pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of July, 2018.

Sd/-R.Venkateswara Sharma

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC. II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

10 C.C.No.451 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Bhuma Lakshmi Rajyam, Complainant - None –

PW2: T.Sada Siva Rao, Mediator

PW3: K.Govinda Raju, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police

PW4: A.Pydi Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police

PW5: P Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of police

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Prosecution: For Defence: -Nil –

Ex.P.1: Report, dt.27.7.2015

Ex.P.2: Mediators report

Ex.P.3: First Information Report

Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch

Material Objects marked:

MO1:Gold papidibilla

MO2: Gold ring

MO3: I-Phone

J.F.C.M. SMC,ELURU

FAC. II AJFCM, Eluru.

11 C.C.No.451 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.451/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: W.G.::ELURU Date of

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

Prior to 16/02/18 21/05/18 Till he was 20/06/18 12/07/18 23/07/18 16/02/18 in jail

Explanation for delay: NIL

Cr.No. : 56/2018 of Eluru III Town Police Station

Complainant: Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station

Offence : Under sections 457,380 or 411 of IPC

Name of the accused:

Sonti Durga Rao, S/o Subba Rao, 30 years, Gowda, Temple Colony, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

Finding: Found not guilty for the offence under sections 457 & 380 of IPC and found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC

Result: In the result, I find that, accused is not guilty for the offence under section 457 or 380 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. I further find that, accused is guilty of offence under section 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I for six months. The property covered by M.O.1 to MO3 are ordered to be returned to P.W.1 (Bhuma Lakshmi Rajyam) on expiry of appeal time, if not already done. The period from 21/05/2018 to 23/07/2018 for which the accused is in Jail during investigation or trial, is ordered to be given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. It is made clear that, the period of sentence of six months ordered against the accused, in this case, shall run concurrently, along with the period of sentence of six months ordered in CC No.431/2018, CC No. 434/2018, CC No.452/2018, CC No.462/2018, CC No.463/2018,

CC No.471/2018 and CC No.472/2018 respectively. The accused is informed about his

right to carry the matter in appeal.

Sd/-R.Venkateswara Sharma

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC.II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Copy submitted to:

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

2. The Superintendent of Police, Eluru.

CC/434/2018 Acquitted

SHO ELURU III TOWN P.S. vs Sonti Durga Rao

23 Jul 2018

1 C.C.No.434 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::ELURU

Present:- Sri R.Venkateswara Sharma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

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

Monday, this the 23rd day of July, 2018

C.C.No.434 of 2018

(Crime No.77/2018 of Eluru III Town Police Station)

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police Eluru III Town Police Station. … Complainant

And

Sonti Durga Rao …. Accused

J U D G M E N T

1. The facts emanating from the record are that, on the complaint of complainant/Seri Sangeetha, a criminal case was registered against accused vide

F.I.R.No. 77/2018 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 454,380 and 411 of IPC by the Police, Eluru III Town, with the following allegations:

Facts in brief as was set out by prosecution in so far as relevant was that, on 07/03/2018 at about 8.00 AM, while P.W.1 and her husband went to their respective duties by locking the doors of house, and during lunch time, when they reached home at 1.00 PM, they found noticed that, the doors of the house were kept opened and on their search, it was found that, cash of Rs.2,000/- and one pair of gold ear studs were committed theft by some unknown offenders and in that connection, she filed report.

2 C.C.No.434 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

Having received the said report, P.W.3 (A.Pydi babu), Sub Inspector of police, registered crime, and visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and later, P.W.4 Inspector of police, during the course of his investigation in Cr.No.131/17, arrested the accused in the presence of mediators and enquired whereof he confessed to have committed property offences and in pursuance to his confession, accused has produced eleven packets and two silver glasses from his possession including the property relating to this case and later, PW3 filed petition for issuance of PT Warrant and produced him in this case and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

3. The Court took cognizance of the offence under sections 457 & 380 or 411 of

IPC.

4. On the appearance made by Accused, copies of documents along with relevant material, have been supplied to him, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6. In order to substantiate, the variety of allegations leveled by the prosecution, against the accused, it had examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4 apart from M.O.1.

3 C.C.No.434 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

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

9. Now the question that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence under sections 457 & 380 or 411 of IPC?”

10. P O I N T:

Brief history of the prosecution case:

The sum and substance of the prosecution case alleged against the accused is that, he committed theft of property relating to the defacto complainant, and on her complaint, the Investigating agency enquired into the matter and found him in possession of the property covered by M.O.1 on 01/05/2018 at about 5.00 P.M, at new bus stand in gate, Eluru, and when questioned, as the accused did not offer any explanation, accounting for the said property, he was asked to answer the charges leveled against him, and as he denied the said charges, the prosecution has produced its evidence, both oral and documentary, in order to connect him, with the said offence.

11. Evidence on behalf of prosecution:

To prove the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and it is now relevant to refer the necessary evidence on record to prove the specific charges framed against the accused.

12. I get from the testimony of P.W.1 the defacto complainant that, on 07/03/2018 at about 8.00 AM, she along with her husband went to their respective duties, by locking the doors of the house and at about 1.00 PM, when they returned to home, during lunch time, they found noticed that, the doors of the house were kept broken and during search, she noticed that, cash of Rs.2,000/- and one pair of ear studs were committed theft, by some unknown offenders and in that connection, she 4 C.C.No.434 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru filed Ex.P.1 report and thereupon, police on investigation, informed her about recovery of property covered by MO1. Her evidence did not indicate any incriminating material against the accused. The evidence of LW2 S.Arun Kumar Reddy, LW3 J. Siva,

LW4 K. Yesob, LW5 K. Venkatesh and LW7 K.Naga Babu is given up by learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

13. Submissions of defence and reasons for decision:-

Referring to the said evidence brought on the record, what the learned counsel

for the accused would contend is that, there is no satisfactory evidence indicating the

direct involvement of accused in the offence alleged and in the absence of placing sufficient material showing that, the property in question belongs to P.W.1 and that, in the absence of any material satisfying the ingredients of Section 457 and 380 of IPC that accused commits lurking house trespass at day time or house breaking at day time with the intention of committing theft, in the building and then commits theft in pursuance of his intention, this crime will not fall under section 380 of IPC.

14. In the case at hand, admittedly, the testimony of P.W.1 did not indicate any incriminating material against the accused to the effect that, he commits lurking house trespass at day time or house breaking at day time with the intention of committing theft. The presumption under section 114(a) of the Evidence Act, applies to the offence of theft and not a lurking house trespass at day time or house breaking at day time with the intent of committing theft and such a presumption can be drawn only, if the miscreant is caught immediately after the incident with the stolen articles. There is no whisper in his testimony showing that, accused was caught immediately after the incident. Even, it is not the case of the Investigating agency that, accused was caught immediately after the incident. There is no other direct evidence establishing the factum of involvement of accused, in lurking house trespass at day time, or house breaking at day time, with the intent of committing theft, and hence, I am of the definite opinion that, the evidence let-in by prosecution is not 5 C.C.No.434 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru inspiring confidence either on facts or on law for connecting him with the offence under section 457 and 380 of IPC.

15.Evidence of Prosecution, submissions of defence and reasons for decision on the charge for the offence under section 411 of IPC.

Coming to the charge framed under section 411 of IPC is concerned, the prosecution relies on the testimony of P.W.2 one of the mediator and P.W.4 the

Investigating Officer, coupled with Ex.P.2 mediators report, and contends that, accused was found in possession of stolen property having knowledge that, it was in possession of some others prior to his committing theft of the same and that, knowingly that, the property found in his possession is of stolen property, he retained the same in his possession, without offering any explanation, accounting for the said property, and as such, this court can safely presume under section 114(a) of Evidence

Act that, his possession over the property, in question is quite unlawful.

16. It is in the testimony of P.W.3, the Investigating Officer that, he registered,

17. What needs to be examined in the given case is, as to whether the testimony of P.W.4 the succeeding investigating officer about his apprehending the accused on 01/05/2018 at about 5.00 P.M, on receipt of credible information about his movements, effecting his arrest and seizure of the property in question, is supported by other evidence brought on record. According to P.W.4, he received information on 01/05/2018 about the movements of suspect in cr.No.131/2017 in course of his investigation , whereupon he along with PW2 and another mediator LW7

K.Naga Babu proceeded to new bus stand in gate, apprehended a person, accused herein and enquired him who disclosed his complicity not only in the case at hand, 6 C.C.No.434 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru but also about his committing theft of property, relating to various crimes, in and around Machilipatnam, Gudiwada, Guntur and III Town area at Eluru, and kept the same in his possession. The testimony of P.W.2 T.Sadasivarao, one of the mediator, speaks supporting the investigation claimed to have been undertaken by P.W.4, the

Investigating Officer, about arrest of accused and seizure of property not only in

Cr.No.131/2017 but also property relating to various crimes including this crime, covered by M.O.1 which had been identified by P.W.1 during evidence.

18. Learned counsel for the accused would maintain that, the investigation claimed to have been carried out by P.W.4 is table made and with the help of interested witnesses, he falsely implicated the accused, in various cases. It has to be seen, whether the testimony of P.W.2, one of the mediator, has been shaken, when he was subjected to cross examination. He denied when suggested that, he does not know the details of property allegedly seized in each case. He further denied when suggested that, the accused never confessed admitting the offences that were committed, which lead to seizure of property relating to various crimes including this case. Merely because P.W.2 is not resident of the place of arrest of accused, the entire case of prosecution showing arrest of accused and recording his confession in the presence of P.W.2 and another mediator, which lead to recovery of bulk gold and silver property from his possession, cannot be doubted, for the reason that Ex.P.2 mediators report, whereunder, the property in question was recovered contains the signatures of not only both the mediators, but also thumb impression of accused, acknowledging its contents. Nothing was elicited by the accused, in the cross examination of P.W.4, the Investigating Officer, except denying the investigation undertaken by him. PW4though did not examine any witnesses at the place of arrest of accused, his investigation cannot be doubted in any manner in view of recovery of huge property from the possession of accused including property relating to this case.

7 C.C.No.434 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

The contents of Ex.P.2 in specific terms indicates that, on the death of his wife in

January, 2018 having addicted to bad vices started committing theft of properties from the houses, after having been identified by him, which were under lock and key and that, his confession apparently discloses that, he committed property offences at various places namely, Machilipatnam, Bapatla, Vijayawada, Guntur and Eluru since 2001 and when he came to the place of arrest, for selling the stolen property, not only relating to this case, but also relating to various crimes, he was apprehended by police. Thereafter P.W.4 having identified that, the property covered by M.O.1 relates to this case had seized the same along with other property of different crimes.

Apparently, the confessional statement of accused made before P.W.2 and L.W.7

K.Naga Babu discloses that, his confession lead to recovery of M.O.1 including other property and as such, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the alleged confession of accused under Ex.P.2. Moreover, accused did not offer any explanation accounting for the property found in his possession when questioned and knowingly that, the property covered by MO1 belongs to some others prior to his committing theft, he retained the same and therefore, it can be safely presumed that, accused was found in possession of MO1 unlawfully. That apart, the alleged recovery made by

PW4 appears to be made within three months from the date of offence which is evident from the material brought on record.

20. Needless to say that, Section 27 of the Evidence Act allows part of the statement made by the accused to the police, whether it amounts to a confession or not which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved and thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of fact may be proved under section 87. Therefore, the part of confessional statement covered under Ex.P.2 which distinctly relates to the discovery of property covered by 8 C.C.No.434 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

M.O.1 is admissible. The whole of the statement of accused in my opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of property covered by M.O.1 and hence it is admissible under section 27 of the Act.

21. Viewed from any angle, the fact that the stolen property is found in his possession which was seized under Ex.P.2 would be sufficient to raise a presumption that, he knew that the property is of stolen property for the reason of his failure to offer any explanation as to how and in what circumstances, he got possession of such property and therefore, I have no remote doubt in my mind, for coming to a definite conclusion that, the prosecution is able to bring home to the guilt of accused for the offence under section 411 of IPC.

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

pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of July, 2018.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC. II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Accused is heard about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. He submits that, he is suffering from ill health and hence prays for lenient view. It is a case, where accused was found in possession of bulk quantity of gold and silver properties, belonging to various crimes and it is not even possible to infer that the prosecution invented such property just to implicate the accused in this case. The confessional statement of accused covered by Ex.P.2 itself is self explanatory showing 9 C.C.No.434 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru the circumstances which drove him to commit series of property offences and in pursuance to his confession the property in question was found in his possession along with other property relating to different crimes when he was caught hold by the

Investigating Officer.

Sangetha) on expiry of appeal time, if not already done. The period from 21/05/2018 to 23/07/2018 for which the accused is in Jail during investigation or trial, is ordered to be given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. It is made clear that, the period of sentence of six months ordered against the accused, in this case, shall run concurrently, along with the period of sentence of six months ordered in CC No.

431/2018, CC No.451/2018, CC No.452/2018, CC No.462/2018, CC No.463/2018, CC

No.471/2018 and CC No.472/2018 respectively. The accused is informed about his right to carry the matter in appeal.

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

pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of July, 2018.

Sd/-R.Venkateswara Sharma

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC. II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

10 C.C.No.434 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Seri Sangeetha, Complainant - None –

PW2: T.Sada Siva Rao, Mediator

PW3: A. Pydi Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police

PW4: P Srinivbasa Rao, Inspector of police

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Prosecution: For Defence: -Nil –

Ex.P.1: Report, dt.27.7.2015

Ex.P.2: Mediators report

Ex.P.3: First Information Report

Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch

Material Objects marked:

M.O.1: One pair of gold ear studs

J.F.C.M. SMC,ELURU

FAC. II AJFCM, Eluru.

11 C.C.No.434 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.434 of 2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: W.G.::ELURU Date of

Offence Complaint Apprehension Release on Commence-Close of Sentence of of accused or report bail ment of trial trial Order 07/03/18 10/03/18 21/05/18 Till he was 11/06/18 12/07/18 23/07/18 in jail

Explanation for delay: NIL

Cr.No. : 77/2018 of Eluru III Town Police Station

Complainant: Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station

Offence : Under sections 457,380 or 411 of IPC

Name of the accused:

Sonti Durga Rao, S/o Subba Rao, 30 years, Gowda, Temple Colony, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

Finding: Found not guilty for the offence under sections 457 & 380 of IPC and found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC

Result: In the result, I find that, accused is not guilty for the offence under section 457 or 380 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. I further find that, accused is guilty of offence under section 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I for six months. The property covered by M.O.1 is ordered to be returned to P.W.1 (Seri Sangeetha) on expiry of appeal time, if not already done. The period from 21/05/2018 to 23/07/2018 for which the accused is in Jail during investigation or trial, is ordered to be given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. It is made clear that, the period of sentence of six months ordered against the accused, in this case, shall run concurrently, along with the period of sentence of six months ordered in CC No. 431/2018, CC No.451/2018, CC No.452/2018, CC No.462/2018, CC No.463/2018, CC No.471/2018 and CC No.472/2018 respectively. The accused is informed about his right to carry the matter in appeal.

Sd/-R.Venkateswara Sharma

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC.II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Copy submitted to:

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

2. The Superintendent of Police, Eluru.

CC/431/2018 Acquitted

SHO ELURU III TOWN P.S. vs Sonti Durga Rao

23 Jul 2018

1 C.C.No.431 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::ELURU

Present:- Sri R.Venkateswara Sharma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

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

Monday, this the 23rd day of July, 2018

C.C.No.431 of 2018

(Crime No.97/2018 of Eluru III Town Police Station)

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police Eluru III Town Police Station. … Complainant

And

Sonti Durga Rao …. Accused

J U D G M E N T

1. The facts emanating from the record are that, on the complaint of complainant/Ch.Sriram Prakash, a criminal case was registered against accused vide

F.I.R.No. 97/2018 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 457,380 of IPC by the Police, Eluru III Town, with the following allegations:

Facts in brief as was set out by prosecution in so far as relevant was that,

P.W.1 along with her family members went to Rayachur to the house of his brother by locking the doors on 13/02/2018 and again returned on 02/04/2018 and found noticed that, the doors of the house were kept opened and on their search, it was found that, two gold bangles worth about Rs.45,000/- were committed theft by some unknown offenders and in that connection, he filed report.

Having received the said report, P.W.3 (A.Pydi babu), Sub Inspector of police, registered crime, and visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and later, P.W.4 Inspector 2 C.C.No.431 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru of police, during the course of his investigation in Cr. No.131/17, arrested the accused in the presence of mediators and enquired whereof he confessed to have committed property offences and in pursuance to his confession, accused has produced eleven packets and two silver glasses from his possession including the property relating to this case and later, PW3 filed petition for issuance of PT Warrant and produced him in this case and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

3. The Court took cognizance of the offence u/Secs. 457 & 380 or 411 of IPC.

4. On the appearance made by Accused, copies of documents along with relevant material, have been supplied to him, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6. In order to substantiate, the variety of allegations leveled by the prosecution, against the accused, it had examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4 apart from M.O.1.

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

3 C.C.No.431 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

9. Now the question that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence under sections 457 & 380 or 411 of IPC?”

10. P O I N T:

Brief history of the prosecution case:

The sum and substance of the prosecution case alleged against the accused is that, he committed theft of property relating to the defacto complainant, and on his complaint, the Investigating agency enquired into the matter and found him in possession of the property covered by M.O.1 on 01/05/2018 at about 5.00 P.M, at new bus stand in gate, Eluru, and when questioned, as the accused did not offer any explanation, accounting for the said property, he was asked to answer the charges leveled against him, and as he denied the said charges, the prosecution has produced its evidence, both oral and documentary, in order to connect him, with the said offence.

11. Evidence on behalf of prosecution:

12. I get from the testimony of P.W.1 the defacto complainant that, on 13/02/2018, he along with his family members went to Rayachur, by locking the doors of the house and on 01/04/2018 LW3 K.Rajendra informed him that, the doors of the house were kept broken and immediately, he returned and found the articles in the almyrah were committed theft, by some unknown offenders and during search, he found missing of two gold bangles and in that connection, he filed Ex.P.1 report and thereupon, police on investigation, informed him about recovery of property covered by MO1. His evidence did not indicate any incriminating material against the accused.

4 C.C.No.431 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

The evidence of LW2 Ch. Sampurna, LW3 K.Rajendra, LW4 G.Sudhakar and LW6

K.Naga Babu is given up by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

13. Submissions of defence and reasons for decision:-

Referring to the said evidence brought on the record, what the learned counsel

for the accused would contend is that, there is no satisfactory evidence indicating the

15.Evidence of Prosecution, submissions of defence and reasons for decision on the charge for the offence under section 411 of IPC.

5 C.C.No.431 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

Coming to the charge framed under section 411 of IPC is concerned, the prosecution relies on the testimony of P.W.2 one of the mediator and P.W.4 the

Act that, his possession over the property, in question is quite unlawful.

16. It is in the testimony of P.W.3, the Investigating Officer that, he registered,

Ex.P.3 FIR on the complaint given by P.W.1, visited the place of offence and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.4, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. In his cross examination, he stated that, PW1 did not furnish any bills showing that, he is the owner of the property in question. He stated that, he filed PT warrant against the accused and produced him before the court.

Naga Babu proceeded to new bus stand in gate, apprehended a person, accused herein and enquired him who disclosed his complicity not only in the case at hand, but also about his committing theft of property, relating to various crimes, in and around Machilipatnam, Gudiwada, Guntur and III Town area at Eluru, and kept the same in his possession. The testimony of P.W.2 T.Sadasivarao, one of the mediator, speaks supporting the investigation claimed to have been undertaken by P.W.4, the 6 C.C.No.431 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

Investigating Officer, about arrest of accused and seizure of property not only in

Cr.No.131/2017 but also property relating to various crimes including this crime, covered by M.O.1 which had been identified by P.W.1 during evidence.

The contents of Ex.P.2 in specific terms indicates that, on the death of his wife in

January, 2018 having addicted to bad vices started committing theft of properties from the houses, after having been identified by him, which were under lock and key and that, his confession apparently discloses that, he committed property offences at 7 C.C.No.431 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru various places namely, Machilipatnam, Bapatla, Vijayawada, Guntur and Eluru since 2001 and when he came to the place of arrest, for selling the stolen property, not only relating to this case, but also relating to various crimes, he was apprehended by police. Thereafter P.W.4 having identified that, the property covered by M.O.1 relates to this case had seized the same along with other property of different crimes.

Apparently, the confessional statement of accused made before P.W.2 and L.W.6

K.Naga Babu discloses that, his confession lead to recovery of M.O.1 including other property and as such, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the alleged confession of accused under Ex.P.2. Moreover, accused did not offer any explanation accounting for the property found in his possession when questioned and knowingly that the property covered by MO1 belongs to some others prior to his committing theft, he retained the same and therefore, it can be safely presumed that, accused was found in possession of MO1 unlawfully. That apart, the alleged recovery made by

PW4 appears to be made within three months from the date of offence which is evident from the material brought on record.

M.O.1 is admissible. The whole of the statement of accused in my opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of property covered by M.O.1 and hence it is admissible under section 27 of the Act.

21. Viewed from any angle, the fact that the stolen property is found in his possession which was seized under Ex.P.2 would be sufficient to raise a presumption that, he knew that the property is of stolen property for the reason of his failure to offer any explanation as to how and in what circumstances, he got possession of such 8 C.C.No.431 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru property and therefore, I have no remote doubt in my mind, for coming to a definite conclusion that, the prosecution is able to bring home to the guilt of accused for the offence under section 411 of IPC.

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

pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of July, 2018.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC. II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Investigating Officer.

Therefore, taking into consideration of not only oral and documentary evidence placed on record, I have no hesitation to say that, accused is not entitled for any benefits of P.O.Act for taking lenient view. Thus, circumstances warrants this Court 9 C.C.No.431 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru that, to sentence the accused to undergo R.I for six months which could meet the ends of justice in this case.

Ram Prakash) on expiry of appeal time, if not already done. The period from 21/05/2018 to 23/07/2018 for which the accused is in Jail during investigation or trial, is ordered to be given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. It is made clear that, the period of sentence of six months ordered against the accused, in this case, shall run concurrently, along with the period of sentence of six months ordered in CC No.

434/2018, CC No.451/2018, CC No.452/2018, CC No.462/2018, CC No.463/2018, CC

No.471/2018 and CC No.472/2018 respectively. The accused is informed about his right to carry the matter in appeal.

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

pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of July, 2018.

Sd/-R.Venkateswara Sharma

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC. II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Ch. Sriram Prakash, Complainant - None – PW2: T.Sada Siva Rao, Mediator PW3: A. Pydi Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police PW4: P Srinivbasa Rao, Inspector of police

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Prosecution: For Defence: -Nil – Ex.P.1: Report, dt.27.7.2015 Ex.P.2: Mediators report Ex.P.3: First Information Report Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch Material Objects marked: M.O.1: One Gold bangle

J.F.C.M. SMC,ELURU

FAC. II AJFCM, Eluru.

10 C.C.No.431 of 2018 Dt.23.07.2018 II AJFCM Court, Eluru

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.431/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: W.G.::ELURU Date of

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

Prior to 02/04/18 21/05/18 Till he was 11/06/18 12/07/18 23/07/18 02/04/18 in jail

Explanation for delay: NIL

Cr.No. : 97/2018 of Eluru III Town Police Station

Complainant: Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station

Offence : Under sections 457,380 or 411 of IPC

Name of the accused:

Sonti Durga Rao, S/o Subba Rao, 30 years, Gowda, Temple Colony, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

Finding: Found not guilty for the offence under sections 457 & 380 of IPC and found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC

Result: In the result, I find that, accused is not guilty for the offence under section 457 or 380 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. I further find that, accused is guilty of offence under section 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I for six months. The property covered by M.O.1 is ordered to be returned to P.W.1 (Ch.Sri Ram Prakash) on expiry of appeal time, if not already done. The period from 21/05/2018 to 23/07/2018 for whichthe accused is in Jail during investigation or trial, is ordered to be given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. It is made clear that, the period of sentence of six months ordered against the accused, in this case, shall run concurrently, along with the period of sentence of six months ordered in CC No. 434/2018, CC No.451/2018, CC No.452/2018, CC No.462/2018, CC No.463/2018, CC No.471/2018 and CC No.472/2018 respectively. The accused is informed about his right to carry the matter in appeal.

Sd/-R.Venkateswara Sharma

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU.

FAC.II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru.

Copy submitted to:

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

2. The Superintendent of Police, Eluru.

CC/100305/2018 Acquitted

The Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town P.S vs Kondapalli Venkateswara Rao

18 Feb 2020

Dated:18.02.2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018 Special Mobile Court, Eluru

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

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, ELURU

Present:- Sri R.Venkateswara Sharma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

Tuesday, this the 18th day of February, 2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018

(Cr.No.360 of 2017 of Eluru II Town Police Station)

Between:

Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town Police Station. …. Complainant

-Vs -

A.1) Kondapalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o Subbarao (Late), Age 68 years, C/ Rajaka, Ex-Service Man, R/o Burayyagudem, Venkatapuram Panchayat, Eluru.

A.2) Allampalli Phani Kumar, S/o Gopala Rao, Age 36 years, C/Kapu, Business, R/o Kunisettivari Veedhi, Gandhi Nagar, Eluru. …. Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 12.02.2020 in the

presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the state and

Sri B.P.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for A.1 and A.2, 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.360 of 2017, for the offences under

Section 420 of IPC, registered by police, Eluru II Town Police Station, on the report given by PW.1 /Ch.Durga, with the following allegations:

2. Brief resume of the prosecution case as is unfolded is that, A.1 approached her and asked to join as a member in Sanjeevini R.D Scheme 2

Dated:18.02.2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018 Special Mobile Court, Eluru for getting monitory benefit, for which she stated that, she is not interested as she already sustained loss by paying money in Agrigold. Thereupon, A.1 brought A.2 and got him introduced that, he is Branch Manager and made her to believe that, the amount to be paid in the company will be repaid to her with interest and in the event that, if the company is closed, they would pay the amount by disposing of their houses and believing their words, keeping the interest of her children, she paid Rs.19,500/. Similarly, along with her Ch.Vimala, paid Rs.12,500/-, N.Jyothi, paid Rs. 70,000/-,

Ch.Devamatha, paid Rs. 87,800/- and in the name of her daughter, she paid

Rs.10,000/-, Tagarapu Kumari paid Rs.83.200/-, Ch.Lalitha paid Rs.39,500/- and K.Mery paid Rs.39,500/-. It is also alleged that, later the company was closed which she came to know through the accused and despite her request, accused did not repay the amount and thereby cheated them and in that connection, she filed a report.

3. On the strength of the report given by PW1, the Investigating Officer

P.W.8/K.Rama Rao, registered crime, recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene and issued notice to accused under section 41-A Cr.P.C and he laid charge sheet against them on completion of investigation.

4. The Court took cognizance of the offence under section 420 of IPC.

5. On the 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 3

Dated:18.02.2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018 Special Mobile Court, Eluru onus, accused are examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against them and charge for the offence under Section 420 of IPC against them have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

7. In order to substantiate, the variety of allegations leveled by the prosecution, against the accused, it had examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.11.

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 under section 313 Cr.P.C. Their plea is one of total denial.

9. Arguments of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor representing the State and learned counsel defending the accused have been heard at length.

10. Now the point that arises for consideration are:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused with legal and acceptable evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, in respect of charges framed against each of the accused for the offence alleged to have been

committed by them under section 420 of IPC ?

11. P O I N T :

Brief history of the prosecution case:

The sum and substance of the prosecution case alleged against the accused is that, they induced the victims with a dishonest and fraudulent intention to grab money from them and thereby collected amounts being agents of AEGIS PARIWAR and thereby cheated not only P.W.1, but also six other victims and committed the offence attracting the ingredients of 4

Dated:18.02.2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018 Special Mobile Court, Eluru

Section 420 of IPC. When the said accusation was put to them, in the form of questionnaire, they denied to have committed the said offence.

12. Evidence on behalf of prosecution:

It is in the testimony of P.W.1 Ch.Durga, who said to have filed report under Ex.P.2 that, out of her acquaintance with A.1 who worked as agent in

Agrigold, believing his words, she joined as a member and paid

Rs.1,00,000/- about five years back, and later the said company was closed.

She further would depose that, A.1 asked her to join in Sanjeevini Scheme and accordingly, she joined and paid Rs.19,500/- @ 50/- per day. Thereafter, accused informed that, the company was closed and when she requested for return of amount, both the accused expressed their inability and thereby cheated them by making a false promise.

13. The testimony of P.W.2/Ch.Vimala, discloses that on the representation made by A.1 and A.2 employees of AEGIS PARIWAR, in the interest of future of her children believing the words of accused, she has paid an amount Rs.12,500/- under a receipt. Thereafter, accused having promised to return to the amount even if the company is closed, failed to return. She filed Ex.P.3 original pass book showing the payments made.

14. P.W.3/Ch.Devamatha has testified that, on the representation made by A.1 and A.2 employees of AEGIS PARIWAR, in the interest of future of her children believing the words of accused, she has paid an amount of

Rs.87,800/- under a receipt, she also has taken a bond on behalf of her husband for Rs.10,000/-. It is her version that, on behalf of her husband, she has paid the amount of Rs.10,000/-Thereafter, accused having promised to return to the amount even if the company is closed, failed to return. She filed 5

Dated:18.02.2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018 Special Mobile Court, Eluru

Ex.P.4 original pass book and Ex.P.5 original bond showing the payments made.

15. P.W.4/K.Mery has testified that, on the representation made by A.1 and A.2 employees of AGIES PARIWAR, in the interest of future of her children believing the words of accused, she has paid an amount of

Rs.39,500/- under a receipt. Thereafter, accused having promised to return to the amount even if the company is closed, failed to return. She filed Ex.P.6 original pass book showing the payments made.

16. P.W.5/N.Jyothi has testified that on the representation made by A.1 and A.2 employees of AEGIS PARIWAR, believing the words of accused she has paid an amount of Rs.59,200/- under a receipt. Thereafter, accused having promised to return to the amount even if the company is closed, failed to return. She filed Ex.P.7 original pass book showing the payments made.

17. P.W.6/T.Kumari has testified that on the representation made by A.1 and A.2 employees of AGIES PARIWAR, believing the words of accused she has paid an amount Rs.83,200/- under a receipt. Thereafter, accused having promised to return to the amount even if the company is closed, failed to return. She filed Ex.P.8 original pass book showing the payments made.

18. P.W.7/Ch.Lalitha has testified that on the representation made by A.1 and A.2 employees of AEGIS PARIWAR, believing the words of accused she has paid an amount Rs.39,500/- @ Rs.100/- per day under a receipt.

Thereafter, accused having promised to return to the amount even if the company is closed, failed to return. She filed Ex.P.9 original pass book showing the payments made.

Dated:18.02.2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018 Special Mobile Court, Eluru

19. Thus, what emerges from the evidence referred above is that, on the promise made by A.1 as agent, and A.2 as Manager of AEGIS PARIWAR, the victims who are examined as P.W.1 to P.W.7 believing their words that they would get handful of amount with interest for their future security, it appears that victims have paid different kinds of amounts as was Exhibited under Ex.P.1, Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.9. It is evident from their testimony that, majority of them have paid earlier amounts to A.1 in Agrigold but the amount has not been paid, however, again on the inducement said to have been made by both the accused, they have paid the amounts but later, they came to know that the company was closed and inspite of repeated requests made by them accused did not return the amount and thereby failed to fulfill the promise made and cheated them.

20. Learned counsel for the accused would contend that, there is no intention of cheating from the inception and had the accused has got such intention of cheating, they ought not have asked the victims to stop payments, which is evident from the testimony of P.W.5 and P.W.6 and when there is no such dishonest intention from the inception, it cannot be said that accused deceived the victims. It is also his contention that both A.1 and A.2 are the only employees of the company and the prosecution without figuring the President and Secretary of the said company as accused, who are exclusively responsible, for the offence allegedly committed has roped the accused in this case, who infact also have victimized in hands of the company and as such, he contends that ingredients of the offence, for which accused stood charged have not been made out.

Dated:18.02.2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018 Special Mobile Court, Eluru

21. In order to prove the offence of “cheating”, there must be an intention to cheat at the time of making the representation, the term “cheating” has been defined under section 415 IPC, which reads thus:-

Section 415 of IPC:- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or internationally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

22. Thus, from the above definition, it is clear that, for attracting the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC, there must be dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security and that, the accused should have got the said intention from the inception, to bring home their guilt within the ambit of the offence, for which they stood charged.

23. Keeping the said basic principles in mind, if the facts of the case are examined, undisputedly A.1 worked as agent and A.2 worked as Branch

Manager of AEGIS PARIWAR. The acquaintance of P.W.1 with A.1 and with other victims also is not under dispute. Though, the prosecution contends that both the accused have insisted the victims to join in the said company as subscribers, there is no whisper in their testimony that, the accused induced them with a dishonest intention of cheating them. No doubt the victims have paid different kinds of amount, on the promise made by the accused, which is evident from Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.9 original 8

Dated:18.02.2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018 Special Mobile Court, Eluru pass books establishing the factum of the payments made. What is to be looked into is, whether the accused have got any intention of resiling from the promise made at the inception, for fixing the accused within ambit of

Section 420 of IPC. Nowhere, it is the case of prosecution that, the amounts paid by the witnesses have been misappropriated by the accused. The documents covered by Ex.P.1, Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.9, though indicates that

P.Ws.1 to P.W.7 have paid the amount as deposed by them, it appears that the company has given the pass books showing the amounts received but not by the accused in their individual capacity. It is also evident from the material on record that the accused informed to the victims that, the company was closed and in such a case, the prosecuting agency ought to have figured the President and Secretary of the company as accused, against whom on FIR in Cr.No.321/2016 was registered by Machavaram

Police Station of Krishna District, on the report given by Divisional

Cooperative Officer, Vijayawada for the offence under section 403, 405, 409, 415 and 477(a) and Section 38 of A.P.M.A.C.S Act, 1995 and Section 5 of A.P Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishment Act, 1999.

However, P.W.8 the Investigating Officer, who said to have registered FIR under Ex.P.10 on 16.10.2017 has lost sight of investigating the case and secured the real culprit, in this case. It is one of the important circumstance for entertaining reasonable doubt about the investigation claimed to have been undertaken by P.W.8.

24. In sofar as, the contention of accused that they have also victimized in the hands of company and they have no intention of cheating from the inception is concerned, what P.W.1 in her cross examination has admitted is that, A.1 also has deposited amount in AGIES PARIWAR Company. She 9

Dated:18.02.2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018 Special Mobile Court, Eluru also admitted that in the year, 2016 Agrigold business was stopped due to which payments have not been made and later she stopped depositing amount in AGES Company and others also have stopped depositing the amounts. She further admitted that, the company officials have made proposals by offering vacant sites at Yadagiri Gutta in lieu of payments made by them. P.W.2 and other victims, in their cross examination have categorically admitted about the payments made by them to AGIES

PARIWAR company and the offer made by the company for providing vacant sites to the victim. P.W.5 in her cross examination has stated that

A.1 worked as LIC agent and she never noticed any defect in the payments made through A.1. What matters is that, if really A.1 and A.2 have got dishonest intention of misappropriating the amounts collected from the victims, since inception accused ought not to have informed to them to stop depositing the amounts, on the ground that the company was closed.

Therefore, no ill intention can be attached to the accused, neither from the inception nor subsequently, the moment of closure of the company. It is for the investigating officer P.W.8 to investigate the case, in proper perspective for caught holding the actual persons, who were behind the ring, but instead

P.W.8 appears to have did investigation, in a casual manner and implicated the accused, in this case and the reason for coming to the said conclusion by this court is that, P.W.8 in his cross examination has admitted that he did not seize any documentary evidence from the company people and examined any of the company official. He is under legal obligation to investigate the matter in those lines. There is no whisper or iota of material in the evidence of witnesses that, the accused have induced them to join as subscribers with an intention to cheat from the inception and there is no 10

Dated:18.02.2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018 Special Mobile Court, Eluru element of inducement in the material brought on record. These circumstances and the very admissions made by the witnesses that A.1 and

A.2 also have paid amounts to the company and both the accused informed them to stop payment on the ground that the company was closed, itself is sufficient to say that accused have no intention of cheating the victims from the inception. Thus, I have no hesitation to say that the material on record is not sufficient to record a finding of guilt against the accused for the offence with which they stood charged and consequently, I find that A.1 and A.2 are not guilty for the offence under section 420 of IPC.

25. In the result, I find that accused are not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and accordingly, accused are acquitted of the said offence, under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. There is no order regarding disposal of property since no property was seized and produced before the Court.

Typed to my direct dictation on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of February, 2020.

Sd/- R.Venkteswara Sharma/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW1:Chalapati Durga - Complainant - NIL – PW2:Chintati Vimala PW3:Chintati Deva Matha PW4:Kasi Mery PW5:N.Jyothi, PW6:Tagarapu Kumari, PW7:Chinta Lalitha, PW8:K.Rama Rao, Sub- Inspector of police 11

Dated:18.02.2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018 Special Mobile Court, Eluru

EXHIBITS MARKED: For Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P.1: Original Pass Book --NIL-- Ex.P.2: Report Ex.P.3: Original Pass Book given by the Society Ex.P.4: Original Pass Book Ex.P.5: Original Bond in the name of P.W.3 Ex.P.6: Original Pass Book Ex.P.7: Pass Book of P.W.5 Ex.P.8: Pass Book of P.W.6 Ex.P.9: Pass Book of P.W.7 Ex.P.10: First Information Report Ex.P.11: Rough Sketch

M.O.S Marked:- NIL Id/- R.V.S

J.F.C.M. SMC (E)

Dated:18.02.2020

C.C.No.305 of 2018 Special Mobile Court, Eluru

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No:305 of 2018 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::SPECIAL MOBILE COURT:: W.G.,ELURU

Date of

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

Prior to 16/10/17 -- -- 14/10/2019 12/02/2020 18/02/2020 16/10/2017

Explanation for delay: This case is transferred from II AJFCM Court, Eluru.

Cr.NO : 360/2017 of Eluru II Town Police Station

Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town P.S.

Offence : Under section 420 IPC

Name of the Accused:

A.1) Kondapalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o Subbarao (Late), Age 68 years, C/ Rajaka, Ex-Service Man,R/o Burayyagudem, Venkatapuram Panchayat, Eluru. A.2) Allampalli Phani Kumar, S/o Gopala Rao, Age 36 years, C/Kapu, Business, R/o Kunisettivari Veedhi, Gandhi Nagar, Eluru.

Finding: Found not guilty

In the result, I find that accused are not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and accordingly, accused are acquitted of the said offence, under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. There is no order regarding disposal of property since no property was seized and produced before the Court.

Sd/- R.Venkteswara Sharma/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Eluru

Copy submitted to:

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

Order Record 1,523 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/100545/2016	Tummala Venkata Lakshmi vs Chinta Hima	16 Jun 2020	Copy of Order	—
DVC/100002/2016	Chalamalasetti Sujatha vs Chalamalasetti Srinivas @ Srinivasa Rao	12 Jun 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100214/2019	SHO Eluru I Town P.S. vs Vangapandu Krishna Rao	23 Mar 2020	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/100284/2015	Forest Range Officer vs Dasari Yesudasu	20 Mar 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100076/2019	The SHO of Eluru III Town P.S, Eluru. W.G.dist. vs Mukesh	06 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100226/2018	Shaik Miras Basha vs Darasanam Solmon Raju	06 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
DVC/100025/2017	Nazma vs Shazeel Mohidheen Basha	04 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
DVC/79/2018	Smt Reddy Siva Ganga vs Reddy Venkateswara Rao	03 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
DVC/100118/2016	Pathan Khairunissa Begum vs Pathan Rusthum Khan	28 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100222/2019	SHO Eluru II Town P.S. vs Valapala Satya Narayana Alias Bujji	26 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
DVC/100038/2018	Juvvanapudi Kamala vs Juvvanapudi Suresh	26 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100175/2019	SHO Eluru II Town P.S. vs Gangeti Venkata Swamy	25 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
DVC/36/2019	Smt.Betha Sirisha vs Betha Venkata Rama Vamsi Krishna	25 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100172/2019	SHO Eluru II Town P.S. vs Chidi alias Chittibomma Manikyala Rao	20 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100228/2019	SHO Eluru II Town P.S. vs Uppalapu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	20 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/100029/2019	Dugginapalli ramakrishna vs KOnde Avinash kumar	19 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100187/2019	Kurapati Venkata Satyanarayana vs Vara Suresh	18 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100305/2018	The Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town P.S vs Kondapalli Venkateswara Rao	18 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/100017/2019	Rayapall Peddi Raju vs Smt Sangadala Nirmala	17 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100151/2018	Kandi Viswanadham vs Marlapudi suresh Kumar	12 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100107/2017	Borugadda Rama Krishna vs Vagvala Meena Kumari	11 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100162/2019	Putla Venkateswara Rao vs Smt.Vagvala Meena Kumari	11 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100759/2016	Grandhi Sri Venkata Amarendra vs Perla V V Pothu Krishna Rao @ Ambica Krishna	11 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100763/2016	Grandhi Sri Venkata Amarendra vs ACP Industries Ltd	11 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100788/2016	Manoj Vaibhav Jewelers Pvt. Ltd. vs ACP Industries Ltd.	11 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
DVC/58/2019	Smt.Moru Naga Peddintlu vs Moru Srihari	11 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100341/2018	Talluri RamaKrishna vs Neelam Vijayalakshmi	10 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100074/2019	M/s Godrej Agrovet Limited rep. by its Sr.Officer cum Legal, Power of Atorney Holder S.Tulasi Ram vs Mr.Uttam Atmaram Gadekar, prop. Ganesh Agro	05 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100143/2019	M/s Godrej Agrovet Limited rep.by senior officer vs Md.Nasim	05 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100151/2019	M/s Godrej Agrovet Limited vs Indradeep Kumar	05 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100546/2011	Eluru II Town L and O PS vs Mandapati Srinivasa Reddy	05 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/100095/2016	Mutyala Sri Lakshmi vs Mutyala Veera Venkata Krishna Vara Prasad	04 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100167/2019	The SHO of Eluru II Town Police Station. Eluru. vs Kota Ravi Babu	03 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/26/2019	Smt Munakala Havila Mani vs Munakala Gnana Sandeep	03 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100267/2016	Dakarapu Rajeswara Rao vs Mutyala Surekha	27 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100166/2019	SHO Eluru II Town P.S. vs Vsgadde Raj Kumar	22 Jan 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/39/2019	Smt.Macharla Sandhaya Devi vs Pedamallu Anil Kumar	21 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100211/2018	Sri Jonnalagadda Narasimha Raju vs Smt Sunkara Ganga Ratnam	20 Jan 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100230/2018	Takur Niranjan Singh vs Pemmasani Sridhar, Proprietor Sri Durga Stone Crushers	20 Jan 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/57/2019	Natta Padma vs Natta Vehiskel @ Pandu @ Ramesh	20 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100113/2019	Mallela Rama Krishna vs Duvva Srinivasu	08 Jan 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100323/2017	Talari Venkata Ramanjaneyulu vs Akula Praveen Kumar alias Raja	08 Jan 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100266/2017	State Rep. by the Dy.Supdt. of Police, Women P.S., Eluru. vs Gona Sunny Siddharth	07 Jan 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/100067/2017	Smt.Galla Sri Bhagyalakshmi vs Galla Satish Kumar	07 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100291/2018	The Inspector of Police, Eluru III Town P.S, W.G.District, Eluru. vs Chenchula vari Uma Maheswara Rao	06 Jan 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100356/2018	Vurla Govindacharyulu vs Gopisetti Naveen Kumar	06 Jan 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/72/2017	Sapatla Neehariaka vs Gona Sunny Sidharth	06 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
CC/100062/2019	K.Nageswara Rao vs Smt.K.Nirmala Kumari	30 Dec 2019	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100169/2019	SHO Eluru II Town P.S. vs Mullapudi Ravi Varma	23 Dec 2019	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100060/2019	Lankapalli Uma Maheswara Rao vs Chalasani Uday Kiran	17 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/100211/2019	Merupu Ganga Raju vs Chengalapati Ratanamma	16 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/100324/2017	Ganta Sai Kishore vs Yallanki Srinivasa Chinna Durga Vara Prasad	16 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/36/2019	PEDAPADU PS vs Theetla Ramesh @ Nani	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/123/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Velivela Nageswara Rao	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/166/2017	Sub-Inspector of police prohibition and Excise vs Renumadugu Ramu	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/167/2018	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police Station. vs Tata Venkayamma	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/174/2018	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police Station. vs Vstata Vijaya Durga	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/181/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Bondili Charan Singh	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/202/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Kona Samrajyam	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/221/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Polagani Roja Pushpam	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/227/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Ravada Ramu	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/237/2019	The Station House Officer, P and E Station, Eluru vs Vanamala Krishnam Raju	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/238/2019	The Station House Officer, P and E Station, Eluru vs Prathipati Babu Rao	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/248/2019	Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police station vs Moravaneni Gopalarao	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/259/2019	The Station House Officer, Proh. and Excise Station, Eluru vs Chebathina Mani	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/296/2019	Pedapadu Police Station vs Dontamalla Dilip Kumar	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/353/2019	Pedavegi Police Station vs Bellamkonda Sathish	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/379/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Pulavarthi Lakshmi Narayana	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/385/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Polurothu Krishna	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/396/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Betha Uma Maheswara Rao	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/399/2019	Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru Rural Police Station vs Keetha Saida Srinivasa Rao	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/427/2019	Pedavegi Police Station vs Gumpula Rajesh	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/436/2019	Eluru Rural Police Station vs Adapa Tulasi Ram	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/437/2019	Pedapadu Police Station, ELuru. vs Balaga Murali	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/458/2019	Pedapadu Police Station vs Mallampalli Nikhel Joshi	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/463/2019	Pedapadu Police Station vs Lanka Nani	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/471/2019	Pedavegi Police Station vs Devarapalli Madhu	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/473/2019	Pedavegi Police Station vs Vanga Srinivas Rao	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/491/2019	Pedapadu Police Station vs Yamanda Vaddi Kasulu	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/522/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Parasa Naga Siromani	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/523/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Kati Mariya Dasu	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/524/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Parasa Nagabhushana Rao	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/525/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Thullimilli Rangamma	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/526/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Matta Srinivasa Rao	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/527/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Akula Ramu	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/529/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Chittibomma Lakshmi	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/531/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Yalamarthi Venkatesu	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/532/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Dhabhadha Venkatamma	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/534/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Dhomathoti Bhagya Raju	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/535/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Ganji Suvarna Raju	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/536/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Kolli Vani	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/537/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Kati Maria Dasu	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/542/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Vemireddy Venkati	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/543/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Ressa Appalla Narasamma	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/544/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Mahamkali Simhachalam	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/545/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Penupothu Padmavathi	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/546/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Chittibomma Ganga Ratnam	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/547/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Senapathi Ammaji	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/549/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Velivela Raja Prabhu	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—
CC/550/2019	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Eluru vs Vemula Ramesh	14 Dec 2019	Copy of Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,523 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2020		2
Mar 2020		6
Feb 2020		26
Jan 2020		13
Dec 2019		70
Nov 2019		19
Oct 2019		21
Sep 2019		31
Aug 2019		34
Jul 2019		55
Jun 2019		21
May 2019		27

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma handled?

Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma has handled 1532 court orders since 2017 at PDJ Court Complex Eluru. The average disposal rate is 48 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma hear?

Based on available records, Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) at PDJ Court Complex Eluru.

Where is Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma currently posted?

Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma is posted as Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Proh. and Excise Act at Eluru -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru at PDJ Court Complex Eluru, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma dispose cases?

Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma disposes approximately 48 cases per month, based on 1532 orders handled over their tenure at PDJ Court Complex Eluru.

Since when is Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma serving?

Sri R. Venkateswara Sharma has been serving at PDJ Court Complex Eluru since 2017.

Case Types

CC 85%

DVC 14%

MC 1%

PRC 0%

JCC 0%

Posting History

Dec 2019 — Dec 2019

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Proh. and Excise Act at Eluru -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru · 55 orders
Apr 2018 — Aug 2018

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru · 209 orders
May 2017 — Jul 2020

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru -cum- III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru · 1,268 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 9

Other Judges at this Court

Smt S Sree Devi

Principal District And Sessions Judge, Eluru

515 orders

Smt.U.Indira Priyadarshini

I Additional District And Session Judge Eluru

24 orders

Smt.M.Meena Devi

II Additional District And Sessions Judge Eluru

6 orders

R V V S Murali Krishna

V Additional District And Session Judge cum Specia...

452 orders

I Srinivasa Murthy

VIII Additional District And Session Judge-SCST El...

361 orders

Dr Yeedu Srinivasa Rao

Judge, Family court-cum-VII Addl. District Judge

734 orders

M. Prameela Rani

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru

10 orders

Sri P S V B Krishna Sai Teja

Additional Senior Civil Judge,Eluru

374 orders

Dr. Sk Md Abutalib Parveez

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistr...

760 orders

Rachana Bandi

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Addition...

313 orders

Smt Kolla Spandana

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for tri...

791 orders

Nokku Mary

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile...

504 orders

Smt B. Vani Sree

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional...

0 orders

← View all judges at PDJ Court Complex Eluru