Kum Sri Rajarajeswari Tejaswi Kalahasti

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

(Criminal Court for Agency Areas)

PRESENT:Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar, Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, I/C. Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Wednesday, this the 27th day of December, 2023

P.R.C.No.32 of 2023

(Crime No.128/2023 of Jangareddigudem Police Station) Between :

State :: Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jangareddigudem Sub Division, Jangareddigudem …Complainant.

And

Kopparthi Rama Krishna @ Bakeer, s/o.Peddiraju, (late) aged 27 years, C/Naibrahmin, Vegavram Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal. …Accused.

This is a case coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of learnedAssistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and upon perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:

COMMITTAL ORDER

1.Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jangareddigudem Sub Division,

Jangareddigudem, filed this case in Crime No.128/2023 of Jangareddigudem Police

Station alleging that Accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 450, 307, 302, 326, 397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’).

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, as follows…

(i). LW.1/Kolusu Manga is the resident of Mysannagudem village,

Jangareddigudem Mandal. She is the elder sister of the injured person No.1. The deceased has been working at Tobacco Barren of Pakiram Satyanarayana in their village, for burning the tobacco of Tanuboyina Nagaraju. On 1.4.2023 at night time, the deceased went to his working tobacco barren and later, the deceased received

Rs.15,000/- from farmers. Later at about 10.00 pm, the deceased and the suspect person together were talking there and also consuming liquor and on the next day, i.e., on 2.4.2023 at about 5.00 am, Tanuboyina Nagaraju went to the barren and found that, the deceased was present in pool of blood with severe bleeding injuries over his head and then Nagaraju went to the house of the deceased and found that the inured persons 1 and 2 were also received severe bleeding injuries and the injured persons were in unconscious state. Then Tanuboyina Nagaraju came to her house and informed about this and then she and her relatives together rushed to the house of deceased and found that injured persons 1 and 2 were received severe bleeding injuries over their heads and also (1) gold bondu-3 sov.,; (2) gold ear studs – ½ sov., were committed theft from injured person NO.1 forcibly and later, they went to the tobacco barren and found that, the deceased was also received severe bleeding injuries and cash Rs.15,000/- and cell phone of the deceased were also found missing from deceased. Then they shifted the injured deceased, and injured persons to Jangareddigudem village and admitted in Government hospital,

Jangareddigudem, for treatment and the doctor attended for treatment to the injuries of the injured persons. Later, she learnt Tanuboyina Nagaraju that, the suspect persons and deceased together consumed liquor on 1.4.2023 at night time.

Then she and others tried to call the suspect person, but the suspect person’s phone was switched off and also found missing from his village. In this connection, a case in Cr.No.128/2023 under Sections 450, 307, 397 IPC was registered and investigated into. On 2.4.2023 at 9.00 pm, he received the MLC death intimation of the deceased, as the deceased was died in Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, while undergoing treatment. Basing on the above death intimation by adding the section of law under Section 302 IPC and this case was registered under Sections 450, 302, 307, 397 IPC. On 4.4.2023 accused was arrested. After completion of investigation,

Lw.37/SDPO filed charge sheet.

3.Upon perusal of material placed by L.W.37 –SDPO, this Court took cognizance for the offence under Sections 450, 302, 307, 326 IPC against Accused.

4.On appearance of Accused, copies of case papers furnished as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and when he was examined, he stated that he got means to engage counsel to defend him before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions.

5.Having heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and upon perusing the material on record and keeping in view of the fact that as the offence

U/Sec.450, 307, 302 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to commit the case to the Hon’ble Court of Session,

West Godavari Division, Eluru.

6. In the result, the case against Accused is committed to the Hon’ble

Court of Session, West Godavari Division, Eluru U/Sec.209 (a) of Cr.P.C. Accused, who is on bail, is ordered to be appeared before the Hon’ble Court of Session as and when summons received, and the Station House Officer, Jangareddigudem Police

Station, is directed to produce Accused before the Hon’ble Court of Session as and when summons received as provided U/Sec.209 (b) of Cr.P.C. The Office is directed to submit the entire case record along with the property to the Court of Hon’ble

Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru U/Sec.209 (c) of Cr.P.C. Notify the committal

of the case to the learned Public Prosecutor U/Sec.209 (d) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III directly on computer system, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of December, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem.

I/c. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

N O N E

DOCUMENTS MARKED

N I L

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem.

I/c. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem

P R O F O R M A

Intimation of the Commitment of the Preliminary Register Cases to the Court of

Sessions by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas),

Jangareddigudem.

1. Number of P.R.C. : 32/2023

2. Name of the Police Station and it’s : 128/2023 of Jangareddigudem P.S.

Crime Number

3. Date of commitment : 27-12-2023

4. a) Number of persons committed : One

b) Number of persons on bail : One

c) Number of persons in jail : --

5. Nature of offence : U/Sec.450, 307, 302 IPC

6. Number of witnesses cited : 37

7. a) Whether any of the properties : Yes. were sent to the chemical examiner

b) Whether properties sent to the : Yes. chemical examiner have been received back or not

c) Whether the chemical : Yes. examination report received or not

8. a) Whether Accused has means : Yes. or intended to engage an Advocate to defend him at trial

b) Whether the accused engaged : Yes. or intended to engage an Advocate to defend him at trial

9. Special circumstances, if any to take : Nil.

into account

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem.

I/c. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem.

Office of the Judicial Magistrate of

First Class Court, Jangareddigudem,

Dated ::

From To

Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar, The Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Junior Civil Judge-cum- West Godavari,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, E L U R U.

Jangareddigudem. I/c. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem

Honoured Sir,

Sub:-COURTS – Criminal – Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem – Submission of Committal Order and Form–31 in P.R.C.No.32/2023 on the file of this Court – Regarding.

* * *

I have honour to submit herewith the Committal Order, Form – 31 along with the record in P.R.C.No.32/2023 on the file of this Court c/w Crime No.128/2023 of

Jangareddigudem Police Station, U/Sec.450, 307, 302 of Indian Penal Code against accused, which is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge’s Court, West

Godavari, Eluru.

Yours faithfully,

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem. I/c. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem.

Encl : Committal Order, Form – 31, along with record in P.R.C.No.32/2023.

FORM – 31

NOTICE OF COMMITMENT BY MAGISTRATE TO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

(See Section 209 of Cr.P.C.)

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem hereby gives notice that she has committed one P.R.C.No.32/2023 in Crime No.128/2023 of

Jangareddigudem Police Station for trial at the next Sessions; and the Magistrate hereby instructs the Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution of the said case.

The charge against the accused is that, etc., (state the offence as in the charge).

Dated, this 27th day of December, 2023.

Seal

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem. I/c. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem.

True Extract in P.R.C.No.32/2023 (Cr.No.128/2023 of Jangareddigudem Police Station) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem.

1. Number of the P.R.C.No.32/2023 case

2. Name of the accused Kopparthi Rama Krishna @ Bakeer, s/o.Peddiraju, (late) aged 27 years, C/Naibrahmin, Vegavram Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

3. Substance of the The case of the prosecution, in brief, as follows… complaint : LW.1/Kolusu Manga is the resident of Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal. She is the elder sister of the injured person No.1. The deceased has been working at Tobacco Barren of Pakiram Satyanarayana in their village, for burning the tobacco of Tanuboyina Nagaraju. On 1.4.2023 at night time, the deceased went to his working tobacco barren and later, the deceased received Rs.15,000/- from farmers. Later at about 10.00 pm, the deceased and the suspect person together were talking there and also consuming liquor and on the next day, i.e., on 2.4.2023 at about 5.00 am, Tanuboyina Nagaraju went to the barren and found that, the deceased was present in pool of blood with severe bleeding injuries over his head and then Nagaraju went to the house of the deceased and found that the inured persons 1 and 2 were also received severe bleeding injuries and the injured persons were in unconscious state. Then Tanuboyina Nagaraju came to her house and informed about this and then she and her relatives together rushed to the house of deceased and found that injured persons 1 and 2 were received severe bleeding injuries over their heads and also (1) gold bondu-3 sov.,; (2) gold ear studs – ½ sov., were committed theft from injured person NO.1 forcibly and later, they went to the tobacco barren and found that, the deceased was also received severe bleeding injuries and cash Rs.15,000/- and cell phone of the deceased were also found missing from deceased. Then they shifted the injured deceased, and injured persons to Jangareddigudem village and admitted in Government hospital, Jangareddigudem, for treatment and the doctor attended for treatment to the injuries of the injured persons. Later, she learnt Tanuboyina Nagaraju that, the suspect persons and deceased together consumed liquor on 1.4.2023 at night time. Then she and others tried to call the suspect person, but the suspect person’s phone was switched off and also found missing from his village. In this connection, a case in Cr.No.128/2023 under Sections 450, 307, 397 IPC was registered and investigated into. On 2.4.2023 at 9.00 pm, he received the MLC death intimation of the deceased, as the deceased was died in Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, while undergoing treatment.

Basing on the above death intimation by adding the section of law under Section 302 IPC and this case was registered under Sections 450, 302, 307, 397 IPC. On 4.4.2023 accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, Lw.37/SDPO filed charge sheet.

4. Name of the State :: Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jangareddigudem Sub complainant: Division, Jangareddigudem.

5.Name of the 1.Kolusu Manga, w/o.Annavarm, aged 35 years, Witnesses for C/Settibalija, Mysannagudem village, Prosecution: Jangareddigudem Mandal.

2.Tanuboyina Nagaraju, s/o.Venkateswararao, aged 40 years, C/Uppara, Cultivation, Opp:Ramalayam Street, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

3.Nimmala Rambabu, s/o.Rammurthy, aged 45 years, C/Rajaka, Coolie, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

4.Pampana Satyanarayana, s/o.Siddayya (late), aged 33 years, C/Settibalija, cultivation, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

5.Tadisetti Mariyamma, w/o.late Sokkababu(late), aged 30 years, C/Uppara, Coolie, Soniyapeta, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

6.Pippalla Nagendra Babu @ Nagendra, s/o.Durgarao, aged 35 years, C/Naibrahmin, Electrician, Soniyapeta, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal. N/o.Murari village, Gandepalli Mandal, Kakinada District.

7.Nune Pallarao @ Pallayya, s/o.Nageswararao, aged 35 years, C/Yadava, MPTC & Cultivation, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

8.Derangula Srinu, s/o.Nageswararao, aged 43 years, C/Vaddera, Cultivation, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

9.Katari Bhavani Krishna @ Bhavani, s/o.Srinivasarao @ Srinu, aged 17 years, C/Mutarasi, Coolie, YSR Nagar, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

10.Tadi Siva Rama Krishna, s/o.Venkateswararao, aged 26 years, C/Mutarasi, Coolie, Vinayaka Temple Street, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

11.Veeravalli Seethamahalakshmi, w/o.Rama Krishna, aged 37 years, c/Settibalija, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

12.Dongala Seetharamaraju, s/o.Satyanarayana, aged 40 years, C/Settibalija, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

13.Pala Gangadhara Rao, s/o.Venkateswararao, aged 22 years, C/Settibalija, Veerisettivarigudem Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal.

14.Vasamsetti Naga Durga, w/o.Prasad Rao, aged 45 years, C/Settibalija, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

15.Godugu Srinivasa Rao, s/o.Mallayya, aged 37 years, C/Mudiraju, coolie, Mysannagudem village,

Jangareddigudem Mandal.

16.Kukkala Durgarao, s/o.Kantharao, aged 45 years, C/Settibalija, Coolie, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

17.Illa Suryachandra Rao, s/o.Ramulu, aged 45 years, C/Settibalija, coolie, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

18.Bhimavarapu Kishore, s/o.Somaraju, aged 42 years, C/Vysya, near Saibaba temple, Vegavaram village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

19.Dakarapu Venkata Balaji, s/o.Sri Krishna, aged 37 years, C/kapu, Cultivation, Vegavaram village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

20.Juttuka Mangaraju, s/o.Rambabu, aged 30 years, C/Settibalija, Ramannagudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.

21.Pala Mahesh, s/o.Venkateswararao, aged 27 years, C/settibalija, Ramannagudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal.

22.Thonam Naga Venkata Durgarao, s/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged 38 years, C/Settibalija, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

23.Pala Siva Krishna, s/o.Venkateswararao, aged 27 years, C/Settibalija, Veerisettigudem Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal.

24.Dr.A.Krishnanjaneyulu, MD Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Siddhardha Medical College, Government Central Hospital, Vijayawada.

25.Dr.Ramya, CAS, Mogallapu Narasayya Memorial, Area Hospital, APVVP, Jangareddigudem.

26.Thonam Mangaraju @ Cherry, s/o.Siva, aged 11 years, C/Settibalija, Soniyapeta, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal

27.Pakiram Satyanarayana, s/o.Somaraju, aged 40 years, C/Yadava, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal

28.Dr.V.Siva Kameswararao, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Siddhardha Medical College, Vijayawada.

29.Budiputi Srinubabu, s/o.Seethayya, aged 37 years, C/SC/mala, VRO, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal

30.Jala Sekhar, s/o.Venkata Durgarao, aged 32 years, C/SC/Madiga, VRA, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal

31.Kukkala Seetharamaraju, s/o.Nageswararao, aged 40 years, C/Settibalija, Mysannagudem village, Jangareddigudem Mandal

32.P.Srinivasarao, Finger Print Unit, CID, Eluru, Eluru District.

33.N.Uma Maheswararao, HC, Jangareddigudem PS

34.M.Sagarbabu, SI, Jangareddigudem PS

35.P.B.Suresh Babu, CI, formerly worked at Jangareddigudem Circle.

36.K.V.Satyanarayana, SDPO, Parawada SD, Vizag District. Formerly worked as DSP, Disha Women PS,

Eluru I/c.Jangareddigudem Sub Division.

37.M.Dhanunjayudu, SDPO, Jangareddigudem Sub Division, Jangareddigudem.

6. Result of enquiry Case is committed to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, W.G., Eluru, under Sections 307, 450, 302 of IPC

7. Date of offence 02-04-2023

8. Date of complaint 02-04-2023

9. Apprehension of 04-04-2023 accused 10.Closing enquiry: 27-12-2023 11.Explanation for -Nil- the delay:

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem. I/c. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem

Docket extract in P.R.C.No.32/2023 (Cr.No.128/2023 of Jangareddigudem Police Station) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02-11-2023 This case is taken on file under Sections 307, 450, 302 of IPC against accused. Issue summons to Accused. Call on 07-11-2023.

07.11.2023 Accused is produced from District jail, Eluru, Copies of documents furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure–1973 for committal RE of accused till 21.11.2023 21.11.2023 Accused absent. Await summons to accused, call on 29.11.2023 29.11.2023 Accused present. For filing sureties, call on 20.12.2023 20.12.2023 Accused present. For filing sureties, call on 27.12.2023 27.12.2023 Order is pronounced (V.S.O)

In the result, the case against Accused is committed to the

Hon’ble Court of Session, West Godavari Division, Eluru U/Sec.209 (a) of

Cr.P.C. Accused, who is on bail, is ordered to be appeared before the

Hon’ble Court of Session as and when summons received, and the

Station House Officer, Jangareddigudem Police Station, is directed to produce Accused before the Hon’ble Court of Session as and when summons received as provided U/Sec.209 (b) of Cr.P.C. The Office is directed to submit the entire case record along with the property to the Court of Hon’ble Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru U/Sec.209 (c) of Cr.P.C. Notify the committal of the case to the learned Public Prosecutor U/Sec.209 (d) of Cr.P.C.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem. I/c. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem

Classification statement in P.R.C.No.32/2023 (Cr.No.128/2023 of Jangareddigudem Police Station) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem.

Sl.No. Name of the Witness Village and Mandal Bus/Train Remarks 1 K.Manga Mysannagudem village, Bus -- Jangareddigudem Mandal. 2 T.Nagaraju Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 3 N.Rambabu Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 4 P.Satyanarayana Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 5 T.Mariyamma Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 6 P.Nagendra Babu Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 7 N.Pallarao Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 8 D.Srinu Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 9 K.Bhavani Krishna Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 10 T.S.Ramakrishna Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 11 V.Seethamahalakshmi Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 12 D.Seetharamaraju Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 13 P.Gangadhararao Veerisettivarigudem Village, -do- -- Kamavarapukota mandal 14 V.N.Durga Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 15 G.Srinivasarao Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 16 K.Durgarao Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 17 I.Suryachandrarao Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 18 B.Kishore Vegavaram village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal. 19 D.V.Balaji Vegavaram village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 20 J.Mangaraju Ramannagudem village, -do- -- Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal 21 P.Mahesh Ramannagudem village, -do- -- Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal 22 T.N.V.Durgarao Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 23 P.S.Krishna Veerisettivarigudem Village, -do- -- Kamavarapukota mandal 24 Dr.A.Krishnanjaneyulu Jangareddigudem village -do- -- and Mandal. 25 Dr.Ramya, CAS Jangareddigudem village -do- -- and Mandal.

26 T.Mangaraju Mysannagudem village, -do- --

Jangareddigudem Mandal 27 P.Satyanarayana Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 28 Dr.V.S.Kameswararao Vijayawada -do- -- 29 B.Srinubabu Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 30 J.Sekhar Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 31 K.Seetharamaraju Mysannagudem village, -do- -- Jangareddigudem Mandal 32 P.Srinivasa Rao Eluru -do- -- 33 N.Uma Maheswararao, HC Jangareddigudem village -do- -- and Mandal. 34 M.Sagarbabu, SI Jangareddigudem village -do- -- and Mandal 35 P.B.Suresh Babu, CI Jangareddigudem village -do- -- and Mandal 36 K.V.Satyanarayana, SDPO Vizag -do- -- 37 M.Dhanunjayudu, SDPO Jangareddigudem village -do- -- and Mandal

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem. I/c. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: JANGAREDDIGUDEM

PRESENT: Ms.K.S.R.Tejaswi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Junior Division)

Thursday, this the 07th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.1581 of 2017

Between :

Chitturi Peddiraju, S/o. Venkataratnam(late), Aged 40 years, R/o. Guravaigudem Village of Jangareddigudem Mandal …Complainant.

and

Dasari Ravi Kumar, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 42 years, R/o. Veerampalem village of Tadepalligudem Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming before me today for arguments in the presence of Sri

B. Nagendra Kumar,learned counselfor Complainant and of Sri

Ch.D.V.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the Accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter for short the NI Act).

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that:

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 06.06.2016 for her family expenses and executed of promissory note in favour of the complainant. Later, in spite of repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.332492 on 24.10.2017 for Rs.2,50,000/- and the same was dishonored on 25.10.2017 for the reason “Funds Insufficient”.

Thereafter, on 02.11.2017, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused and the same was refused by the accused on 06.11.2017 and kept quiet. Hence, this Complaint.

3. Case is taken on file for the offence Punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. On appearance of Accused, copies furnished to accused as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure–1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). Accused is examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. explaining the accusation punishable

U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act, and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To substantiate this case, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and got Exs.P1 to P6 are marked with PW.1. The scribe of Ex.P1 examined as Pw.2 and one of the attester is examined as PW.3. Ex.P1 is original cheque bearing no.332492, dated 24.10.2017. Ex.P2 is original cheque return memo, dated 25.10.2017. Ex.P3 is office copy of registered legal notice along with postal receipt, dated 03.11.2017. Ex.P4 is Acknowledgment from accused, Ex.P5 is office copy of legal notice, dated 02.11.2017, Ex.P6 is returned cover from accused, Ex.P7 is Original promissory note, dated 06.06.2016.

5. After closure of complainant’s evidence, the Accused was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence found in the hands of complainant witness, the accused denied the same and reported evidence on her behalf. On behalf of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7. Now, the points for determination are… (1) Whether the complaint established the factual basis of this case under Section 138 of NI Act against the accused and presumption under 139 of NI Act is

drawn in favour of the complainant?

(2) If so whether the accused rebutted the presumption drawn under Section 139 of NI Act in favour of the complainant?

(3) Whether the accused committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act or not ? What order ?

P O I N TS:

The complainant counsel argued that the complainant filed case under

Section 138 of NI Act and got examined himself as PW.1, scribe of pronote as

PW.2 and one of the attestor as PW.3. Both the complainant and scribe supported the case of complainant and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 on their behalf and presumption under Section 118(a) of NI Act is raised. Hence, the accused may be convicted as per law.

On the other hand, the accused counsel argued that the complainant failed to fulfill legal requirements of Section 138 NI Act and issued a omnibus legal notice and relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Upasana Mishra v.

Trek technology Pvt. Ltd. In counter reply, the complainant counsel submitted his argument that said decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Upasana Mishra v. Trek technology Pvt. Ltd is not applicable in this case since, the case facts are different to that of this present case in hand.

9. In this case the complainant is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. Ex.P1 is original cheque bearing no.332492, dated 24.10.2017. Ex.P2 is original cheque return memo, dated 25.10.2017. Ex.P3 is office copy of registered legal notice along with postal receipt, dated 03.11.2017. Ex.P4 is

Acknowledgment from accused, Ex.P5 is office copy of legal notice, dated 02.11.2017, Ex.P6 is returned cover from accused, Ex.P7 is Original promissory note, dated 06.06.2016.

10. To prove the guilt of the accused for the offense punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act the complainant needs to prove that:

(1) Cheque that was issued by the accused presented for collection within the period of its validity.

(2) That the cheque was dishonoured by the bank authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(3) That the drawee issued notice under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 within the statutory period in respect of cheque dishonored.

(4) That the drawer received the said notice, but failed to make any payment covered by the dishonoured cheque with in stipulated time as mentioned in section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881.

(5) That the complaint was filed within the period of limitation in the court having jurisdiction.

(6) A Prima facie proof that the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable subsisting debt.

11. Therefore if all the above ingredients were proved by the complainant or in other words if all the above points were answered positively in favour of the complainant and against the accused the presumption under section 139 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 comes in to play and the burden of proving the case shifted to the accused and he has to rebut the presumption arises under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in favour of the complainant.

12. The initial burden to prove his case lies on the complainant before raising presumption U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act. The Complainant himself is examined as P.W.1 and he got marked Ex.P.1 to P.7. In his evidence P.W.1 reiterated contents of his complaint by deposing that the accused borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- on 06.06.2016 and that there is a due of Rs.2,00,000/- at present, out of which he gave cheque bearing No.332492, on 24.10.2017 in the name of State Bank of

India, Bhimadole. The complainant as PW.1 presented the same at State Bank of

India, Jangareddigudem and the cheque was returned on 25.10.2017 due to “Funds Insufficient” andin spite of statutory notice the accused failed to pay the cheque amount, as such the accused committed the offence punishable

U/Sec.138 of NI Act.

13. PW.2 and PW.3 stated in their chief examination that accused borrowed

Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 06.06.2016 and executed pronote in favour of the complainant. Then the accused put his signature on the pronote in all their presence. During their cross-examination except denials suggetsions nothing is elicited.

14. The accused counsel did not place any defence evidence. Hence, the defence of the accused is considered from the cross examination of PWs.1 and 2,

Arguments of the accused counsel in this case. Further, it is clear from the

Judgment of “Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde”, reported in 2008 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) 170 (SC) that “ the accused has every right to use the evidence adduced on behalf of complainant to rebut the presumption under

Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable instruments act and there is no necessity to adduce evidence by stepping into the witness box.”

15. It is the contention of the accused counsel that both Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 legal notice are defective notice, as the complainant did not specify the demand of cheque amount, as such it does not create any cause of action, as such accused is entitled for acquittal.

16. Now, it is to be seen whether the complainant made any specific demand for payment of cheque in Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 notice or not. Here, the contention of learned counsel for the accused is that the Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 legal notice is defective as no demand was made for payment of the cheque amount as such there is no cause of action to maintain this complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

17. In the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to consider

the Judgment in case of K.R. Indira v. Dr. G. Adinarayana [(2003) 8 SCC 300]

wherein the Honorable supreme Court upon noticing Suman Sethi (supra)

stated the law, thus:

"...However, according to the respondent, the notice in question is not separable in that way and that there was no specific demand made for payment of the amount covered by the cheque. We have perused the contents of the notice. Significantly, not only the cheque amounts were different from the alleged loan amounts but the demand was made not of the cheque amounts but only the loan amount as though it is a demand for the loan amount and not the demand for payment of the cheque amount, nor could it be said that it was a demand for payment of the cheque amount and in addition thereto made further demands as well. What is necessary is making of a demand for the amount covered by the bounced cheque which is conspicuously absent in the notice issued in this case. The notice in question is imperfect in this case not because it had any further or additional claims as well but it did not specifically contain any demand for the payment of the cheque amount, the non-compliance with such a demand only being the incriminating circumstance which exposes the drawer for being proceeded against under Section 138 of the Act"

18. In decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suman Sethi Vs. Ajay K Churiwal and another (2002) SCC380 “8. It is well settled principle of law that the notice has to be read as a whole. In the notice, demand has to be made for the "said amount" i.e. cheque amount. If no such demand is made the notice no doubt would fall short of its legal requirement. Where in addition to "said amount" there is also a claim by way of interest, cost etc. whether the notice is bad would depend on the language of the notice. If in a notice while giving the break up of the claim the cheque amount, interest, damages etc. are separately specified, other such claims for interest, cost etc. would be superfluous and these additional claims would he severable- and will not invalidate the notice. If, however, in the notice an omnibus demand is made without specifying what was due under the dishonored cheque, notice might well fail to meet the legal requirement and may be regarded as bad.”

19. Further, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Upasana Mishra Vs.

Trek Technology India Pvt.Ltd. SLP No.9062/2023 stated that Para No.6

“…..in the demand notice, demand has to be made for the „cheque amount‟ and therefore, notice sans such demand would fall short of legal requirement.” “.…In short, in a notice of demand made under the N.I. Act demand shall not be omnibus, there must be a clear demand for the cheque amount lest notice will be invalid.”

20. The Legal Principle of law laid down by Honorable Supreme court in the above decisions is thus, when no demand was made for payment of the cheque amount in statutory legal notice, the complaint U/sec.138 of NI Act is not maintainable. In the light of above legal principles laid down by Honorable supreme court, now this court will examine the material on record of this case.

21. On careful examination of Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 legal notice it is clear that no demand was made in said Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 legal notice for payment of cheque amount. Relevant portion of Ex.P3 legal notice of complainant is extracted here for better appreciation as under:

“You should repay the above said entire debt along with contract rate of interest to my client within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice”.

Relevant portion of Ex.P5 legal notice of complainant is extracted here for better appreciation as under:

“You should repay the above the said debt along with contract rate of interest to my client within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this notice.”

22. Except above, there is no specific demand in Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 legal notices for payment of cheque amount as required U/sec.138(b) of Negotiable Instrument

Act. In Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 two things were discussed that accused borrowed

Rs.2,00,000/- through pronote and issued cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- each to discharge debt. As per the legal notice, the accused did not repay the pronote amount and it is clearly admitted by the complainant and further issued cheque of

Rs.2,50,000/- and they were returned due to “insufficient funds”, meaning the cheque amount is also an unpaid amount. When it is so, the prayer for above entire debt makes the demand an omnibus. As per the earlier discussed decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court the demand for cheque amount must be specific but not omnibus. Whether it is one or more cheques the demand must be made specifically for payment of those cheque amounts but not a generalized demand. Therefore, in view of the above legal principle of law laid down by

Hon'ble Supreme court and in view of Sec.138 (b) of Negotiable Instrument Act,

this court is of considered opinion that the Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 legal notice is defective. When, the Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 statutory notice is defective, it would not give raise any cause of action to the complainant to file this complainant and no offence U/sec.138 Negotiable Instrument Act is made out, as such the complaint is not maintainable.

23. Therefore, in view of above discussion and for the reasons stated above this court is considered opinion that, statutory requirements to constitute the offence U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is not complied and that there is no cause of action to constitute the offence U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Thus, complainant failed to prove the guilty of accused for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act and the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

24. In the result, Accused is not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds if any of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months.

Typed on my laptop and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 07 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Sri Rajarajeswari Tejaswi

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

(Junior Division), Jangareddigudem

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAIANNT : Pw.1: Ch.Peddiraju PW.2: V.Kasi Viswanadham PW.3: K.V.V.Satyanarayana

FOR DEFENCE : NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT :

Ex.P1: Original Cheque bearing no.332492, dt.24.10.2017

Ex.P2: Original Cheque Return memo, dt.25.10.2017. Ex.P3: Office copy of legal notice, dated 03.10.2017 along with postal receipt. Ex.P4: Acknowledgement from accused Ex.P5: Office copy of legal notice, dated 02.11.2017. Ex.P6: Returned cover from accused. Ex.P7: Original Promissory note dt.06.06.2016

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

Id/- K.S.R.T.

J.F.C.M.,(JD)

JRG

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No.1581/2017 tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), West Godavari District. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of offence:24.10.2017 Date of Complaint :27.11.2017 Taken on file:27.11.2017 Released on bail:-- Commencement of Trial:03.02.2018 Close of Trial:11.09.2019 Date of Judgment:07.05.2026 Explanation for delay:The complainant did not execute NBW pending against accused since dragged the matter by not adducing Between :evidence.

Chitturi Peddiraju, S/o. Venkataratnam(late), Aged 40 years, R/o. Guravaigudem Village of Jangareddigudem Mandal …Complainant.

and

Dasari Ravi Kumar, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 42 years, R/o. Veerampalem village of Tadepalligudem Mandal.

…Accused

Offence :U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. Finding :Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order:

In the result, Accused is not guilty for the offence under

Section138 of NI Act and accordingly he is acquitted

U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds if any of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months.

Sd/- K.Sri Rajarajeswari Tejaswi

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

(Junior Division), Jangareddigudem

Copy submitted to:The Hon’ble I Additional District AND Sessions

Judge, Eluru, West Godavari (Through Compact Disk).

1

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

PRESENT: Ms.K.Sri Rajarajeswari Tejaswi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jangareddigudem

Friday, this the 14th day of July, 2023

Calendar Case No.173 of 2018

(Crime No.94/2018 of Koyyalagudem Police Station) Between :

State :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyyalagudem Police Station.

…Complainant.

and

Ponna Naga Surya Satya Sai Sharma @ Naga Surya Sai Kumar, s/o.Sri Rama Krishna Murthy, aged 21 years, C/Brahmin, Saripalli village, Koyyalagudem Mandal.

…Accused.

This case is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor prosecution and of

Sri P.S.R.K.Lakshmana Rao, Learned Advocate for accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyyalagudem Police Station filed a charge sheet against Accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).

2. The Prosecution case in brief as follows:

(i). One Muppidi Venkata Rao is the deceased in this case and he is residing at Koyyalagudem village and Mandal. LW.1/Muppidi Nageswararao is the defacto complainant in this case.

(ii). LW.1 filed a complaint stating that on 05.03.2018 early hours, the deceased/Muppidi Venkata Rao while proceeding to the Koyyalagudem center with a view to take tea from his house and at about 5.30 am when he was reached near RTC

Bus stand on State High Way road, the accused rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP 37

CZ 2215, who proceeding from Gopalapuram side, ride the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from behind. As a result of which, the 2 deceased fell down on the road and received multiple injuries. On that, the deceased met his death when rushing to the UG.PHC, Koyyalagudem on 108 ambulance.

(iii). Basing on the report of LW.1, the SI of Police/LW.14 registered a case in

Crime no. 94/2018 under Section 304-A IPC at Koyyalagudem Police Station.

3. Upon perusal of material record placed by the Station House Officer,

Koyyalagudem Police Station this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC of IPC against accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused before this court on receipt of summons case copies were furnished to him in compliance under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and the accused was examined U/Sec.251

Cr.P.C. for the substance of allegations levelled against him by explaining him the contents of Charge Sheet in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of prosecution evidence witness between

LWs.1,2,3,6,7,8,13,14,9,5 are examined as PW.1 to PW.10 and exhibits P.1 to P.11 are marked. After completion of Prosecution evidence, accused is examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, and he denied the incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution against him and reported no evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8. The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offence against-

a) The Accused under Section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

POINT:

9. LW.1 filed a complaint stating that on 05.03.2018 early hours, the deceased/Muppidi Venkata Rao while proceeding to the Koyyalagudem center with a view to take tea from his house and at about 5.30 am when he was reached near RTC

Bus stand on State High Way road, the accused rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP 37

CZ 2215, who proceeding from Gopalapuram side, ride the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from behind. As a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and received multiple injuries. On that, the deceased met his death when rushing to the UG.PHC, Koyyalagudem on 108 ambulance.

10. The Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10. PW.1-M.Nageswararao, is the defacto complainant in this case, PW.2-M.Chinna Babu, PW.3-M.Suresh Babu, PW.4-

B.Chitti Babu, PW.5-V.S.Chandrabose, PW.6-Y.Venkayamma, PW.7-S.Srinivasu, PW.8-

M.Surya Bhagavan,SI, PW.9-A.Rambabu,VRO, PW.10-T.Kalyan.

11. The Defacto complainant/PW.1 deposed before this court in his chief examination that deceased by name Muppidi Venkata Rao is his father and stated that he does not know any contents about the case. Police never examined him. At this stage, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor took permission to cross examine the witness as he resailed from his earlier statement in the complaint.

12. PW.2/M.Chinna Babu deposed in his chief examination that he was informed by one known person about the incident of the deceased is his father and he does not know the details of the crime vehicle. PW.2 in his cross examination by the defence counsel admitted that he was not present at the time of incident and also he does not know, who drove the bike on the date of alleged incident. PW.3/M.Suresh

Babu deposed in his chief examination same as PW.1 that he received information through one known person and he rushed to hospital. PW.3 in his cross examination by the defence counsel admitted that he did not witness the incident, he never saw the accused.

4

13. PW.4/B.Chitti Babu deposed in his chief examination that he long with deceased while going for tea, the accused came from back side and hit the deceased.

He further deposed that the deceased was shifted to hospital in Ambulance and he died at Government Hospital, Koyyalagudem. PW.4 in his cross examination by the defence counsel admitted that police never called him to identify the accused and that he came to know the name of the accused through police. He further admitted that the incident took place at 5.30 am and it is not possible to identify the person from back side.

Where there is no street lights at the scene of offence. PW.4 also deferred from his previous statement in Section 161 Cr.P.C given to police that he can identify the person, who drove the motorcycle, it is marked as Ex.D.1, which is denied in the cross examination.

14. PW.5/V.S.Chandrabose and PW.6/Y.Venkayamma were examined before this Court and they deposed in their chief examination that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. At the stage, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor took permission to cross examine the witness as they resailed from the earlier statements.

15. PW.7/S.Srinivasu/AMVI deposed in his chief examination that he inspected the vehicle bearing No.AP 37 CZ 2215 and found front right side signal light damaged.

16. PW.8/M.Surya Bhagavan, SI deposed in his chief examination that he received report from PW.1 and on basing of such report filed FIR and on the same day, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and scene observation report and examined PWs.5 and 6. He further stated that he visited PHC, Koyyalagudem along with mediators LWs.9 to 11 and conducted inquest of the dead body of the deceased marked as Ex.P10. Later, he gave requisition to LW.12/Doctor to conduct postmortem and obtained postmortem certificate marked as Ex.P11. PW.8 in his cross examination by the defence counsel admitted that the accused crime vehicle was at the scene and he got information about the accused basing on the vehicle. He stated that crime vehicle was seized from the scene of offence at 5.00 pm and immediately, he deferred in his next statement that the crime vehicle was not seized by him, the accused along with the crime vehicle surrendered before him. It is true admitted clearly in his cross 5 examination that as per the scene observation report drafted by PW.8, the crime vehicle was not presented the scene.

17. PW.9/A.Rambabu, VRO, deposed in his chief examination that he acted as mediator for the alleged incident and Lw.10/VRA prepared the scene observation report and he was present at the inquest report of deceased. In his cross examination by the defence counsel PW.9 stated that there are blood stains on the road, there are skid marks or tyre marks of the crime vehicle are not shown in the scene observation report.

He admitted that it is true but there is no evidence to show that the accident took place at the scene of offence.

18. PW.10/T.Kalyan, deposed in his chief examination as PW.4 stating that he along with deceased going for tea and the accused came on scooter and hit the deceased and he informed the same to his family members. PW.10 in his cross examination by the defence counsel admitted that he does not know the name and details of the accused and police never called him to identify the accused in the police station. He further stated that he did not mention to the police, the number of the crime vehicle and he stated that blood came out from the mouth of the deceased and it fell on the road.

a)The Prosecution did not succeed to prove the guilt of Accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC as witness Pws.1 to 10 are examined in which

PW.1/complainant himself resailed from his statement and they did not support the case of the prosecution and PWs.5 and 6 mentioned as eye witness to speak about the incident resailed from their earlier statements and turned hostile.

For proving the offence under Section 304-A IPC one as to prove the main ingredient of the Section i.e., causing death by negligence. “Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide”. It is important to prove the fact that the collusion was entirely and mainly due to rashness or negligence.

6

19. PWs.1 to 10 were examined in favour of prosecution evidence and no witness mentioned the act of rash and negligence on part of the accused. PWs.4 to 6 and 10 are referred to be the eye witness of the incident in the charge sheet out of it

PWs.5 and 6 turned hostile and resailed from their previous statements. PWs.4 and 10 deposed that the accused cast the accident, but PW.4 admitted in his cross examination that he did not state to the police that he can identify the person, who drove the motorcycle and the same is marked as Ex.D.1. He further admitted that he did not state any specification of the accused and admitted that he came to know the name of the accused through police. In such case, the statements of PW.1 are not sufficient evidence for considering is to be true. Pw.10 deposed in his chief examination that he witnessed the alleged incident, but in his cross examination, he also deposed that blood came out from the mouth of the deceased and fell on the road, but such statement was not supported by any evidence and blood stains are not scene in rough sketch or the scene of offence drafted by PWs.8 and 9 in his cross examination he also stated the same as PW.4 that he does not know the name of the details of the accused at the time of incident and it was dark at the time of incident.

20. The prosecution did not succeed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the accused as no witness supported sufficient proof to prove the guilt of accused. The statements of Pws.4, 8 to 10 are in contradicting from their chief and cross examination. As a result due to lack of sufficient evidence and due to presence of contrary over lacking of evidence submitted by the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused under Section 304-A IPC. This Court found the accused not guilty of the said offence.

21. The evidence submitted by the prosecution before this Court to prove the guilt of accused has not been sufficient. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also did not prove the guilt of accused under Section 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

22. Therefore, there is no valid proof of evidence to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

7

23. In the result, accused is “found not guilty” for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

PW.1:M.Nageswararao

PW.2:M.Chinna Babu

PW.3:M.Suresh Babu

PW.4:B.Chitti Babu

PW.5:V.S.Chandrabose

PW.6:Y.Venkayamma

PW.7:S.Srinivasu

PW.8:M.Surya Bhagavan

PW.9:A.Rambabu

PW.10:T.Kalyan

FOR DEFENCE : N o n e.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1:Singatuer on the report of Pw.1

Ex.P2:Report of PW.1

Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5

Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6

Ex.P6:MVI report

Ex.P7:FIR

Ex.P8:Rough sketch

Ex.P9:Scene observation report

Ex.P10:Inquest report

Ex.P11:Postmortem certificate

FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.D.1:Statement of PW.4

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No.173/2018 tried by the Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of offence : 05-03-2018

Date of Report : 05-03-2018

Taken on file : 31-03-2018

Arrested on --

Released on bail : --

Commencement of Trial : 14-12-2022

Close of Trial : 31-05-2023

Date of Judgment : 14-07-2023

Explanation for delay : There is no avoidable delay.

Name of the Complainant :

State :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyyalagudem Police Station.

Name of the Accused:

Ponna Naga Surya Satya Sai Sharma @ Naga Surya Sai Kumar, s/o.Sri Rama Krishna Murthy, aged 21 years, C/Brahmin, Saripalli village, Koyyalagudem Mandal.

Offence :under Section 304-A of IPC

Finding :Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order:

In the result, accused is “found not guilty” for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem. Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

1

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

PRESENT: Ms.K.Sri Rajarajeswari Tejaswi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jangareddigudem

Friday, this the 14th day of July, 2023

Calendar Case No.782 of 2022

(Crime No.344/2020 of Jangareddigudem Police Station) Between :

State :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station.

…Complainant.

and

1.Cheekatla Satish @ Pandu, s/o.Suryanarayana, aged 25 years, C/SC/Mala, Kondagudem of Kamavarapukota village and Mandal.

2.Shaik Basha, s/o.Basha, aged 26 years, C/Muslim, Buttaigudem road, Jangareddigudem village and Mandal.

3.Akula Sampath Kumar @ Sampoo @ Sampath, s/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged 21 years, C/Vaddilu, Munisif Street, Jangareddigudem Village and Mandal.

…Accused.

This case is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor prosecution and of

Sri U.Yesu Babu, Learned Advocate for accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station filed a charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).

2. The Prosecution case in brief as follows:

(i). LW.1/Sanapala Venakat is the defacto complainant in this case and he is proprietor of Amazon Store Office at Jangareddigudem village and mandal.

(ii). LW.1 filed a complaint stating that from two months, he is running

Amazon store online delivery office and he used to door delivery the articles and keeping the amounts in the chest of a table at the office. As usual on the night of

Sunday i.e., 13.09.2020 night at about 9.00 pm, the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, which is the sale amount for the days of Saturday and Sunday kept in the chest of the table and 2 went away after locking the shop. Today i.e., on 14.09.2020 at about 7.15 am, he opened the shop and found that some unknown offender entered into the shop ;by cutting the southern window of the shop and committed theft of Rs.7,00,000/-.

(iii). Basing on the report of LW.1, the SI of Police/LW.12 registered a case in

Crime no. 344/2020 under Section 457, 380 of IPC at Jangareddigudem Police Station.

3. Upon perusal of material record placed by the Station House Officer,

Jangareddigudem Police Station this court took cognizance of the offence under

Sections 457, 380 or 411 of IPC of IPC against accused A.1 to A.3.

4. On appearance of the Accused A.1 to A.3 before this court on receipt of summons case copies were furnished to them in compliance under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

5. Accused A.1 to A.3 are examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code. The charges for the offences under Section 457, 380 of IPC were framed against the accused. The charges are read over and explained to them in Telugu i.e their mother tongue to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried before this court.

6. In support of prosecution evidence witness between

LWs.1,3,4,7,9,12,13,15 are examined as PW.1 to PW.8 and exhibits P.1 to P.6 are marked. After completion of Prosecution evidence, accused A.1 to A.3 are examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, and they denied the incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution against them and reported no evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8. The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused A.1 to A.3 for the charges framed against-

a) The Accused A.1 to A.3 under Section 457 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

b) The Accused A.1 to A.3 under Section 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

c) The Accused A.1 to A.3 under Section 411 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. LW.1 filed a complaint stating that from two months, he is running

Amazon store online delivery office and he used to door delivery the articles and keeping the amounts in the chest of a table at the office. As usual on the night of

Sunday i.e., 13.09.2020 night at about 9.00 pm, the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, which is the sale amount for the days of Saturday and Sunday kept in the chest of the table and went away after locking the shop. Today i.e., on 14.09.2020 at about 7.15 am, he opened the shop and found that some unknown offender entered into the shop ;by cutting the southern window of the shop and committed theft of Rs.7,00,000/-.

10. The Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8. PW.1-Sanapala Venkat is the defacto complainant in this case, PW.2-A.Vinay, PW.3-D.Krishna Vamsi, PW.4-U.Dattu,

PW.5-Saila Ramesh, PW.6-P.Rama Krishna Rao, SI, PW.7-B.Nageswara Nayak, CI, PW.8-

P.Bala Suresh Babu-CI.

11. The Defacto complainant/PW.1 deposed before this court in his chief examination that on 13.07.2020, he closed the shop at Buttaigudem and on the next day morning at 7.00 am when he came back, he found all things in fallen condition and two counters were broken and also found missing Rs.7,00,000/- from his office. He further deposed that he gave report to police marked as Ex.P1.

12. PW.1/S.Venkat in his cross examination by the learned defense counsel admitted that he was terminated by the Amazon company. He stated that he paid

Rs.7,00,000/- to Amazon company after this incident, he also admitted that he did not witness the incident and do not know how much cash was stolen.

13. PW.2/A.Vinay deposed in his chief examination that he is worker in

Amazon store and on receiving phone call from PW.1 on 14th evening and received 4 information about stolen money from their office. He further stated that he do not know, who gave police report.

14. PW.3/D.Krishna Vamsi deposed in his chief examination that he worked as office boy at Amazon. He further deposed that PW.1 informed to him that theft was taken place in the office. He further stated that he do not know anything about hits case.

15. PW.4/U.Dattu, VRO, deposed in his chief examination that he went to the scene on 21.02.2022 at arch of Parijathagiri temple and found two persons and they confessed as stated in the mediator report marked as Ex.P2.

PW.4 in his cross examination by the learned defense counsel admitted that the police did not secure mediators from the scene of offence.

16. PW.5/S.Ramesh, VRO, deposed in his chief examination that he went to act as mediator to Gromuru Center, Kamavarapukota, Dwaraka Tirumala road. He further deposed that accused/Satish/A.1 stated that he committed theft in Amazon store at Jangareddigudem and also stated that he committed theft in various cases to the SI of police and CI of police, Tadikalapudi police station.

PW.5 in his cross examination by the learned defence counsel admitted that the writer of police drafted the mediator report and he did not dictate the mediator report.

17. PW.6/P.Rama Krishna Rao, SI, deposed in his chief examination that he registered FIR in Cr.No.344 of 2020 on 14.09.2020 marked as Ex.P4.

PW.6 in his cross examination by the learned defence counsel stated that PW.1 did not produce any transaction receipts in the police station.

18. PW.7/B.Nageswara Nayak, CI, deposed in his chief examination that he received registered FIR and started investigation on 15.09.2020, he drafted the scene observation report and prepared rough sketch in the presence of mediators and examined Lws.2 to 6.

5

PW.7 in his cross examination by the learned defence counsel stated that the complainant did not mention the reasons for delay in filing the complaint before police station.

19. PW.8/P.Bala Suresh Babu/CI, deposed in his chief examination that A.1 confessed that he along with A.2 and A.3 committed offence in Cr.No.344 of 2020 in

Tadikalapudi police station. He further deposed that he arrested A.2 and A.3 in the presence of mediators and obtained confession statement of A.2 and A.3.

PW.8 in his cross examination by the learned defence counsel admitted that the theft amount is not recovered from the accused.

a)The Prosecution did not succeed to prove the guilt of Accused A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 457 of IPC as there is no sufficient proof to prove the guilt that accused A.1 to A.3 committed trespass into the store at night and committed theft.

The Prosecution did not provide proper evidence to prove the guilt of accused

A.1 to A.3 under Section 457 of IPC as a result, this court found accused A.1 to A.3 “not guilty” of the said offence.

b)The Prosecution did not succeed to prove the guilt of Accused A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 380 of IPC stated that ―theft in dwelling in house‖.

PWs.1 to 3 are the workers in Amazon store. PWs. 1 to 3 did not depose in their chief proving the guilt of accused A.1 to A.3. PW.5 deposed in his chief examination that A.1 confessed that he committed theft in Amazon store, but in his cross examination by the learned defence counsel admitted that he did not draft the mediators report. PW.8 deposed in his chief examination that he obtained confession about committed offence before arrest.

As per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act –―Confession to police officer not to be proved.—No confession made to a police officer1, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.‖

The prosecution examined Pws.1 to 8, but did not provide proper evidence to prove the guilt of accused A.1 to A.3. Due to lack of proper valid evidence to 6 prove the guilt of A.1 to A.3 under Section 380 IPC as a result, this court found accused A.1 to A.3 “not guilty” of the said offence.

c) The Prosecution did not succeed to prove the guilt of Accused A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 411 of IPC states that ―Dishonestly receiving stolen property‖. PW.8 in his cross examination by the learned defence counsel admitted that there is no recovery of the said theft amount Rs.7,00,000/-. He further admitted that there are no records relating to the amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- mentioned in the filed charge sheet also. Remaining PWs.1 to 7 did not depose in support with regard to the dishonest receiving of stolen property by accused A.1 to A.3.

The Prosecution did not submit proper evidence to prove the guilt of accused

A.1 to A.3 under Section 411 of IPC as a result, this court found accused A.1 to A.3 “not guilty” of the said offence.

20. The evidence submitted by the prosecution before this Court toprove the guilt of accused A.1 to A.3 has not been proper and sufficient. The learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor also did not prove the guilt of accused A.1 toA.3 under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

21. Therefore, there is no valid proof of evidence to prove the guilt of accused

A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC.

22. In the result, accused no. 1 to 3 are “found not guilty” for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of Accused A.2 and A.3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Accused No.1 released forthwith if he is not required in any other cases.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Sd/-Ms.K.Sri Rajarajeswari Tejaswi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

PW.1:S.Venkat

PW.2:A.Vinay

PW.3: D.Krishna Vamsi

PW.4: U.Dattu

PW.5: S.Ramesh

PW.6: P.Rama Krishna Rao

PW.7: B.Nageswara Nayak

Pw.8: P.Bala Suresh Babu

FOR DEFENCE : N o n e.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1: Report of Pw.1

Ex.P2: Mediator report

Ex.P3: Mediator report

Ex.P4: Original FIR

Ex.P5: Scene observation report

Ex.P6: Rough sketch

FOR DEFENCE : Nil.

Sd/-Ms.K.Sri Rajarajeswari Tejaswi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem.

//True Copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No.782/2022 tried by the Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of offence : 13-09-2020

Date of Report : 14-09-2020

Taken on file : 11-04-2022

Arrested on 29-12-2021(A.1) 21-02-2022(A.2, A.3) Released on bail : 15-03-2022

Commencement of Trial : 19-09-2022

Close of Trial : 30-06-2023

Date of Judgment : 14-07-2023

Explanation for delay : There is no avoidable delay.

Name of the Complainant :

State :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station.

Name of the Accused:

1.Cheekatla Satish @ Pandu, s/o.Suryanarayana, aged 25 years, C/SC/Mala, Kondagudem of Kamavarapukota village and Mandal.

2.Shaik Basha, s/o.Basha, aged 26 years, C/Muslim, Buttaigudem road, Jangareddigudem village and Mandal.

3.Akula Sampath Kumar @ Sampoo @ Sampath, s/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged 21 years, C/Vaddilu, Munisif Street, Jangareddigudem Village and Mandal.

Offence :under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of IPC

Finding :Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order: In the result, accused no. 1 to 3 are “found not guilty” for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of Accused A.2 and A.3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Accused No.1 released forthwith if he is not required in any other cases.

Sd/-Ms.K.Sri Rajarajeswari Tejaswi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem. Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

//True Copy//

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem.

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

PRESENT: Ms.K.Sri Rajarajeswari Tejaswi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jangareddigudem

Thursday, this the 06th day of April, 2023

Calendar Case No.88 of 2023

(Crime No.929/2021 of SEB Station, Jangareddigudem)

Between :

State :: Sub Inspector of Police, SEB Station, Jangareddigudem. …Complainant.

and

Dalli Rambabu, s/o.Neli Appalaswamy, aged 40 years, C/Reddy, R/o.Lakkavaram village, Jangareddigudem Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on 06-04-2023 for Section 313 Cr.P.C examination before me in the presence of Smt.K.Syamala, learned Assistant Public Prosecution, for prosecution and of Sri G.Venakteswararao, Advocate for the Accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, SEB Station, Jangareddigudem, filed charge-sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 (B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2. The case of prosecution in brief as follows…

(i). On 14.12.2021 at about 7.00 am, PW.1 along with his staff while going for patrolling in Lakkavaram Village, Jangareddigudem mandal, when reached at opposite Dalli Rambabu house, the accused was coming out of the house by on seeing them out of fear tried to run away. The staff stopped him, he questioned him why he was trying to run away on seeing them, he confessed that he has possession of ID liquor in his bag. He tried to secure mediators from the scene of offence, but in vain. He, in presence of his staff asked the accused to open his bag and found 5 liters of ID liquor in a polythene packet of 5 liters capacity. On further questioning, he stated that he got the ID liquor for lower price and selling it for higher price in the village. He thereby informed him that possession transporting, purchasing and sale of ID liquor is an offence under AP Prohibition Act. He noted the details of accused name-Dalli Rambabu, s/o.Neli Appala Swamy, aged 40 years, C/Reddy,

R/o.Lakkavaram village, Jangareddigudem Mandal. He arrested the accused and seized the property after drawing 300ml of ID liquor as sample, sealed and affixed with signatures of him and his staff, accused. He drafted the special report at the scene of offence. He, accused and LW.2 signed the special report. After completion of arrest and seizure of property, he handed over the accused, special report and the seized property to the SEB Station, Jangareddigudem. Ex.P1 is Special Report. MO.1 is sample bottle.

(ii). Basing on the Special Report, PW.2 registered FIR in Cr.No.929 of 2021 under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act. Ex. P2 is original FIR. Seized property is 5 liters ID liquor. he has sent sample to analyst of

ID liquor of 300ml. He received Chemical Examination Report. Ex.P-3 is Chemical

Examination Report. Ex.P4 is Destruction Order. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. Upon perusal of material placed by the Station House Officer,

Prohibition & Excise Station, Jangareddigudem, this Court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec.7 (B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies furnished as contemplated

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and the charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 (B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 was framed. The charge and the accusation leveled against him was explained to the accused in his mother tongue i.e., Telugu, on that he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of Prosecution evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1. The learned A.P.P. has given up examination of rest of witnesses and reported no further evidence. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating material recorded against him and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7. Now, the point for determination is…

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 (B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond reasonable doubt ? P O I N T :

8. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

9. PW.1 who is Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition & Excise,

Jangareddigudem deposed that on 14.12.2021 at about 7.00 am, he along with his staff while going for patrolling in Lakkavaram Village, Jangareddigudem mandal, when reached at opposite Dalli Rambabu house, the accused was coming out of the house by on seeing them out of fear tried to run away. The staff stopped him, he questioned him why he was trying to run away on seeing them, he confessed that he has possession of ID liquor in his bag. He tried to secure mediators from the scene of offence, but in vain. He, in presence of his staff asked the accused to open his bag and found 5 liters of ID liquor in a polythene packet of 5 liters capacity. On further questioning, he stated that he got the ID liquor for lower price and selling it for higher price in the village. He thereby informed him that possession transporting, purchasing and sale of ID liquor is an offence under AP Prohibition Act. He noted the details of accused name-Dalli Rambabu, s/o.Neli Appala Swamy, aged 40 years,

C/Reddy, R/o.Lakkavaram village, Jangareddigudem Mandal. He arrested the accused and seized the property after drawing 300ml of ID liquor as sample, sealed and affixed with signatures of him and his staff, accused. He drafted the special report at the scene of offence. He, accused and LW.2 signed the special report. After completion of arrest and seizure of property, he handed over the accused, special report and the seized property to the SEB Station, Jangareddigudem. Ex.P1 is Special

Report. MO.1 is sample bottle.

10. PW.2 who is Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition & Excise,

Jangareddigudem deposed that on 14-12-2021 at about 9.00 a.m., when he was in police station, LW.1 came and gave to him Special Report and seized property and accused for filing of FIR. Basing on the Special Report, he registered FIR in

Cr.No.929 of 2021 under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act. Ex. P2 is original FIR. Seized property is 5 liters ID liquor. He has sent sample to analyst of ID liquor of 300ml. He received Chemical Examination

Report. Ex.P-3 is Chemical Examination Report. Ex.P4 is Destruction Order. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

11. In this case, except alleged confessional statement of accused there is no independent evidence, Admittedly, PWs.1 and 2 are excise personnel. There is no independent evidence in support of their evidence. It is well settled law that the confession made to excise official is not admissible in law. So, I am declined to consider evidence of excise officials.

12. Further, it is admitted fact the alleged place of arrest and seizure is busy locality and for the reason best known to P.Ws.1 and 2 no person in that locality was examined nor even secured to act as a mediator. Here, it is altogether different aspect if no one has available at that particular day. As admitted fact is it is a busy locality and hecould have easily secured someone to act as mediator. But, he has not taken any steps nor he has not issued any summons to anybody in that locality and again it throws a cloud of serious suspicion on the prosecution case and alleged seizure and it is doubtful whether the arrest and seizure took place in the manner as spoken byhim and as such I hold the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should necessarily go to the accused.

13. The Hon'ble High Court of AP in a case of S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs

State of AP reported in 2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP, was pleased to laid down a ratio that the non explanation of prosecution for non securing the independent mediators of same locality would destroy the case of prosecution.

14. In the light of fore going discussions, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.7 (B) r/w 8 (B) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond reasonable doubt and the Accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.7 (B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The Station House Officer is directed to destroy unmarked property if any lies in his station.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III directly on computer system, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 06th day of April, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : P.W.1 :: P.Adinarayanarao (SI) P.W.2 :: J.Ram Prakash (SI)

FOR DEFENCE : N o n e.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1/14-12-2021 : Special report

Ex.P.2/14-12-2021 : Original F.I.R. in Crime No.929/2021 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Jangareddigudem.

Ex.P.3/12-01-2022 : Chemical analysis report.

Ex.P.4/22-06-2022 : Destruction order

FOR DEFENCE : Nil.

Material Objects

M.O.1 : Sample bottle

J.F.C.M., Jangareddigudem.

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

Calendar Case No.88/2023 tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of offence : 14-12-2021 Date of Report : 14-12-2021 Taken on file : 24-12-2022 Arrested on : 14-12-2021 Released on bail 21-12-2021 Commencement of Trial : 04-04-2023 Close of Trial : 06-04-2023 Date of Judgment : 06-04-2023 Explanation for delay : There is no avoidable delay.

Name of the Complainant :

State :: Sub Inspector of Police, SEB Station, Jangareddigudem.

Name of the Accused: Dalli Rambabu, s/o.Neli Appalaswamy, aged 40 years, C/Reddy, R/o.Lakkavaram village, Jangareddigudem Mandal.

Offence:U/Sec.7 (B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020

Finding :Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order:

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.7 (B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The Station House Officer is directed to destroy unmarked property if any lies in his station.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangareddigudem. Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.