Smt. S. Aruna Sri

1C.C.No.434/2017

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

NELLORE

Present: Smt S.Aruna Sri Special J.F.C.M for Railways, Nellore Tuesday, this the 24th day of April 2018

Calender Case No.434/2017 (in Crime No.478/2017 of Chirala RPF/Post) Between: Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force,

Chirala. ...Complainant

Vs

Peeka Vijaya Bhaskara Rao, age 50 years, S/o Ismail, R/o Machavaram, Raparla,

Naguluppalapadu mandal, Prakasam District. ...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 23.04.2018 in the presence of

Learned A.P.P Sri A.Lakshmi Narayana for complainant and Advocate for Accused

Sri.B.Murali and the matter having been stood for consideration this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Chirala filed complaint against the accused in Crime No.478/2017 for the offence punishable under section 160 (2)

Railway Act, 1989.

The case of the prosecution in brief as follows :-

1. On 11.05.2017 at about 22.35 hours the complainant/Sri B.Sankar Rao/Sub-

Inspector/RPF/Chirala received a memo from on duty station superintendent

Uppugunduru railway station/Srinivasa Rao/LW4 stating that on duty gate man

Harikesh Meena/LW3, has informed that crime vehicle bearing No.AP 27 TD 6915 hit and damaged the A-boom of said L.C gate. On receipt information the complainant along with staff Ch.Venkateswarlu/LW2 and others rushed to the spot he noticed the availability of DCH Anjaneyulu/LW5 and their staff then the complainant caused inquired with on duty gate man who narrated the facts and stated that as per instructions of Uppugunduru RS/LW4/ Srinivasa Rao he closed the gate for passage of train No.12577 at about 09.08 hours and at about 09.15 hours the crime vehicle coming from east side in rash and negligent manner hit the closed gate boom pertaining A-gate boom up side resulting which gate boom cut into two pieces 2C.C.No.434/2017 immediately stopped the vehicle as well as driver and informed the same to LW4. As per his instructions gateman operated the emergency chains for road traffic for smoothing passing of train. In the mean time the driver along with crime vehicle managed to escaped from the spot with out hearing the instructions of the on duty gate man and prepared observation report rough sketch and took the photographs and of scene of offence LW5/DCH Anjaneyulu to this effect the complainant registered a case in crime No.478/2017 u/s 160 (2) of Railway Act.

During further inquiries on 16.05.2017 at about 16.00 hours accused came to

RPF office, Chirala along with vehicle bearing No.AP 27 TD 6915 and admitted his guilty. The complainant secured two mediators namely O.Siva Prasad and

Ch.Chinnacharyulu and called gate man/LW3 and identified the person the complainant recorded the statement of accused and drafted panchanama and seized crime vehicle brought to RPF post Chirala and registered a case in crime No.478/2017 u/s 160(2) and 174(C) of Railway Act, 1989 which was registered on 12.05.2017, after legal formalities the complainant produced accused before Hon’ble court for judicial custody.

During further inquiries on 18.05.17 the complainant obtained damage cost certificate from SSE/P-way/Chirala/LW6/L.Ramesh babu. The cost of damage is assessed Rs.5,000/- same day the complainant recorded the statement of

O.Sivaprasad/LW7. On 19.05.2017 the complainant recorded the statement of

K.C.Acharayulu/LW8. On 20.05.2017 MVI/Chirala/KSMV Krishna Rao/LW9 checked the vehicle and issued certificate. On 21.05.2017 the complainant recorded the statement of B.Sanjeeva Rao/LW10 owner of the vehicle. On 26.05.2017 the complainant recorded the statement of V.Srinivasa Rao/LW4/SM/Chinaganjam. After completion of investigation the complainant filed final complaint against accused.

2. After perusing the complaint and other documents it was taken cognizance of offence U/S 160 (2) Railway Act, 1989 against the accused.On appearance of accused copies of documents furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3. Prior to framing charges the complainant the Sub-Inspector R.P.F./Chirala namely

Sri.B.Sankar Rao was examined in chief as PW1. Ex.P1 to P14. Heard both sides perused the complaint, evidence of PW1 and other material on record. There is Prima 3C.C.No.434/2017 facie case against the accused to frame charge, accused was examined under section 246(1) Cr.P.C. and charge U/S 160(2) Railway Act, 1989 is framed against accused read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and reported means to engage counsel.

4.To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8 and

Ex.P1 to P14 were marked.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C incriminating material explained to him in Telugu for which denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

After completion of Sec. 313 Cr.P.C examination this court directed the accused to comply the Sec.437-A Cr.P.C accordingly accused complied the same and executed fresh bond with two sureties.

6. Heard both side arguments.

Learned APP vehemently argued that PW1 to PW8 evidence is consistent, cogent in all material aspects. PW1 is enquiry officer his evidence totally corroborated the PW2 gate man evidence. PW2 gate man is the eyewitnesses to the incident he clearly identified the accused. PW2 noted the Crime vehicle number in Ex.P1 message clearly disclosed the number of crime vehicle immediately accused along with crime vehicle came to the spot and voluntarily surrendered before the PW1, PW2 gate man clearly identified the accused and arrested the accused produced before the Hon'ble court.

PW5 is owner of the crime vehicle he clearly stated he has given his vehicle to the

Accused. Prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. He requested the court to punish the accused severely.

Learned defence counsel vehemently argued that accused is innocent person implicated falsely in this case. Unidentified vehicle hit and damaged the gate boom to account for the same gate man noted the number of crime vehicle stopped the crime vehicle passing through the way and implicated the accused falsely Taking into consideration of all these aspects requested the court to acquit the accused.

4C.C.No.434/2017

7.Now the points for determination in this case :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for

the charge punishable U/S 160(2) Railway Act, 1989 beyond reasonable

doubt?

8."It is the case of prosecution that on 11.05.2017, at about 22.35 hours at

L.C.Gate No.223, situated at K.M.No.309/32-34 in between Ammanabrolu and

Uppugunduru railway stations accused being a driver of tractor bearing registration

No.AP 27 TT 6915 hit and damaged the A side boom of the closed gate and caused damaged to the closed gate boom " for the offence u/s 160 (2) Railway act 1989.

9.In order to prove the case of the prosecution cited LW1 to LW10 witnesses. Out of them prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 witnesses. ExP1 to Ex.P14 documents were marked. LW2/Ch.Venkateswarlu,LW8/K.Chinnamayyaacharyulu witnesses given up by learned APP. PW1 is Sub-Inspector/RPF/Chirala who is informant and conducted inquiries in this case and arrested the accused sent to judicial custody after completion of inquiries filed final complaint. PW2/Harikesh Meena is gate man who noticed the incident firstly and noted the crime vehicle number and identified the accused. PW3 is

D.C.H.Anjaneyulu/SSE/P-way/Ammanabrolu, he participated in joint observation and restored the gate boom. PW4/O.Siva Prasad is one of the mediator in his presence PW1 arrested the accused and recorded the accused confessional statement.

PW5/V.Srinivasulu/Station Master who issued Ex.P1 message. PW6/K.S.M.V.Krishna rao/Motor Vehicle Inspector he inspected the crime vehicle and issued report.

PW7/B.Sanjeeva Rao who is the owner of the crime vehicle and given to the accused.

PW8 is N.Ramesh babu/SSE/P-way/Chirala who issued damage cost certificate. Learned

APP gave up the evidence of LW2 and LW 8 witnesses.

10. To substantiate the charge u/s160(2) Railway Act, 1989 prosecution examined

PW1 prior to framing charges. PW1 being a complainant he deposed the same version as if mentioned in the complainant his entire evidence is nothing but replica of complainant that he took up inquiries in this case he conducted inquires he received

Ex.P1 message immediately rushed to the spot conducted joint observation along with 5C.C.No.434/2017

SSE/Signal and returned to RPF post and registered a case. subsequently accused came to RPF post and surrendered before PW1. He secured two mediators in their presence caused inquires with accused and recorded his statement arrested the accused and sent to the honorable court for judicial custody. After completion inquiries he filed final complaint.

11.Coming to the other evidence PW2 is Hrikesh Meena who is gate man he noticed the incident first time and identified the accused as a driver of the crime vehicle.

Thereafter in the presence of PW1 he clearly identified the accused later identified the accused in the court. Evidence of PW1 is very much crucial in this case since he noticed the incident on first occasion and no other evidence to prove the identity of the accused. PW4/O.Siva Prasad is mediator in this case in his presence PW1 inquired the accused and recorded voluntarily confessional statement of accused. Evidence of PW2,

PW4 is totally corroborated the PW1 evidence in all material aspects

12. Evidence of PW3 is D.C.H.Anjaneyulu/SSE/P-way/Ammanabrolu, he participated in joint observation and restored the gate boom. PW5/V.Srinivasulu station master who issued Ex.P1 message in that crime vehicle number was found. PW6/K.S.M.V.Krishna rao motor vehicle inspector he inspected the crime vehicle and issued report as per his certificate accident not occurred due to mechanical defects. PW7/B.Sanjeeva rao is the owner of the crime vehicle same was given to the accused on daily rental basis on that day of occurrence.PW8 is N.Ramesh babu/SSE/P-way/Chirala who issued damage cost certificate Ex.P9 by mentioning damage cost of Rs.5000/-

13.Admittedly there is no eyewitness to the incident except gate man as such evidence of gate man is very much crucial to this case. Person who drove the crime vehicle was fled away, PW7 who is the owner of the crime vehic le stated that he gave his vehicle to the accused on daily rental basis. Since vehicle is under the custody of accused it is his duty to explain why his vehicle involved in the accident. Further more taking into consideration of nature of offence and manner of the incident, it is not correct to except direct witness such type of incidents. Prosecution examined one of the mediator he supported the prosecution version. Ex.P1 clearly disclosed the crime 6C.C.No.434/2017 vehicle number and gate man clearly identified the accused. All these circumstances clearly proved that accused is the person who is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. After considering the material on record consisting of oral and documentary evidence this court came to conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. In the cross examination of PW1 to PW8 nothing material could be elicited to disprove the version of the prosecution. on the same day of incident accused again came to RPF post Chirala voluntarily surrendered before the PW1 and arrested the accused and sent to Hon'ble court for judicial custody. PW2 gate man clearly identified the accused and crime vehicle as such no question of falsely implication by the prosecution.

15.This court carefully gone though the entire evidence on record, argument of either side, as per defence gate man is the responsible person, due to mistake of railway to cover up their lacunas implicated the accused falsely. I do not find any necessity to the RPF to implicate the accused falsely in this case no motive elicited.

Oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution is consistent, cogent in all material aspects. This court considered opinion that the accused is the driver of crime vehicle due to act of the accused damaged the closed gate u/s 160 (2) of Railways

Act, 1989.

16.Entire evidence clearly, clinchingly proves that due to accused negligent act of accused railway authorities sustained loss of rupees Rs.5,000/- proved through the evidence of PW1 to PW8. Taking into consideration of facts and circumstances this court easily came to conclusion that prosecution established the case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

17. In the result Accused is found guilty for the charge under section 160 (2)

Railway Act, 1989. Therefore, accused is convicted u/s 248(2) Cr.P.C from the above said charge.

7C.C.No.434/2017

Typed to my dictation by the Steno (contract basis) directly at bench, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of April 2018.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

H earing on the Quantum of sentence:

This court questioned about quantum of sentence to the accused, he submitted that he is doing agricultural coolie works and having three children entire family depend up on him, He requested the court to take lenient view while imposing punishment.

After hearing the socio, economic,age conditions of accused this court opened the confidential reports of Accused from district probation officer in open court all the circumstances tallied with the information furnished by accused. No previous cases filed against accused this is the first case probation officer opined that accused has no negative remarks as such entitled to extend benefit of P.O act. These are the positive points mentioned are fixed place of abode, interested family members, neighbors gave satisfactory report.

This court is of considered opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, moreover no previous accusation against accused and proved charge is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and accused is having fixed abode and occupation as such this court inclined to invoke the provisions of Probations of Offenders Act,1958.

Accused shall be released u/s 4(1) of probation of offenders act on execution of personal bond for rupees 5000/- for a period of one year and in mean time to keep the peace and be of good behavior.

Accused is further directed that u/s 4 (3) of probation of offenders act accused shall remain in the supervision of a District Probation Officer Sri. H.Farooq Khan/Ongole for a period of one year.

This court made a supervision order u/subsection (3) explained to the offender the terms and conditions of the order, furnished one copy of supervision order to the accused and the probation officer concerned.

Before completion trial this court directed the accused to execute personal bond

with two sureties accordingly accused complied the Sec.437-A Cr.P.C, that bail bonds 8C.C.No.434/2017 shall be in force for six months from to day. Free copy of judgment furnished to the accused.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno (contract basis) directly at bench, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of April 2018.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Complaint: Accused:

PW1: B.Sankar Rao PW2: Harikesh Menon N I L PW3: D.C.H.Anjaneyulu PW4: O.Sivaprasad PW5: V.Srinivasulu PW6: K.S.M.V.Krishna Rao PW7: B.Sanjeeva Rao PW8: N.Ramesh Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: Ex.P1 is memo issued by PW5 Ex.P2 is joint observation report Ex.P3 is statement of gate man/Hrikesh Mennon N I L Ex.P4 is rough sketch Ex.P5 is 03 photographs with CD Ex.P6 is Panchanama Ex.P7 is seizure list Ex.P8 is confessional statement of accused Ex.P9 is damage cost certificate Ex.P10 is statement of O.Sivaprasad Ex.P11 is MVI certificate Ex.P12 is statement of K.C.Acharayulu Ex.P13 is statement of B.Sanjeeva Rao Ex.P14 is statement of V.Srinivasa Rao

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Complaint:Accused: N I L

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Nellore.

Copy to accused.

9C.C.No.434/2017

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

TRIED BY THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, NELLORE

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport ofapprehensirelease ofcommenceclose ofsentence or complainantonthement oftrialorder accusedtrial 11/05/1711/05/1716/05/1718/05/1723/11/1708/03/1824/03/18

---- NO DELAY ---

State:- Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Chirala

Judgment in C.C.No.434 of 2017 in Crime No.478/2017 on the file of Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

S.No. Name of the AgeFather's NameReligion Address Accused 1Peeka Vijaya 50 Y IsmailHindu R/o Machavaram, Bhaskara RaoRaparla, Naguluppala padu mandal, Prakasam District.

Offence U/S: under section 160 (2) Railway Act, 1989

Finding of the Court: Found guilty.

Sentence or Order: Accused is present. Judgment Pronounced (Vide separate Judgment). In the result Accused is found guilty for the charge under section 160 (2)

Railway Act, 1989. Therefore, accused is convicted u/s 248(2) Cr.P.C from the above said charge.

This court questioned about quantum of sentence to the accused, he submitted that he is doing agricultural coolie works and having three children entire family depend up on him, He requested the court to take lenient view while imposing punishment.

After hearing the socio, economic,age conditions of accused this court opened the confidential reports of Accused from district probation officer in open court all the circumstances tallied with the information furnished by accused. No previous cases filed against accused this is the first case probation officer opined that accused has no negative remarks as such entitled to extend benefit of P.O act. These are the positive points mentioned are fixed place of abode, interested family members, neighbors gave satisfactory report.

This court is of considered opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, moreover no previous accusation 10C.C.No.434/2017 against accused and proved charge is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and accused is having fixed abode and occupation as such this court inclined to invoke the provisions of Probations of Offenders Act,1958.

Accused shall be released u/s 4(1) of probation of offenders act on execution of personal bond for rupees 5000/- for a period of one year and in mean time to keep the peace and be of good behavior.

Accused is further directed that u/s 4 (3) of probation of offenders act accused shall remain in the supervision of a District Probation Officer Sri. H.Farooq Khan/Ongole for a period of one year.

This court made a supervision order u/subsection (3) explained to the offender the terms and conditions of the order, furnished one copy of supervision order to the accused and the probation officer concerned.

Before completion trial this court directed the accused to execute personal bond

with two sureties accordingly accused complied the Sec.437-A Cr.P.C, that bail bonds shall be in force for six months from to day. Free copy of judgment furnished to the accused.

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Nellore.

Copy to accused.

1C.C.No.32/2018

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

NELLORE

Present: Smt S.Aruna Sri Special J.F.C.M for railways, Nellore Saturday, this the 21st day of April 2018

Calender Case No.32/2018 (in Crime No.169/2017 of Muthukur Police Station)

Between: State rep.by Inspector of Police,

Krishnapatnam Circle. ...Complainant

Vs

Manda Harish Reddy, age 27 years, S/o Lakshmana Reddy, R/o Ramachandrapuram, Shadimanjil, Nawabet, Nellore city, N/o Mulumudi

village, Nellore rural mandal, Nellore District. ...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 20.04.2018 in the presence of learned A.P.P Smt.K.Kalavathi for complainant and Sri.V.Ramakrishna Reddy,

Advocate for accused and the matter having been stood for consideration this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, Krishnapatnam port circle laid Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.169/2017 of Muthukur P.S for the offence under section 379 or 411

IPC.

The case of the prosecution in nutshell:-

1. The defacto complainant/LW1/E.Vijayakumar Reddy purchased tanker lorry bearing No.AP 27 TT 0723 in the year 2010 through Sri. Ram Finance Company and using the same for transportation of edible oil at Palm oil factories located at

Pantapalem village. LW2/N.Nageswara Rao is the driver of tanker lorry. On 07.09.17

LW2 got loaded oil in his tanker lorry at Immami palm oil factory, Pantapalem village on 10.09.2017 at 10.00 hours and after keeping his tanker lorry at the parking of oil tankers association, he informed the same to LW1., he slept on pial located in front of his lorry at 20.00 hours on 10.09.17. On 11.09.2017 at about 07.30 he wake up and 2C.C.No.32/2018 found his tanker lorry was unseen. Then, immediately, LW2 informed the matter to

LW1. He rushed to the tanker lorry association parked and searched for their missing lorry along with LW2 and others but could not trace. On the intervening night of 10/11.09.2017 some unknown offenders committed theft of LW1 tanker lorry bearing

R.No.AP 27 TT 0723, worth about of Rs.13,00,000/- from tanker lorry association parking and taken away the same. LW1 gave a report to the police.

During the course of investigation on 11.12.2017 at about 18.45 hours

LW12/K.Vijay Kumar/S.I of police V town P.S arrested the accused in crime No.396/2017 u/s 420, 379 of IPC of V town P.S in the presence of mediators during interrogation accused confessed the commission of offence in crime No.169/2017 of Muthukur P.S beside other cases his confession was reduced in writing seized four tyres in this case.

Thereafter accused was produced on execution of PT warrant on 22.12.17 in this case.

After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused. Hence, this case.

2. This court took cognizance of the offence u/s 379 or 411 IPC against the accused and summons issued to him. On production of accused copies of documents furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3. Accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C, charge u/s 379 or 411 IPC against accused was framed read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of accused prosecution listed LW1 to LW14 witnesses out of them prosecution able to examined PW1 to PW6 witnesses. Exhibits P 1 to P11, Mo.1 was marked. Learned APP gave up the evidence of LW3 to LW6, LW8, LW9, LW11 and

LW13.

5. After closer of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. incriminating material explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both side arguments.

3C.C.No.32/2018

Learned APP vehemently argued that PW1 is defacto complainant and PW3 is the driver of the tanker lorry their evidence clearly disclosed that tanker lorry found missing on 11.09.2017 thereafter same was traced out at Kandukuru in the presence of

PW2, investigating officer i.e., PW6 seized the tanker lorry and brought to the Muthukur their evidence clearly disclosed that tanker lorry was found missing two days after it was traced out by missing of four wheels of lorry. On 11.12.2017 at about 18.45 hours

PW5/Sub-inspector of police arrested the accused in crime No.396/2017 u/s 420, 379

IPC of V town P.S in the presence of PW3 in that case accused confessed the offence in this case and basing on the confession accused himself shown the four tyres where he concealed the stolen property apart from other property. PW2, PW5 evidence clearly disclosed that stolen property was recover from the possession of accused same was duly identified by the PW1. There is no omissions and contradictions elicited in the evidence of prosecution witnesses prosecution clearly established the case against the accused. Hence, learned APP requested the court to punish the accused severely.

Learned counsel for accused argued that accused is innocent person he did not commit any offence and basing on the confession in the case of V th town P.S police prepared the confessional statement of accused to suit the pending cases available with them and implicated the accused falsely to account for the crime in this case moreover accused is B-Tech graduate and doing his job in Chennai. Only to harass the accused police implicated him in several cases. Taking into consideration of all these facts. He requested the court to acquit the accused.

7. Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the

charge punishable under section 379 or 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

8. POINT:

Prosecution has to establish the following points.

1). Whether accused had committed theft of PW1 tanker lorry bearing No.AP 27 TT 0729 on 10/11.09.2017 in lorry owners association in Pantapalem village for the charge u/s 379 IPC.

2). Whether accused found possession of stolen property i.e.,in crime No.396/2017 u/s 420, 379 IPC of V th town PS and confessed the offence in this crime and seized four 4C.C.No.32/2018 tyres on 11.12.2017 at 18.45 hours at Buja Buja Nellore NH-16 opposite to National

High way building margin, for the charge u/s 411 IPC.

Point No.1:

To prove the charge u/s 379 IPC PW1/E.Vijayakumar Reddy being a defacto complainant and owner of the tanker lorry bearing No.AP 27 TT 0729 his evidence disclosed that on 10.09.2017 his vehicle was returned to Muthukur after unloading the edible oil from Hyderabad. His driver LW2/N.Nageswara Rao parked the lorry oil tanker association and slept on the Pial opposite to lorry tanker association building next day at 07.30 am he woke up and found missing of his lorry he informed to PW1.PW1 rushed to the spot thereafter went to police station presented Ex.P1 report. Two days after police informed to him his vehicle was traced out at Kandukur but four tyres were missing. On 23.12.17 police again informed that his lorry tyres were recovered. PW1 identified his tyres. PW4 is his driver his evidence disclosed that PW1 engaged the

PW4 as a driver to his lorry, on 07.09.17 PW4 loaded oil in the tanker lorry at Immami palm oil factory and unloaded the same at Hyderabad and he returned to Pantapalem village on 10.09.17. He parked the lorry at lorry owner association in Pantapalem village and slept on the Pial in front of the lorry next day morning he found missing of tanker lorry he informed the same to PW1 he gave report to the police.

PW2 is one of the mediator for scene of observation and seizure of lorry. On 11.09.2017 police conducted scene of observation in his presence in Pantapalem village near Gemini factory in union office and prepared Ex.P2 report. On 13.09.2017 police took him to the Kandukuru where he found oil tanker lorry bearing No.AP 27 TT 0729 and noticed missing of four tyres in his presence police seized the property. Police prepared seizure mahazar under Ex.P3. On 23.12.17 police again called him to the

Muthukur library in his presence PW1 identified his tyres and prepared Ex.P4 TIP report.

PW1, PW4 evidence clearly disclosed that lorry tanker found missing two days after it was traced out at Kandukur in the presence of PW2 police seized the property. PW1 identified his property i.e., Mo1. No cross examination reported for accused. There is no rebuttal evidence to the evidence of PW1. Evidence of PW1 clearly proved that theft had committed and it was recovered, thereafter stolen property was duly identify by the PW1. Hence, this court presumed that theft had committed and charge u/s 379

IPC is proved but no evidence available to show that accused is the person who 5C.C.No.32/2018 committed theft of PW1 property.

Point No.2:

Now coming to the alternative charge u/s 411 IPC. On 11.12.2017 at 04.00 pm at

Buja Buja Nellore NH-16 accused found possession of stolen property. It is the duty of the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused person under Sec. 411,

I. P. C. to prove, (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property.

9. To prove the charge u/s 411 IPC prosecution examined PW3 who is one of the mediator to the Panchanama. PW3 deposed on 11.12.2017 at 04.00 am Buja Buja

Nellore NH-16, where police caught hold the accused on questioning he revealed his identity and admitted guilt in this case basing on his confession they proceeded to the talpagiri colony where he concealed the stolen property and seized the lorry tyres from his possession. It was suggested that witness is stock witness to the police since he is VRO as such he deposed evidence at request of police. Merely witness is VRO court need not discard his evidence as such this court presumed that PW3 is independent mediator his evidence appears trust worthy.

10. PW5 is Sub inspector/V th town P.S he apprehended the accused on 11.12.2017 at 04.00 am, Buja Buja Nellore NH-16 in Cr.No.369/2017 and seized the property in the presence of mediators basing on the confession of accused his complicity was made out in this case. PW5 informed the arrest and seized of property in this crime 169/2017 to the PW6. Evidence of Investigation Officer i.e., PW6, he deposed the chronological events of this case i.e., registration of crime and conducted investigation in this case and examined the witnesses. He proceeded to Kandukuru and seized the lorry in the presence of PW2. After receiving information from PW5, he filed PT warrant before court and connected the accused in this case. after completion of investigation filed charge sheet. No material omissions, contradictions and discrepancies elicited in the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW6. Their evidence totally corroborated the evidence of prosecution and only suggestion in the cross examination of PW4 is that accused is 6C.C.No.32/2018 innocent person he did not commit any offence to account for the crime implicated him falsely in this case.

11. In the present case on hand accused failed to explain how stolen property belongs to PW1 came into his possession. It is the duty of the accused to explain about possession of stolen property in these circumstances presumption u/s 114 (a)

IEA 1872 may be drawn. Immediately after theft anybody found possession of stolen property it is his duty to explain how stolen property came into his possession, otherwise he may be thief or receiver of stolen property u/s 411 IPC. Accused failed to rebut the presumption u/s 114-(a) IEA. Confession in the custody of police is inadmissible u/s 25 IEA. It leads to discovery of new fact or new thing that part is admissible in this case basing on the confession of accused police recovered Mo1, It is duly identified that it is the stolen property of PW1, in Crime No.169/2017 evidence of prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other there are no contradictions, omissions and discrepancies elicited in the version of prosecution. Defence failed to elicit anything in favour of them evidence of prosecution witnesses are consistent, cogent in all material aspects with regard to the identification of accused and seizure of the property , it is not proper to say that police implicated him falsely in this case except mere suggestions no evidence placed before this court in this regard of course in prosecution cases burden lies on the prosecution. They have to stand on their own legs but not depend on the weakness of the accused. Viewed from any angle this court has not found any reason to disbelieve the version of the prosecution. Hence, this court believed the version of the prosecution.

12. In view of the above the discussion this court came to conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt.

13. In the result accused found not guilty for the charge punishable u/s 379 IPC.

Hence the accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused found guilty for the charge punishable u/s 411 IPC. Hence the accused is convicted u/s 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Contract basis), corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 21st day of April, 2018.

7C.C.No.32/2018

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

Hearing on quantum of sentence:

On questioning about quantum of sentence the accused submitted that he is the only earning member of the family and his mother and small daughter depend upon him. Hence, he requested the court to take lenient view while imposing sentence. in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the family status of the accused as submitted by him I am not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions under Probation of Offenders Act. Accused already under gone judicial custody for considerable period. This court inclined set off the remand period of accused to meet the ends of justice. Accused shall under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. Remand period from 22.12.2017 to till date i.e., 22.04.2018 shall be given set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Mo1 is Lorry bearing No.AP 27 TT 0729 & four tyres already returned to owner of the property Sri E.Vijayakumar Reddy in C.P.R.No.32/2018, dated 26.02.2018 towards interim custody made absolute after appeal time is over. Free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused. Jail authorities are directed to release the accused if he does not require in any other cases.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Contract basis), corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 21st day of April, 2018.

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution Accused: PW1: E.Vijay Kumar Reddy PW2: M.Muralidhar Reddr N I L PW3: P.S.Siva Prasad PW4: N.Nageswara Rao PW5: K.Vijay Kumar PW6: G.Srinivasa Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution Accused: Ex.P1: Report of PW1 Ex.P2: Scene of observation report N I L Ex.P3: Seizure mahazarnama Ex.P4: TIP report Ex.P5: Mediators report (Certified copy) Ex.P6: Seizure mahazarnama (Certified copy) Ex.P7: Original FIR in crime No.169/2017 Ex.P8: Rough sketch Ex.P9: 04 photographs along with CD Ex.P10: Rough sketch prepared at Kandukur Ex.P11: Six photographs with C.D

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Prosecution Accused: Mo1 is Lorry bearing No.AP 27 TT 0729 N I L and four tyres.

8C.C.No.32/2018

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Copy to accused.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

TRIED BY THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, NELLORE

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport ofapprehensirelease ofcommencclose ofsentence or complainantontheement oftrialorder accusedtrial 10/09/1711/09/1711/12/17Accused in20/02/1818/04/1821/04/18 jail

---- NO DELAY ---

_______________________________________________________________________________________

State:- Inspector of Police, Krishnapatnam Circle Judgment in C.C.No.32 of 2018 in Crime No.169017 on the file of Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore

S.No. Name of the AgeFather'sReligion Address Accused Name 1Manda Harish 27 Y Lakshmana Hindu R/o Ramachandrapuram, ReddyReddyShadimanjil, Nawabet, Nellore city, N/o Mulumudi village, Nellore rural mandal, Nellore District.

Offence U/S: 379 or 411 IPC Finding of the Court: Found guilty. Sentence or Order: Accused is produced from central jail. Judgment Pronounced (Vide separate Judgment).

In the result accused found not guilty for the charge punishable u/s 379 IPC. Hence the accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused found guilty for the charge punishable u/s 411 IPC. Hence the accused is convicted u/s 248(2) Cr.P.C. On questioning about quantum of sentence the accused submitted that he is the only earning member of the family and his mother and small daughter depend upon him. Hence, he requested the court to take lenient view while imposing sentence. in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the family status of the accused as submitted by him I am not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions under Probation of Offenders Act. Since accused already under gone judicial custody for considerable period. This court inclined set off the remand period of accused to meet the ends of justice. Accused shall under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. Remand period from 22.12.2017 to till date i.e., 22.04.2018 shall be given set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Mo1 is Lorry bearing No.AP 27 TT 0729 & four tyres already returned to owner of the property Sri E.Vijayakumar Reddy in C.P.R.No.32/2018, dated 26.02.2018 towards interim custody made absolute after appeal time is over. Free copy of judgment furnished to the accused. Jail authorities are directed to release the accused 9C.C.No.32/2018 if he does not require in any other cases. Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Nellore.

Copy to Accused.

1C.C.No.130 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

NELLORE

Present: Smt. S.Aruna Sri. Special J.F.C.M for railways, Nellore Friday, this the 20th day of April 2018

Calender Case No.130/2018 (in Crime No.01/2018 of RPF/Chittoor)

Between: Inspector, Railway Protection Force,

Chittoor. ... Complainant

Vs

Kannan Sundar, age 37 years, S/o Munaswamy Kannan, R/o H.No.5-145/4, Road No.04, Mallikarjuna colony, Old Bowenapalli, Secunderabad. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 19.04.2018 in the presence of learned Additional public prosecutor Sri A.Lakshmi Narayana for complainant and

Sri.T.Balasubramanyam, Leagal-aid-counsel for the accused and the matter having been stood for consideration this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

The Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Chittoor filed complaint against the accused in Crime No.01/2018 for the offence punishable under section 3(a) Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

The case of the prosecution in brief as follows :-

1. On 30.02.2018 at about 03.00 pm while Sri K.Chandra Sekhar Reddy/IPF/Chittoor along with his staff kept a confidential watch regarding regular theft of railway material at

Chittoor railway yard near K.M.No.32/01 south side of Chittoor railway station yard and noticed one person in suspicious manner with one polythene bag he detained the said person who is accused in this case. The complainant secured the presence of two near by mediators Rajkumar & Mohiddin caused inquires with accused about the possession of property with him but accused did not respond properly when searched the bag noticed 04 Nos of fish plates pertaining to the railways on inquiry about possession of property accused confessed that he committed theft of railway property at Chittoor railway yard with an intention to sell out local area for getting money for his livelihood but accused did 2C.C.No.130 of 2018 not produce any valid receipt or voucher to prove his lawful possession of the property then they proceeded to the spot where accused committed theft of railway material and the complainant prepared observation mahazar. The complainant recorded the confessional statement and seized the property and prepared a panchanama to this affect accused along with seized property, brought to Chittoor RPF post and registered and Crime No.01/2018 u/s 3 (a) Railway Property (UP) Act, 1966.

During further inquiries on 14.02.2018 the complainant produced accused along with seized property before the Hon'ble court for judicial custody. On 15.02.2018 the complainant received a theft complainant from LW5/S.Karuppasway/SSE/P-way/CTO and same was connected in this case. On 16.02.2018 the complainant served a letter to the

LW5/S.Karuppasway/SSE/P-way/CTO for examination of case property. In response to his letter came to RPF post Chittoor examined the case property and signed on panch slips.

The complainant also recorded his statement. On 01.03.2018 the complainant examined the mediators Rajakumar & Mohiddin LW3, LW4 and recorded their statements. After completion of inquires the complinant filed final complaint before this court.

2. This court took cognizance of the offence u/s 3(a) of Railway Property(Unlawful

Possession) Act,1966 against accused. On production of accused copies of documents furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3.Prior to framing of charges K.Chandra Sekhar Reddy/Inspector/RPF/Chittoor was examined in chief as PW1. Ex.P1 to P8. Mo1, Mo2 marked. Heard both sides perused the complaint, evidence of PW1 and other material on record. As there is prima facie case against accused to frame charge accused was examined under section 246(1) Cr.P.C, charge u/s 3(a) of Railway Property(Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and reported no means to engage counsel. This court engaged legal-aid-counsel

for accused.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution cited LW1 to LW5 witnesses out of them prosecution has examined PW1, Ex.P1 to P8 and Mo1, Mo2 marked.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C explaining him the incriminating material. He denied the same and reported no defence 3C.C.No.130 of 2018 evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard both side arguments .

7. Now the points for determination in this case :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the charge

punishable under section 3(a) Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act,

1966 beyond reasonable doubt?

8."It is the case of prosecution that on 13.02.2018 at about 03.00 pm, accused found in unlawful possession of 04 Nos of fish plates at K.M.No.32/01 south side of Chittoor railway station yard, value of the stolen property is Rs.2000/-".

Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 reads as follows.

3. Penalty for unlawful possession of railway property.—Whoever is found, or is proved to have been, in possession of any railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawful obtained shall, unless he proves that the railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punishable—

(a) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees;

(b) for the second or a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgement of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees.

9. To make out an offence under Sec.3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful

Possession) Act, 1966, the prosecution has got to prove 1) That the property seized from the accused is railway property (2) that the accused has been in possession of the railway property (3) that the said railway property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained.

10. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution cited LW1 to LW5 Witnesses.

Out of them prosecution examined PW1. Ex.P1 to P8 documents and Mo1, Mo2 were marked. PW1 is Inspector/RPF/Chittoor, who acompained with the complinant at the time 4C.C.No.130 of 2018 of confidential watch and conducting inquiries.Learned APP gave up the evidence of LW2 to LW4 witnesses.

11.To establish the prosecution case, PW1/K.Chanda Sekhar Reddy/

Inspector/RPF/Chittoor testifies that on 13.02.2018 at 03.00 pm he along with his staff while on confidential watch at K.M.No.32/01 south side of Chittoor railway station yard apprehended the accused when he was found unlawful possession of railway property while moving on suspicion manner immediately he secured two mediators in their presence he caused inquires with accused about the possession of 04 Nos. of fish plates in his polythene bag accused confessed that he committed theft of railway material, he recorded the statement of accused and seized the property under the cover of panchanama thereafter accused along with seized property, brought to Chittoor RPF post and registered a crime and produced the accused along with seized property before

Hon'ble court for judicial custody. After completion of inquiries filed final compliant before

the court.

12. In the cross examination of PW1 did not elicit anything except formal suggestions, no material points elicited from the mouth of the prosecution witnesses. The contents of

Ex.P2 is confessional statement of accused made before PW1 would go to show that accused has committed the theft of railway property, on 13.02.2018 at about 03.00 pm, accused found in unlawful possession of 04 Nos of fish plates at K.M.No.32/01 south side of Chittoor railway station yard, value of the stolen property is Rs.2000/-.

13. There is no contra evidence let in improbable the case of the prosecution, showing that seized property will be available in open market going through the evidence of PW1 learned public prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW2 to LW5 witnesses.Learned APP argued that evidence of PW1 consistent, cogent in all material aspects more over Mo1,

Mo2 belongs to railway department proved beyond reasonable doubt. seized property is railway property proved beyond all reasonable doubt and accused failed to explain his possession of railway property without any authorities, only argued that accused is innocent person implicated falsely in this case while he was going towards railway yard on suspicion RPF caught the accused. After considering the evidence no evidence elicited that accused is habitual offender and involved in earlier crimes, what is the necessity to the Railway protection force to implicate the accused falsely in this case as such there is 5C.C.No.130 of 2018 no force in the contention raised by the learned defence counsel.

14. This court carefully considered the evidence on record consisting of oral and documentary evidence and arguments of either side this court came to conclusion that, prosecution proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. In the result accused is found guilty for the charge under section 3(a) of Railway

Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Therefore, accused is convicted u/s 248(2)

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno (Contract basis) directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 20th day of April 2018.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

H earing on the Quantum of sentence:

Heard for accused with regard to quantum of sentence on conviction. He is submitted that he is the only earnign member of the family and entire family depend upon him. Hence, he requested the court to take lenient view while imposing sentence. In the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, value of the case property and circumstances submitted by the accused is taking into consideration and I feel lessen sentence is sufficient than the prescribed minimum sentence to meet the ends of justice, accused already undergone judicial custody for considerable period hence, this court inclined to set off the remand period of accused. I am not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions under probation of offenders act. As seen from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the seized railway material is a lesser value i.e. Rs.2000/- and Sec.3(a) of the act itself states that if special and adequate reasons even a lesser sentence can be given. The circumstances that the accused was found possession of Mo1 found possession of accused is worth of rupees Rs.2000/- was itself circumstance, which deserved to be taken into consideration for determining the sentence to be awarded in the case and moreover there is nothing on record to show that accused previous convict taking into consideration of socio, economic status of accused, to meet the ends of justice this court inclined to set off remand period of accused. Accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months he is entitled for set off of remand period from 14.02.2018 to till date i.e. 20.04.2018 u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Mo1 shall be returned to the railway authorities after expiry of appeal time. Mo2 is shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused. Typed to my dictation by the Steno (Contract basis) directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 20th day of April 2018.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore 6C.C.No.130 of 2018

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Complainant:Accused:

PW1: K.Chandra Sekhar Reddy N I L

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

For Complainant: Accused:

Ex.P1 is Panchanama

Ex.P2 is Confessional statement of accsued N I L

Ex.P3 is Seizure list

Ex.P4 is Crime and Occurrence report

Ex.P5 is Theft report

Ex.P6 is Case Property Certificate

Ex.P7 is Statement of Rajkumar

Ex.P8 is Statement of Mohiddin

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

For Complainant: Accused:

Mo1 is 04 Nos of fish plates N I L

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.

To the accused.

7C.C.No.130 of 2018

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

TRIED BY THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, NELLORE Date ofDate of reportDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offenceof complainantapprehensionreleasecommencemclose ofsentence or of theent of trialtrialorder accused 13/02/1813/02/1813/02/18accused12/04/1818/04/1820/04/18 is in jail

---- NO DELAY ---

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ State:- Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Chittoor Judgment in C.C.No.130 of 2018 in Crime No.01/2018 on the file of Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

S.NoName of the Accused AgeFather's NameReligion Address 1Kannan Sundar37 YMunaswamyHindu R/o H.No.5-145/4, KannanRoad No.04, Mallikarjuna colony, Old Bowenapalli, Secunderabad.

Offence U/S: 3(a) Railway Property (Unlawfully Possession) Act, 1966. Finding of the Court: Found guilty.

Sentence or Order: Accused is produced from central jail, Nellore. Judgment Pronounced (Vide separate Judgment). In the result the accused is found guilty for the charge under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Therefore, accused is convicted u/s 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Heard for accused with regard to quantum of sentence on conviction. He is submitted that he is the only earnign member of the family and entire family depend upon him. Hence, he requested the court to take lenient view while imposing sentence. In the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, value of the case property and circumstances submitted by the accused is taking into consideration and I feel lessen sentence is sufficient than the prescribed minimum sentence to meet the ends of justice, accused already undergone judicial custody for considerable period hence, this court inclined to set off the remand period of accused. I am not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions under probation of offenders act.

As seen from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the seized railway material is a lesser value i.e. Rs.2000/- and Sec.3(a) of the act itself states that if special and adequate reasons even a lesser sentence can be given. The circumstances that the accused was found possession of Mo1 found possession of accused is worth of rupees Rs.2000/- was itself circumstance, which deserved to be taken into consideration for determining the sentence to be awarded in the case and moreover there is nothing on record to show that accused previous convict taking into consideration of socio, economic status of accused, to meet the ends of justice this court inclined to set off remand period of accused.

Accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months he is entitled for set off of remand period from 14.02.2018 to till date i.e. 20.04.2018 u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Mo1 shall be returned to the railway authorities after expiry of appeal time. Mo2 is shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused.

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. To the accused.

8C.C.No.130 of 2018

1C.C.No.128 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

NELLORE

Present: Smt. S.Aruna Sri. Special J.F.C.M for railways, Nellore Friday, this the 20th day of April 2018

Calender Case No.128/2018 (in Crime No.02/2018 of RPF/Chittoor)

Between: Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force,

Chittoor. ... Complainant

Vs

Santhanam Das, age 38 years, S/o Santhanam, R/o 4-27, Villivakam, Chennai, T.N.State. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 19.04.2018 in the presence of learned Additional public prosecutor Sri A.Lakshmi Narayana for complainant and

Sri.T.Balasubramanyam, Leagal-aid-counsel for the accused and the matter having been stood for consideration this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

The Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Chittoor filed complaint against the accused in Crime No.02/2018 for the offence punishable under section 3(a)

Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

The case of the prosecution in brief :-

1. On 05.03.2018 at about 03.00 pm the complainant/Sri C.Srinivasulu Setty/Assistnt

Sub-Inspector/RPF/Chittoor along with his staff while on confidential watch regarding theft of railway materials at Railway yard, Chittoor railway station apprehended the accused when he was found unlawful possession of railway property at K.M.No.32/06 while moving on suspicious manner going towards Chittoor railway station with a polythene bag on his right shoulder, immediately the complainant secured two near by mediators i.e., LW3/Giribabu, LW4/Prakash in their presence the complainant caused inquires with accused about the possession of 04 Nos. of fish plates in his polythene bag accused confessed that he committed theft at K.M.No.32/06 of Chittoor railway station by the side of railway track and concealed the same in his polythene bag to dispose the same any of the cycle vendor at Chittoor for his livelihood. Accused failed to shown his 2C.C.No.128 of 2018 lawful possession to have a railway property. The complainant recorded the statement of accused and seized the property under the cover of panchanama accused along with seized property, brought to Chittoor RPF post and registered a case in crime No.02/2018 u/s 3 (a) Railway Property (UP) Act, 1966. After completion of legal formalities the accused along with seized property produced before Hon'ble court on 06.03.2018. On 17.03.2018 the complainant received theft memo from sri LW5/Karuppaswamy/SSE/P- way/Chittoor and same was connected in the case. On18.03.2018

LW5/Karuppaswamy/SSE/P-way/Chittoor visited the RPF post and certified the case property and signed on panch slips. On 18.03.2018 the complainant examined and recorded the statements of both mediators. After completion of inquires the complainant filed final complaint before this court.

2. This court took cognizance of the offence u/s 3(a) of Railway Property(Unlawful

Possession) Act,1966 against accused. On production of accused copies of documents furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3.Prior to framing of charges the complainant/C.Srinivasulu Setty/Assistant Sub-

Inspector/RPF/Chittoor was examined in chief as PW1. Ex.P1 to P8. Mo1, Mo2 were marked. Heard both sides perused the complaint, evidence of PW1 and other material on record. As there is prima facie case against accused to frame charge accused was examined under section 246(1) Cr.P.C, charge u/s 3(a) of Railway Property(Unlawful

Possession) Act, 1966 is framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and reported no means to engage counsel. This court engaged legal-aid-counsel for accused.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution cited LW1 to LW5 witnesses out of them prosecution has examined PW1, Ex.P1 to P8 and Mo1, Mo2 were marked.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C explaining him the incriminating material. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard both side arguments .

3C.C.No.128 of 2018

7. Now the points for determination in this case :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the

charge punishable under section 3(a) Railway Property (Unlawful Possession)

Act, 1966 beyond reasonable doubt?

8. "It is the case of prosecution that on 05.03.2018 at about 03.00 pm, accused found in unlawful possession of 04 Nos of fish plates at K.M.No.32/06 at north side of Chittoor railway station, value of the stolen property is Rs.2200/-".

Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 reads as follows.

3. Penalty for unlawful possession of railway property.—Whoever is found, or is proved to have been, in possession of any railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawful obtained shall, unless he proves that the railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punishable—

(a) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees;

(b) for the second or a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgement of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees.

9. To make out an offence under Sec.3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession)

Act, 1966, the prosecution has got to prove 1) That the property seized from the accused is railway property (2) that the accused has been in possession of the railway property (3) that the said railway property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained.

10. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution cited LW1 to LW5 Witnesses.

Out of them prosecution examined PW1 witnesses Ex.P1 to P8 documents and Mo1, Mo2 were marked. PW1 is Assistant Sub-Inspector/RPF/Chittoor, who is informant and conducted inquiries and filed complainant before the court. Learned APP gave up the evidence of LW2 to LW5 witnesses.

11.To establish the prosecution case, PW1/Sri C.Srinivasulu Setty/Assistant Sub-

Inspector/RPF/Chittoor being a defacto complainant testifies that on 05.03.2018 at 03.00 4C.C.No.128 of 2018 pm he along with his staff while on confidential watch at K.M.No.32/06, north side of

Chittoor railway station apprehended the accused when he was found unlawful possession of railway property while moving on suspicion manner immediately he secured two mediators in their presence he caused inquires with accused about the possession of 04 Nos. of fish plates in his polythene bag accused confessed that he committed theft of railway material, he recorded the statement of accused and seized the property under the cover of panchanama thereafter accused along with seized property, brought to Chittoor RPF post and registered a crime and produced the accused along with seized property before Hon'ble court for judicial custody. After completion of inquiries filed final compliant before the court.

12. In the cross examination of PW1 did not elicit anything except formal suggestions, no material points elicited from the mouth of the prosecution witnesses. So, the contents of Ex.P2 is confessional statement of accused made before PW1 would go to show that accused has committed the theft of railway property, on 05.03.2018 at about 03.00 pm, accused found in unlawful possession of 04 Nos of fish plates at K.M.No.32/06 at north side of Chittoor railway station, value of the stolen property is Rs.2200/-".

13. There is no contra evidence let in improbable the case of the prosecution, showing that seized property will be available in open market going through the evidence of PW1 and PW2 learned public prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW2 to LW5 witnesses.

Learned APP argued that evidence of PW1 consistent, cogent in all material aspects more over Mo1, Mo2 belongs to railway department proved beyond reasonable doubt. Seized property is railway property proved beyond all reasonable doubt and Accused failed to explain his possession of railway property without any authorities, only argued that accused is innocent person implicated falsely in this case while he was going towards railway yard on suspicion RPF caught the accused. After considering the evidence no evidence elicited that accused is habitual offender and involved in earlier crimes, what is the necessity to the Railway protection force to implicate the accused falsely in this case as such there is no force in the contention raised by the learned defence counsel.

14. This court carefully considered the evidence on record consisting of oral and documentary evidence and arguments of either side this court came to conclusion that

Prosecution proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt.

5C.C.No.128 of 2018

15. In the result accused is found guilty for the charge under section 3(a) of Railway

Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Therefore, accused is convicted u/s 248(2)

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno (Contract basis) directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 20th day of April 2018.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

H earing on the Quantum of sentence:

Heard for accused with regard to quantum of sentence on conviction. He is submitted that he is the only earning member of the family and entire family depend upon him. Hence, he requested the court to take lenient view while imposing sentence. In the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, value of the case property and circumstances submitted by the accused is taking into consideration and I feel lessen sentence is sufficient than the prescribed minimum sentence to meet the ends of justice, accused already undergone judicial custody for considerable period hence, this court inclined to set off the remand period of accused. I am not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions under probation of offenders act. As seen from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the seized railway material is a lesser value and Sec.3(a) of the act itself states that if special and adequate reasons even a lesser sentence can be given. The circumstances that the accused was found possession of Mo1 found possession of accused was itself circumstance, which deserved to be taken into consideration for determining the sentence to be awarded in the case and moreover there is nothing on record to show that accused previous convict taking into consideration of socio, economic status of accused, to meet the ends of justice this court inclined to set off remand period of accused. Accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months he is entitled for set off of remand period from 06.03.2018 to till date i.e. 20.04.2018 u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Mo1 shall be returned to the railway authorities after expiry of appeal time. Mo2 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time. Free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno (Contract basis) directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 20th day of April 2018.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Complainant:Accused:

PW1: C.Srinivasulu Setty N I L 6C.C.No.128 of 2018

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

For Complainant: Accused:

Ex.P1 is Panchanama

Ex.P2 is Confessional statement of accsued N I L

Ex.P3 is Seizure list

Ex.P4 is Occurrence report

Ex.P5 is Statement of Giribabu

Ex.P6 is Statement of Sivaprakash

Ex.P7 is Thef report

Ex.P8 is Case Property Certificate

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

For Complainant: Accused:

Mo1 is 04 Nos of fish plates N I L Mo2 is polythene bag

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.

To the accused.

7C.C.No.128 of 2018

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

TRIED BY THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, NELLORE

Date ofDate of reportDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offenceofapprehensionreleasecommenceclose ofsentence or complainantof thement of trialtrialorder accused 05/03/1805/03/1805/03/18accused12/04/1818/04/1820/04/18 is in jail

---- NO DELAY ---

__________________________________________________________________________________________ State:- Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Chittoor

Judgment in C.C.No.128 of 2018 in Crime No.02/2018 on the file of Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore.

S.NoName of the AgeFather's NameReligion Address Accused 1Santhanam Das38 YSanthanamHindu R/o 4-27, Villivakam, Chennai, T.N.State.

Offence U/S: 3(a) Railway Property (Unlawfully Possession) Act, 1966.

Finding of the Court: Found guilty.

Sentence or Order: Accused is produced from central jail, Nellore. Judgment

Pronounced (Vide separate Judgment).

In the result the accused is found guilty for the charge under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. Therefore, accused is convicted u/s 248(2) Cr.P.C. Heard for accused with regard to quantum of sentence on conviction. He is submitted that he is the only earning member of the family and entire family depend upon him. Hence, he requested the court to take lenient view while imposing sentence. In the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, value of the case property and circumstances submitted by the accused is taking into consideration and I feel lessen sentence is sufficient than the prescribed minimum sentence to meet the ends of justice, accused already undergone judicial custody for considerable period hence, this court inclined to set off the remand period of accused. I am not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions under probation of offenders act. As seen from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the seized railway material is a lesser value and Sec.3(a) of the act itself states that if special and adequate reasons even a lesser sentence can be given. The circumstances that the accused was found possession of Mo1 found possession of accused was itself circumstance, which deserved to be taken into consideration for determining the sentence to be awarded in the case and moreover there is nothing on record to show that accused previous convict taking into consideration of socio, economic status of accused, to meet the ends of justice this court inclined to set off remand period of accused. Accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months he is entitled for set off of remand period from 06.03.2018 to till date i.e. 20.04.2018 u/s 428 8C.C.No.128 of 2018

Cr.P.C. Mo1 shall be returned to the railway authorities after expiry of appeal time. Mo2 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time. Free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused. Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. To the accused.

1 C.C.No.527/2017

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

NELLORE

Present: Smt S.Aruna Sri Special J.F.C.M for railways, Nellore Tuesday, this the 24th day of April 2018

Calender Case No.527/2017 (in Crime No.30/2017 of Renigunta GRP) Between: State rep.by Inspector of Railway Police,

Renigunta R.P.Circle. ...Complainant

Vs

K.Ashok Kumar, age 31 years, S/o K.Doraswamy Setty, Railway Police Constable No.626, Government Railway Police Station,

Chittoor. ...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 23.04.2018 in the presence of learned APP Smt.K.Kalavathi for complainant and Sri.B.Murali, Advocate for Accused and the matter having been stood for consideration this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Railway Police, Renigunta R.P.Circle laid Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.30/2017 of Chittoor Railway Police Station for the offence under sections 384 IPC.

The case of the prosecution in nutshell as follows :-

1. On 15.11.2016 the defacto complainant/K.R.Sandeep Narayana/LW1 was traveling in train No.17229 Sabari express in S-11 coach along with a team of 51 students, 4 teachers and Mr.Venu gopal/LW7, tour operator, Vaishnav Tours & Travels to go to

Hyderabd on educational tour, eight students 1.P.V.Suraj, 2. Karthik Vinod Menon, 3.

Visrudh, 4. Shahul Hameed P.M, 5. Sinesh.V, 6. Anurag R Krishnan, 7. Akasha M.S, and

8. Jithin. D, after crossing Chittoor Railway station, disturbed the co-passengers by loud noises by that time accused who is on duty beat constable who went to that coach at about 11.45 pm, accused approached the students and tried to take a snap their galata, when accused admonished those students about their activity of disturbing co- passengers, one of the student went and brought the teacher/Sandeep Narayanan/LW1 2 C.C.No.527/2017 and he approached the accused and requesting a pardon on behalf of his students, but accused did not heed their request and demanded to pay fine or else accused will De- boarding the 8 students in coming station. Accordingly Sandeep Narayanan/LW1 collected Rs.1,500/- each from eight students and gave that total amount of

Rs.12,000/- to the accused towards fine amount. Basing on the report of

LW1/K.R.Sandeep Narayanan case was registered by LW10/Inspector/Renigunta RPS in crime No.30/2017 u/s 384 IPC of GRP/Renigunta. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused. Hence, this case.

2.This court took cognizance of the offence u/s 384 IPC against the accused and summons issued to him. On appearance of accused copies of documents furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3. Accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C, charge u/s 384 IPC against accused was framed read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of accused prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7. Exhibits P1 to P 7.

5.After closer of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. incriminating material explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

After completion of Sec. 313 Cr.P.C examination this court directed the accused to comply the Sec.437-A Cr.P.C accordingly accused complied the same and executed fresh bond with two sureties.

6. Heard both side arguments.

7.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the charge punishable under section 384 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

3 C.C.No.527/2017

8. To substantiate the charges against the accused prosecution cited LW1 to LW10 witnesses. Out of them prosecution able to examine the witnesses PW1 to PW7. PW1 is defacto complainant, PW2 is eye witnesses to the incident. PW3 is TTE in that train.

PW4 is on duty constable.PW5 is Inspector Railways, Renigunta he verified investigation done by his Sub-inspector and conducted further investigation. PW6 is

Sub-Inspector/GRP/Chittoor who registered the case and conducted investigation. PW7 is Inspector of police, Railways who served notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C against accused and filed charge sheet against accused. Learned APP filed memo stating that

LW3/Smt.A.Mary, LW6/S.Venugopal, LW7/M.S.Akshay not residing in the address mentioned in the charge sheet and filed memo after perusing the memo this court closed the evidence of LW3, LW6 and LW7.

9."It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.11.2016 during night hours complainant Sri K.Sandeep Narayanan along with students traveling in train No.17229

Sabari express in S-11 coach during journey accused being a on duty beat constable demanded and collected Rs.15,000/- from the students by committing extortion for the offence u/s 384 IPC".

10. PW1 is the defacto complainant he deposed that about 1 ½ year back he along with students traveling in Sabari express during night hours some of the students informed that RPF officials demanded fine when they were committing nuisance on that he requested the said person not to take any action but demanded fine of

Rs.1200/- from each students accordingly they paid Rs.15,000/- he did not provide any receipt for money since their program was fixed continued their journey after they returned to his native place he gave report to the police under Ex.P1, he failed to identify the accused who present in the open court further stated he was not examined by the police at this stage learned APP treated the witness as hostile and cross examined the witness in the cross examination nothing material could be elicited.

11. PW2 is eye witness to the incident he also accompanied with PW1 and others he stated that on 15.11.2016 himself and PW1 and other students traveling a train in

Sabari express during night hours when he was in deep sleep one of the student 4 C.C.No.527/2017 informed that RPF officials demanded fine of Rs.1200/- other wise he deboarded the eight students they paid Rs.15,000/- but he did not give any receipt. Witness failed to identify the accused in open court learned APP treated the witness as hostile nothing material could be elicited to discard the case of the prosecution.

12. PW3 is on duty TTE in the train he deposed that on 15.11.2016 he was deputed at A/C coach and sleeper coach in Sabari coach from Katpadi to Guntur after crossing

Chittoor, passengers in coach-11 informed that some of the students creating galata on that he advised to inform on duty GRP staff thereafter went to the A/C coach later on duty GRP police came to A/C coach and informed that students are creating nuisance and requested to impose penalty on that he stated nuisance not comes under his jurisdiction and suggested to deal with them after crossing Tirupathi he went to S- 11 coach but no disturbance in the coach thereafter he continued his duty no body gave report to him in the cross examination elicited in the Sabari express total three

TTE were deputed in general coach and 5 or 6 escort were deputed on that day 3 or 4 staff were present he does not know they are either GRP or RPF. PW4 is constable he was deputed in Sabari express on 15.11.2016 he did not support the prosecution case and stated he does not know anything about this case.

13. Evidence of investigating officer PW5 is Inspector his evidence disclosed that he examined the PW4 and seized general dairy and beat book under the cover of police proceedings. On 13.04.2017 he contacted one Mary of Coimbatore town over phone examined her and recorded her statement. On 30.05.2017 he secured the PW3 and recorded his statement. on 30.05.2017 he called the PW1 to the Tirupathi for the purpose of identification of accused. He produced the accused with some others, PW1 identified the accused. On 16.06.2017 he visited Ottupalem Palakad district, Kerala state educational institutions of Lakshminarayana Vidyanaiketana where secured the presence of Pradeep and Venugopal examined them and recorded their statements. On 05.07.2017 he examined Akshay and recorded his statement. PW6 is Sub-inspector on 17.04.2017 at about 11.00 am he received memo along with PW1 report from

Superintendent of police and registered the crime in crime No.30/2017 u/s 384 IPC. On 18.04.2017 he visited Palakpuram and examined PW1 recorded his statement 5 C.C.No.527/2017 thereafter he received reservation chart particulars of S-11 cocah in train NO.17229

Sabari express on 15.11.2016.PW7 is the Inspector he verified the investigation done by PW5 on 25.07.2017 served notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused.

14.PW1 being a defacto complainant he deposed the incident but failed to identify the accused PW2 is also eye witness corroborated the PW1 evidence and failed to identify the accused. PW3, PW4 were on duty on the date of incident but they did not depose anything against accused. PW5 to PW7 are investigating officers in this case they deposed the investigation done by them. In this case crucial evidence was PW1 both parties might be compromised out side in view of their compromise they did not support the prosecution case. investigating officer evidence is relevant that incident tookplace but who committing the offence is doubtful. in this case there is abnormal delay in registering the case.Ex.P1 report dated 21.11.2016 when it was sent to the police is no evidence but same was received to the PW6 on 17.04.2017.

15. After perusing the evidence on record and submissions of both parties there is some force in the contention raised by the learned defence counsel that due to suspicion only implicated the accused falsely in this case. PW7 investigating officer evidence is not inspiring confidence with regard to identification of accused without any independent corroboration basing on the investigating officer evidence and identification of accused is not established by prosecution As such it is not safe to conclude that prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In the light of the above discussion and facts of circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that there is no positive evidence to connect the accused with the crime in this present case.

16. After considering the material on record and evidence of prosecution witnesses I am of the opinion that the evidence of the PW5 to PW7 is not inspiring confidence to decide the guilt of the accused. In the tack ground of the facts and circumstances of the case. The evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.384 I.P.C. It should not be ignored the basic principle that the 6 C.C.No.527/2017 prosecution has to stand on its own legs, and it should not depend on the weakness of the defence.

17. In the light of inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, suspicious circumstances in the prosecution version and absence of independent corroborating evidence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

18.In view of the above the discussion this court came to conclusion that prosecution failed to proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19.In the result accused is found not guilty for the charge u/s 384 IPC. Hence, the accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds obtained u/s 437-A Cr.P.C shall be inforce for six months from today. No property seized by the police in this case.

Hence, no orders for disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno (contract basis) directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 24th April, 2018.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution Accused: PW1: K.R.Sandeep Narayanan PW2: N.Pradeep N I L PW3: P.Swarna Sekhar Reddy PW4: R.K.Srinivasan PW5: D.Kondaiah PW6: A.Suresh Reddy PW7: B.Ashok Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution Accused: Ex.P1: Report of PW1 Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 N I L Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P5: Police proceedings dated 22.04.2017 at 01.15 pm Ex.P6: Police proceedings dated 23.05.2017 at 05.00 pm Ex.P7: F.I.R

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Prosecution Accused:

N I L

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.

7 C.C.No.527/2017

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

TRIED BY THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, NELLORE

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport ofapprehensiorelease ofcommencclose ofsentence or complainantheement oftrialorder ntaccusedtrial 15/11/1617/04/1725/07/1725/07/1719/02/1811/04/1824/04/18

---- NO DELAY ---

________________________________________________________________________________ State:- Inspector of Railway police, Renigunta RP Circle

Judgment in C.C.No.527 of 2017 in Crime No.30/2017 on the file of Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore

S.No. Name of the AgeFather's NameReligion Address Accused 1K.Ashok Kumar31 YK.Doraswamy HinduR/o Railway Police SettyConstable No.626, Government Railway Police Station, Chittoor.

Offence U/S: 384 IPC

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order: Accused is produced from central jail. Judgment Pronounced (Vide separate Judgment).

In the result accused is found not guilty for the charge u/s 384 IPC.

Hence, the accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds obtained u/s 437-A

Cr.P.C shall be inforce for six months from today. No property seized by the police in this case. Hence, no orders for disposal of property.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I class for Railways, Nellore

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Nellore.