S.Bhargavi, Spl.JFCM, Mobile Court, ATP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

PRESENT :- Smt. S. Bhargavi, Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Wednesday, the 12 th Day of July, 2017

CALENDAR CASE No.6/2012

Between :-

State Represented by the Station House Officer,

Anantapur Rural P.S. ... Complainant

AND

1) P. Thirupal, age 40 years S/o. Pullaiah, D.No.2-491, III Road, Anantapur.

2) P. Nagaraja Guptha, age 38 years, S/o. Pullaiah, Bramhin Street, Old Town, Anantapur.

3) C. Dasthagiri, age 45 years, S/o. C. Fakruddin, V Road, Anantapur.

4) E. Sathish @ E. Satyanarayana, age 30 years, S/o. E. Venkataramaiah, Kalluru Village. Now behind Triveni Talkies, Anantapur.

The case against A-4 was split up and re-numbered as C.C.301/2014 dt.20.3.2014.… Accused Nos.1 to 3.

This case coming on 04-07-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri P.G. Vittal, Advocate for the Accused Nos.1 to 3, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapur Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-3 for the offences U/Secs.409, 419, 420 r/w.34 I.P.C and sec.7 (a) of E.C Act in Crime No.64/2008.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that on 27.4.2008 at 8:00 AM near Agro Industrial Area on Anantapur – Bellary

Road, Anantapur Rural Mandal while A-1, who is running the F.P shop in the name of his wife and A-2 who is also F.P Shop dealer of Shop No.75 at

Anantapur Town and one Sathish (A-4) also purchased the PDS Rice from the local F.P Shop dealers and stored the said rice in the shed and they 2 purchased and sold PDS Rice in black market and on information PW.4

L.Sudhakar, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, Anantapur along with other Vigilance and Enforcement Officials raided and passed on the same to PW.1 C.V. Prasad, Tahsildar, Anantapur. PW.1 along with his staff i.e., LW.2 N.M. Basha, MRI-II, PW.2 B. Karunakar and PW.3 R. Madhava

Reddy, Deputy Tahsildars reached the scene of offence and seized 162 bags of PDS Rice each 50 Kgs and on enquiry it came to light that A-1 and A-2 involved in black marketing of PDS rice to Karnataka State and on that PW.1 suspended the authorizations of A-1 and A-2 and PW.1 also seized auto bearing Nos.AP02-W-8307 and AP-02-U-7939 and A-3 who accepted his auto bearing No.AP-02-U-7939 to transport the PDS rice without any authorization. On the report of PW.1, PW.5 T.Lakshminarayana, Head

Constable, Anantapur Rural P.S registered a case in Cr.No.64/2008

U/Ss.409, 419, 420 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.7 (a) of E.C Act, Anantapur Rural

P.S and took up investigation. Later A-1 to A-3 were granted bail in

Cr.M.P.No.1644/2008 and Cr.M.P.1401/2008. After completion of investigation, LW.7 B. Kristopher, ASI of Police, Anantapur Rural P.S filed charge sheet in this case.

3. After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu for the offences U/Ss. 409, 419, 420 r/w.34 I.P.C and sec.7 (a) of E.C Act and numbered as

C.C.95/2009.

4. On appearance of A-1 to A-3, copies of case records were furnished to them as required Under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused A-1 to A-3 were examined Under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and a charge U/Secs 409, 419, 420 I.P.C and sec.7 (a) of E.C Act was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6. As per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Session Judge,

Anantapurmu dt.22-07-2011 this case was transferred to this court and renumbered as C.C 6/2012.

7. The Hon‟ble High Court granted Interim Stay against A-4 in

Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1947/2011 in Crl.R.C.No.1357/2011 dt. 29-6-2011 and ordered that “there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in so far as this Petitioner/A-4 is concerned, until further orders. The trial can go on against other accused”. As per the orders in Cr.M.P.719/2013 dt.20.3.2014 the case against A-4 was split up and re-numbered as C.C.301/2014.

8. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 6 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-3. PW.1 C.V. Prasad is the defacto complainant in this case. PW.2 B. Karunakar, Deputy Tahsildar, Bathalapalli, PW.3 P.R. Madhava

Reddy, the then Deputy Tahsildar are the Revenue Officials working under

PW.1. PW.4 L. Sudhakar, the then Inspector of Police, Vigilance and

Enforcement, Ananthapuramu (eye witness) and PW.5 T.Lakshminarayana, the then Head Constable, Anantapur Rural P.S is the Investigating Officer.

Ex.P1 is Complaint of PW.1. Ex.P2 is Panchanama and Ex.P3 is First

Information Report.

9. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused A-1 to

A-3 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating evidence deposed against them by the prosecution witnesses.

They further stated that they have no more to say and they do not have any defence evidence on their behalf.

10. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the accused filed his written arguments. The learned counsel for A-1 to A-3 submitted that the complaint was given to the police at a delayed stage when the alleged offence took place on 27.04.2008 and the alleged complaint under Ex.P1 was given by PW.1 with proceedings dt.5.5.2008 and even the said 4 complaint was registered with delay on 06.05.2008. From the plain reading of Ex.P3 FIR, PW.5 failed to give reasons for any delay why the complaint was given with delay of „9‟ days and failed to enquire with PW.1 why the complaint was given after „9‟ days. It is further submitted that in respect of the alleged seized stock in Ex.P2 – Panchanama, it has been stated that 183 bags of rice was seized and PW.1 had deposed that he had seized 185 bags of rice and further in Ex.P2 there was a correction in Page No.3 that an original number was noted internally it was later corrected with whitener and top of it, No.162 was written and the said correction was pointed out to

PW.1 and PW.1 miserably failed to give any satisfactory answer in respect of the said correction. PW.3 from his chief-examination merely states that only 160 bags of rice were seized and it is clear case of omission. The contents of

Ex.P2 was took place on 27.4.2008 and reasonable presumption that Ex.P2 would have been drafted and signed by panchayatdars and inspecting officers on the same day i.e., 27.4.2008. From the signature of PW.2 at the end of the contents in Ex.P2 was signed on 29.4.2008 and in this regard a specific suggestion was put to PW.1 for which he answered in confirmation that there has been a correction that he had signed Ex.P2 on 29.04.2008 and the said delay of „2‟ days i.e., the alleged occurrence being on 24.7.2007 and drafting of Ex.P2 being on 29.04.2008 has not been explained either by PW.1 or by the prosecution while adducing the evidence of PWs.2 to 4. He further submitted that PW.5 who states that he had conducted the investigation in the above case based on Ex.P1 also failed to explain such delay. This being the case of prosecution and such serious failure gives cause for a reasonable doubt that no such occurrence as alleged by the prosecution to have taken place on 27.04.2008 took place and Ex.P-2 is mere table made panchanama. Further the place of occurrence being the

Industrial Estate, Anantapuramu is a busy place surrounded by several persons with activities occurring every minute. Further the failure of S.P.

5

Regional Vigilance and Enforcement, Anantauramu and other Vigilance

Officers has not calling upon independent/private witnesses to act as panchayatdars, but their deliberateness in calling revenue officials for acting as panchayatdars and further calling upon PW.2 to conduct the panchanama itself shows that the entire inspection is tainted with severe lacunas and absolute possibilities of false implications.

11. The learned counsel for A-1 to A-3 further submitted that surprisingly all the attestors to Ex.P2 were none other than officers of revenue department and can easily termed as interested witnesses and any evidence of such interested witnesses shall be scrutinized with utmost care and can only be relied upon if such evidence as a ring of truth to it and such be cogent, credible and trustworthy. Further a contradictory testimony by interested witnesses cannot usually be treated as conclusive and the same was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as reported in 2017 (1) ALD (Crl) 48 (SC). Further the Hon‟ble Apex Court in 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 57 (SC) held that “evidence of interested witnesses requires careful scrutiny before any conclusion is made to rest upon it conviction of accused”. Non-examination of independent witnesses despite place of occurrence being a busy place is a serious lacuna on the part of investigation, as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court in 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 300 (SC). He further submitted that the

Hon‟ble High Court of A.P in a case of Bheemagonda and others Vs. State of

A.P reported in 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 93 to be read in conjunction with the present case “omissions in the case of prosecution when FIR does not state as to the list of documents and the nature of such documents though alleged to have been mentioned in Ex.P1 and further the reasons for delay as being left unexplained and such other omissions which are obvious and fatal in a case of the nature where FIR was prepared admittedly after confabulations with a delay and these omissions give raise to serious suspicion whether the 6 alleged offence took place, in the manner, in which it was projected by the prosecution”.

12. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended

before this court that according to the Public Distribution System (Control)

Order 2008 which came into force vide G.O.Ms.No.21 the Consumer Affairs,

Food and Civil Supplies (CSI) dt.17.5.2008 prescribed vide circular order

No.17 (b) a sanction is required for prosecuting the accused if they are infringed into the public Distribution Rice System. Non-obtaining of the sanction prior to taking cognizance is fatal to the case of the prosecution and on that account alone the accused certainly deserves acquittal.

13. The learned APP opposed the written arguments and requested to convict A-1 to A-3.

14. Now, the point for determination are:

1. Whether the non-obtaining of the sanction orders prior to

taking cognizance by the prosecution is fatal to the case of

prosecution or not?

2. Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of A-1 to

A-3 for the offences Under Secs 409, 419, 420 r/w.34 I.P.C and sec.7 (a) of E.C Act ?

15. In order to prove the case, the prosecution must invariably adduce clear and cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

According to the case of the prosecution, LW.1 C.V.Prasad, Tahsildar of

Anantapur is the defacto complainant. LW.2 N.M.Basha is Mandal Revenue

Inspector-II, Anantapur, LW.3 B.Karunakar, Deputy Tahsildar, Bathalapalli,

LW.4 R. Madhava Reddy, Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Anantapur are the mahazar panchayatdars at the time of seizure. LW.5 L. Sudhakar, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, Anantapur. LW.6 T. Lakshmi Narayana,

Head Constable of Anantapur Rural. LW.7 B. Kristopher, ASI of Police,

Anantapur Rural P.S. Among them the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5.

7

16. POINT NO.1:- Upon considering both contention of the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence Counsel, I gone through the

Essential Commoditiees Act, 1955 and also Andhra Pradesh State Public

Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. The said order came into force wef 19.5.2008 vide G.O.Ms.No.21, Consumer Affairs, Food Civil Supplies (CSI) dt.19.5.2008. In the said order, 2008 at Circular Order 17 (B) it reads as follows:

17. Clause (b): Sanction of Prosecution:-

No authorized F.P Shop Dealer nominated retailer, hawker

or any other person who interfere with the process of distribution

shall be prosecuted, for contravention, attempt to contravene or

abet the contravention of any of the provisions of this order or of the

terms of the conditions of authorization or the direction issued by

the Government Commissioner appointing authority, except with the

provisions sanction of the District Collector concerned.

18. The above circular order 17 (b) is very crystal clear that prosecution should not be initiated for any contravention of Public

Distribution System unless there must be previous sanction from the District

Collector concerned. The provisions itself is very much clear regarding any person who infringed or contravenes or interferes with the prices of distribution system, so when the provision is clear regarding a requirement of sanction, I consider that sanction sinqua – non for initiating the prosecution. The said sanction orders are lacking in this case and on that account alone, this case must be ended in acquittal. I did not receive any plausible explanation regarding non-placing of the sanction order before the court by the prosecution. Hence, this point goes against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

8

19. POINT NO.2:- When coming to the facts and circumstances of the case and probability of occurrence in the manner as narrated by the prosecution, it needs to be considered thoroughly or scrutinize the evidence of prosecution witnesses since they are official witnesses. PW.1 is the first informant to the police and according to the prosecution, he set the criminal law into motion upon receipt. His evidence reveals that on 27.4.2008 upon receipt of information from PW.4 regarding his going to seize PDS rice he deputed PWs.1 to 3 to assist him and in the morning 8:00 AM. PW.4 produced two autos and produced two persons and 185 bags of PDS rice

before him and upon perusing of Ex.P2 which presented by PW.4 he

prepared Ex.P1 and placed before PW.5 for setting criminal law into motion and later he handed over the 185 bags of rice for civil supplies godown and obtained acknowledgment from civil supplies. The evidence of PW.1 never spoken about the presence of A2 at the alleged scene of offence. But Ex.P2 panchanama shows that were three persons arrested the same. His evidence cannot be suspectable regarding the receiving of Ex.P2 from PW.4. At this juncture unless and until clear discussion regarding evidence of other witnesses are made.

20. PW.2 B. Karunakar, Deputy Tahsildar deposed that on 27.4.2008

LW.4 R. Madhava Reddy, Deputy Tahasildar called him and informed that unauthorized rice was stored near Industrial area and asked him to come there and then he reached the place LW.2 N.M. Basha MRI and LW.4

R.Madhava Reddy Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, were present and they reached behind “ Borugula Batti “ and he searched the shed and they found 162 rice bags labeled as PDS rice (Public distribution system) and they seized those bags and informed to PW.1. Thereafter they search surrounding of the shed they found an auto containing 21 bags of rice which are PDS rice but it was changed into other gunny bags. Again they seized those rice as well as auto 9 and they send the same to MLS point godown for safe custody and he too signed in Ex.P.2.

21. PW.3P.R.Madhava Reddy,the then Deputy Tahsildar, Civil

Supplies deposed that on 27.04.2008 at about 8:00 AM he was summoned by PW.1 to the Tahsildar Office, as such he went to Tahsildar Office and then himself, PW.1, PW.2, LW.2 N.M. Basha collectively went to the Bellary

Bypass and reached to Srinivasa Borugulabatti and by the time they went there the Vigilance DSP, LW.5 L.Sudhakar, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and

Enforcement and A-1 to A-3 are present and he also noticed the presence of

PDS rice bags and two autos and then himself and PW.1 verified the said

PDS stock and found that the said rice bags are belonging to the public distribution system. Then they drafted panchanama and seized PDS rice bags 160 in number found in some other bags which are found in the auto itself and those bags are 21 in number and those bags are also seized under mahazar and all the seized material except autos were sent to MLS point,

Anantapuramu for safe custody and then they put a case before Joint

Collector and after that PW.1 preferred criminal complaint before the police and he attested in Ex.P2 mahazar.

22. PW.4 L. Sudhakar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, Ananthapuramu, deposed that on 27.4.2008, on information, himself and his officer DSP and Regional Vigilance and

Enforcement Officer rushed to the scene of offence located beside the Agro

Industry, Industrial Estate, Bellary Road, Ananthapuramu and reached there at about 8 AM. Exact scene of offence is one shed belongs to one

Sreenivasulu. There were two autos and three persons present at the scene of offence on suspicious circumstances and then they called the revenue officials i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 and after a while they came to the spot. PW.1 enquired the said three persons i.e., the accused one by one and they 10 revealed their identity particulars and confessed that the accused are running black marketing business by purchasing PDS rice from the various dealers by names Vanajakshi, Sarada Devi and Venkataramana Reddy and other dealers of surrounding mandals and selling the same to higher prices in Pavagada of Karnataka State. P.W.1 identified the rice belongs to PDS rice as the rice is kept in PDS bags. There were 162 bags of PDS rice were kept in PDS bags and 21 bags of PDS rice were kept in other gunny bags and there were total 183 bags of PDS rice. P.W.1 seized the rice bags since the accused failed to produce any records for holding the rice under the cover of panchanama i.e., Ex.P-2. Subsequently, P.W.1 preferred a complaint in the police station.

23. PW.5 T. Lakshminarayana, then ASI of Police, deposed that on 6.5.2008 at 5.00 PM, while he was present in the police station, PW.1 came to the Police Station and presented a typed compliant (Ex.P-1) before him.

Basing on Ex.P-1, he registered a case in Cr.No.64/2008 u/s 409, 419, 420 r/w 34 IPC and section 7(1) of EC Act and issued Ex.P3 FIR to all the concerned officers. Then, he examined PWs.1 to 3 and L.W.2 N.M.Basha in the police station itself and recorded their statements. As per the statements of PWs.1 to 3 and LW.2 N.M. Basha, the Vigilance and

Enforcement authorities caught hold of 183 packets of PDS rice which are illegally stored in a shed situated beside Agro Industries at Industrial Estate,

Ananthapuramu along with two autos bearing Nos.AP-02-U-7939 and AP-02-

W-8307.

24. PW.2 B.Karunakar is the Deputy Tahsildar and his evidence reveals that on 27.04.2008 upon information received by the Vigilance Wing i.e., (PW.2) himself and PW.3 R. Madhava Reddy went to “Borugula Batti” and there searched the shed and found 162 rice bags label as PDS and thereafter they found 21 bags of rice in surroundings of the shed and found 11 two autos and found three persons A-1 to A-3. The another need to be considered that here PW.2 though seized 183 PDS rice bags never obtained samples for technical expert examination, he himself came to the conclusion that Ex.P2 alone. Even this factor is to be considered here that PW.2 or PW.1 including PW.5 never produced the said PDS rice bags before the court in turn it was handed over to the MLS point and no acknowledgment was received. The non production of said PDS rice bags before the court in this case is absolutely fatal to the case of the prosecution. Since so many factors leading doubt over the veracity of PW.1 or over the case of the prosecution for the reason that evidence of P.W.1 simply reveals the presence of A-1 and

A-3 but never reveals the presence of A-2 at all. But Ex.P2 spoken that A-2 was very much present. Further more PW.4 assumed that he very much participated in the said raid under Ex.P2 he does not have expertism to test the seized rice as PDS rice. This factor absolutely throws a doubt over the case of the prosecution, hence Ex.P2 is liable to be suspectable.

25. Regarding the arrest of A-1 to A-3, PW.4 admits in his cross- examination that he is having authority to arrest the accused being a

Vigilance Inspector but remained silent and he says that he is having lot of work, due to that he is unable to arrest and seize the contraband. According to the evidence of PW.5, he registered the case and investigated into the case. But the prosecution fails to examine LW.7 B. Kristopher, A.S.I of

Police, Investigating Officer in this case. This inconsistency clearly eliminates the evidence of PW.4 whose version is not believable.

26. The learned counsel for A-1 to A-3 relied on the following decisions:

1) Mahavir Singh Vs. Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 48 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex court held that Evidence

Act 1872. Section 3-Testimony of witnesses. Material 12 contradictions. It is but natural for human beings to state variant statements due to time gap. But if such statements go to defeat core of prosecution case then such contradictions are material. And

Court has to be mindful of such statements.

2) Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh and others, reported in 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 57 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that “evidence of interested witnesses requires careful scrutiny

before any conclusion is made to rest upon it conviction of

accused”.

3) Bheemgonda and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 93, wherein the Hon‟ble High

Court held that “FIR not stating that named accused attacked deceased. Nor PW.1 while giving complaint before police stating that he was beaten by named accused persons. PW.3 not mentioning names of all accused except A1 as having attacked her son, the deceased. Not mentioning in her statement that all accused encircled deceased and PW.1 and beat them. PW.4 not stating before Police Office that he was also beaten by accused when he interested. Nor spoke about presence of PW.14 at time of incident. PW.9 did ot mention that PW.3 fell upon feet of A1 to beg deceased and that in spite of same A1 attacked deceased. These and such other omissions fatal in a case of the nature where FIR was prepared, admittedly after confabulations, with a delay of more than three hours after riotous attack on prosecution witnesses and deceased. These omissions would give rise to a serious suspicion whether attack on deceased taken place, in the manner, in which it was projected by prosecution.”

4) S. Bala Krishna Vs. State of Telangana and another, reported in 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 662, wherein the Hon‟ble High Court held that “when alleged act connected with the official discharged of duty, thereby sanction is mandatory. It is nothing but abuse of process to wreak vengeance for which legal machinery cannot be allowed to be used and any such permission is nothing but grave abuse of process and inherent powers are there to prevent such abuse to sub-serve ends of justice.” 13

5) M. Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. Station House Officer, Vijayawada

Police Station, Payakapuram, Vijayawada and others, reported in 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1014, wherein the Hon‟ble High

Court held that “Power to quash FIR/Criminal proceedings. Required to be pressed into service very sparingly and with great care, caution and circumspection. And within parameters laid down in authoritative pronouncement. In event of there being any abuse of process of law, there is a sacred obligation and duty on courts to arrest the same and the strengthen the confidence of the people in the system guided by rule of law.”

6) Ram Sunder Sen Vs. Narender alias Bode Singh Patel, reported in 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 260 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble

Apex Court held that “Investigation and lacunae in investigating procedure. Rape and murder case. Blood sample and soil sample, though collected from place of incident, not sent for FSL examination. As said examination called have been very useful to establish identity of accused, failure to conduct such necessary, test, a serious lacunae in investigating procedure.”

7) D. Thamodaran Vs. Kandasamy and another, reported in 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 300 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that Independent witnesses, failure to examine. Place of incident close to a temple, bus sand and tea stall. Evidence of interested witnesses that around 20 people were present at time of incident and more people came there when scuffle grew. Non- examination of independent witnesses, despite place of occurrence being a busy place, as rightly pointed ought by High Court, a lacunae in investigation.

8) D.B. Power Ltd., Mumbai and others Vs. State of Telangana

and another, reported in 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 712.

9) Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai and another Vs. Iridum Interactive Ltd., Hyderabad and another, reported in 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 452, wherein the Hon‟ble High

Court held that Sections 406, 409, 418 and 420. Criminal

Proceedings. Without delivery of property offence under S.406 cannot be perpetrated. Similarly, without delivery of property offence under S.409 also cannot be committed. So also, act of 14 accused attracting employees of complainant does not amount to cheating. And therefore, question of accused-company causing wrongful loss to complainant so as to attract offence under S.418, does not arise. For same reason, offence under S.420 is also not attracted. So, at outset, even if complaint allegations are uncontroverted, they do not constitute any offence on part of accused. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings will certainly amount to abuse of process of law and hence liable to be quashed.

10) S.K. Alagh Vs. State of U.P and others, reported in 2008 (2)

ALD (Crl.) 78 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that A

Criminal breach of trust is an offence committed by a person to whom the property is entrusted. Ingredients of the offence under

Sec.406 are:

“(1) a person should have been entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property.

(2) that person should dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his own use that property, or dishonestly use or dispose of that property or willfully suffer any other person to do so; (3) that such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.”

11) Raghunath Anant Govilkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 134 (SC), wherein the

Hon‟ble Apex Court held that Sections 406 and 409 are cognate

offences in which common compound is criminal breach of trust.

Offender, in an offence under Section 406, when a public servant, offence would escalate to Sec.409. Criminal Procedure Code 1973,

Section 197.

12) Kailash Kumar Sanwatla Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2003 (7) SCC 399.

15

13) S.W. Palanitkar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2002 SCC (Crl.) 129, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that

10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any personal shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit todo anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.

This court is of the sincere opinion that the above precedents quite applies to the facts of the present case.

27. The ingredients of Secs.409, 417, 420 IPC and sec.7 (a) of E.C

Act will not attract as there is no entrustment of property and no criminal breach of trust will arise. Hence the accused certainly deserves for acquittal.

28. In the result, the accused A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offences under Secs. 409, 419, 420 I.P.C and Sec.7 (a) of E.C Act and they are accordingly, acquitted Under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

A-1 to A-3 shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 12 th day of July, 2017.

Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1 C.V. Prasad -- NONE (defacto complainant).

16

PW-2 B. Karunakar, (Deputy Tahsildar, Bathalapalli).

PW.3 P.R. Madhava Reddy, (the then Deputy Tahsildar).

PW.4 L. Sudhakar, (the then Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, Ananthapuramu (eye witness).

PW.5 T.Lakshminarayana, (the then Head Constable, Anantapur Rural P.S is the Investigating Officer).

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 Complaint of PW.1. ---

Ex.P-2 Panchanama.

Ex.P-3 First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

- NIL -

JFCM 17

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Ananthapuramu.

Commence- Apprehension Released Close of Sentence Offence Report ment of of Accused on Bail Trial or Order Trial 27.04.2008 '06.05.2008 '-- '-- '27.08.2012 '08.05.2017 '12.07.2017

Judgment in C.C.No. 6 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Complainant: The Station House Officer, Anantapur Rural P.S.

Crime No: 64/2008

Father's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Name of the Name Accused 40 P. Thirupal Pullaiah Hindu -- Old Town Anantapuramu Yrs.

45 C. Dastagiri C. Fakruddin Hindu -- V Road Anantapuramu Yrs.

Behind E. Sathish @ 30 E. Hindu -- Triveni Anantapuramu E.Satyanarayana Yrs. Venkataramaiah Talkies

Offence: U/Secs. 409, 419, 420 I.P.C and Sec.7 (a) of E.C Act of I.P.C.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offences under Secs. 409, 419, 420 I.P.C and Sec.7 (a) of E.C Act and they are accordingly, acquitted Under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

A-1 to A-3 shall be in force in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu. Copy submitted to the Hon‟ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

PRESENT :- Smt. S. Bhargavi, Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Monday, the 27 th Day of November, 2017

CALENDAR CASE No.4/2012

Between :-

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Anantapuramu III Town P.S. ... Complainant

AND

A. Adinarayana Reddy, age 42 years, S/o. A. Appireddy, Chiyyedu Village, Society President and Single Window President, DCMS Director, R/o. Chiyyedu Village, Itikalapalli Mandal. … Accused.

This case coming on 23-11-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of

Sri P. Guru Prasad and Sri M. Nagashyam Kiran, Advocates for the

Accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this

Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station,

Anantapuramu, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences

U/Secs.408, 409 I.P.C in his station Crime No.133/2007.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that in the year 2007 the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural, A.P., Hyderabad has allotted groundnut seeds for distribution to the farmers on subsidy through 5 seeds distributing agencies during Kharif season 2007 vide

ROC.No.B6/1675/2007, District Collector, Anantapur dt.6.6.2009. Further the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad has permitted to supply agencies to took up distribution of seeds on subsidy during kharif 2007 through D.C.M.S, A.G.R.Os and P.A.C & S and guidelines for distribution of ground nut as distribution of seeds shall commence from June 12th in the District in all distribution centers. Market Yard place was opened for sale counters under the supervision of LW.2 C.V. Prasad, MRO and LW.3

N. Ashok Kumar, Assistant Director, Agriculture. Similarly at Market Yard point LW.4 P. Ramaiah, Market Yard Godown in charge and Market

Committee Secretary, Anantapur and LW.8 G. Shankar Reddy, Clerk,

Agriculture Co-operative Society, positioned by the supplying agencies by the accused for collecting the paid bills from the farmers and issued delivery of seeds to the farmers. LW.11 Sane Rajasekhar, Business Manager, District

Co-operative Marketing Society (DCMS), Anantapuramu given memorandum of understanding for distribution of ground nuts in the year 2007 to P.A.C.S

Chiyyedu. The accused A. Adinarayana Reddy, President of P.A.C.S,

Chiyyedu has offered deed to distribute the seeds to the farmers for the year 2007. LW.12 Syed Muqthar Ahmad, Dy. Manager, A.P Co-operative Oil Feeds has given the agreement deed to “The Anantapur District Co-Operative

Marketing Society Ltd.,”, with Regd.No.D.711, Anantapuramu to supply the

Ground nuts seeds to the farmers and in turn the DCMS given the allotment to Cheyedu PACS decided through the minutes of the meeting dated 2.5.2007 during the Kharif 2007. On 11.7.2007 on observing the news item published in Eenadu and Vartha daily papers with caption “Ardharathri

Verusenaga Taralimpu”, LW.1 K. Gangadhar Reddy, RDO, Anantapur

Division, Anantapur, preferred a complaint vide R.C.No.1339/DYSO/2007, dt.11.7.2007 alleging that the stocks of Ground nut seeds transported illegally through the vehicles to the various villages, sponsored by the

Government to farmers on subsidiary price on the night of 10.7.2007 at

Agricultural Market Yard, Anantapur. The accused Adinarayana Reddy single window president, Cheyedu who is authorized by the Government for seed distribution misused 193 bags of Groundnut seeds and transported the same from stock point godowns agricultural market yard without notice of

Government Officials and thereby cheated the Government. LWs.1 and 2 visited the Agricultural Market Yard and Inspected the Godown and verified the stock position and concerned records and noted that 193 bags of

Groundnuts seeds i.e., 57.90 Quintals of seeds are deficit. On the complaint of LW.1 K.Gangadhar Reddy, LW.13 B. Subhukumar, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Anantapuramu I Town P.S registered a case in Cr.No.133/2007

U/Ss.408, 409 I.P.C and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence examined LWs.1 to 4. Where LW.3 N. Ashok Kumar,

Assistant Director of Agriculture found some galata was going on near stock point godown, went there and ordered for the closure of godown and during enquiry, accused transported the seeds in 407 vehicle bearing No.AP-02-U- 4775 and AP-02-U-4194. LW.4 P. Ramaiah, Market Yard Godown In Charge and Market Committee Secretary, Anantapuramu, who is the godown incharge and secretary of market yard godown, Aantapuramu, on 9.7.2007 after completion of seed distribution the remaining stock of 332.10 quintals of groundnuts handed over to the accused who is the authorized for distribution on the same day night, accused asked him to give the godown keys, when he questioned him the purpose, he told since he is the authorized for the distribution and there is no necessary for him to explain the reasons and took away the godown keys. LW.14 S. Mansuruddin, S.I of

Police, Anantapur III Town P.S took up investigation and got the vehicles particulars and ownership particulars from the RTO Office, Anantapur vide

Endt.No.C.2/2009, O/o.The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Anantapur, and dt.20.8.2009. LW.9 Ediga Narasimhulu and LW.10 J. Ghouse Peera (who are the owners of the vehicles used by the accused in the commission of offence) were examined and revealed that the drivers who worked during that period of commission of the offence were told to them that they have gone to the hire to Adinarayana Reddy (accused) and their whereabouts are not known. LW.5 Gowthami, RDO, Anantapuramu and LW.6 Rama Krishna

Reddy, Mandal Revenue Officer, Anantapuramu, handed over the original bill books 50 seized on 10.7.2007 vide Rc.No.2199/DYSO/2009, dt.20.11.2009.

LW.5, RDO who is present at the counter of taking cash and hand overing the bills to the farmers and amounts will be deposited by him in DCMS,

Anantapuramu and seized the seed stock book of the year 2007 and AP Oil feed ground nut stock register for the Khareef 2007-08 and bills of Form X or Form 600 received on the address of A.P. Oil Feed (DCMS) C/o.

Adinarayana Reddy, Anantapur received by LW.8 G. Shankar Reddy, Clerk,

Cheyedu Primary Agriculture Co-cooperative Society, Anantapuramu. LW.11

Business Manager, DCMS, Anantapuramu given the letter on the letter pad that the PACS, Chiyyedu, ground nut for the Kharif 2007, the whole amount was paid and nil balance and handed over the memorandum of understanding for distribution of ground nut certified or truthful labeled seed form chemical with No.G 570282 signed by the accused and business

Manager, Index of the book with nil balance are the bill of the received cash from the accused. LW.12 S. Muqthar Ahmad, who is Deputy Manager, A.P

Oil Feed given the minutes and relevant records vide No.Lr.No.P &

I/ATP/G<S/KF07 dt.6.1.2010. Thus the accused who shifted the ground nut bills of 193 i.e., 57-90 quintals and paid the amount and cleared the whole amount which shown that he fraudulently shifted the stock and paid the amount in the DCMS, Anantapuramu. The accused got anticipatory bail vide

Cr.M.P.No.1627/2009 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantpuramu, with

Dis No.2652 dt.10.12.2009. After completion of investigation LW.14

S.Mansuruddin, S.I of Police, Anantapuramu III town P.S filed charge sheet in this case.

3. After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Anantapuramu for the offences U/Ss.408, 409 I.P.C and numbered as C.C.244/2010. As per the proceedings of

Hon'ble District and Session Judge, Anantapurmu in Order Dis No.3886

dt.11-07-2011 this case was transferred to this court and renumbered the same as C.C. 4/2012

4. On appearance of Accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required Under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined Under Sec.240 Cr.P.C and a charge

U/Secs.408, 409 I.P.C was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 10 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-27. PW.1 C.V. Prasad, the then MRO, who attended the verification of the stock along with LW.1 K. Gangadhar Reddy, RDO.

PW.2 R. Ramaiah is the Godown in charge. PW.3 Ashok Kumar, then

Assistant Director of Agriculture in Anantapuramu. PW.4 M. Narayana

Swamy, clerk, who is the counter incharge of the godown. PW.5 G. Sankar

Reddy, clerk, Godown incharge who was responsible for unloading the stocks. PW.6 E. Narasimhulu, owner of the vehicle used by the accused in the commission of offence. PW.7 Rajasekhar Reddy, Business Manager,

DCMS, Anantapuramu. PW.8 Syed Muqthar Ahmad, Deputy Manager of A.P.

Co-operative Oil Fed. PW.9 R. Subha Kumar, the then S.I of Police, who registered the case and investigated into the case. PW.10 S. Mansooruddin, the then S.I of Police is the Investigating Officer, who filed charge sheet in this case. Ex.P1 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 from 11th line onwards to till end, Ex.P2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 from 10th line onwards till end, Ex.P3 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 from 10th line onwards till end, Ex.P4 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6,

Ex.P5 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7, Ex.P6 is the Attested copy of minutes of meeting dt.2.5.2007, Ex.P7 is the attested copy of DCMS letter regarding allotment centre, Ex.P9 is the attested copy of utilization certificate, Ex.P10 is the attested copy of payment and receipt particulars,

Ex.P11 is the covering letter dt.6.1.2010, Ex.P12 is the letter (report),

Ex.P13 is the First Information Report, Ex.P14 is the Rough Sketch of the scene of offence, Ex.P15 is the Letter from Assistant Director Agriculture, dt.24.8.2009, Ex.P16 is the Letter from RDO dt.20.11.2009, Ex.P17 is the attested Xerox Copies of ledger and deed agreement with the accused,

Ex.P18 is the Bill of ground nut Kharif 2007, Ex.P19 is the letter pad from

Anantapuramu District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited nil balance of ground nut Kharif 2007, Ex.P20 is the Sale Agreement dt.5.2.2007, Ex.P21 is the letter to RTO, Anantapuramu dt.17.8.2009, Ex.P22 Attested copy of vehicle particulars, Ex.P23 Bill Books (1-50 Nos), Ex.P24 is the Groundnut stock Register containing pages from 1 to 172, Ex.P25 is the Stock Register of A.P Oil Fed Groundnut stock Register containing 30 pages, Ex.P26 is the

Form-C and Bills numbering from 1 to 148, Ex.P27 Two mahazars. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, the defence marked contradiction in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.D-1.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witnesses. He further stated that he has no more to say and he does not have any defence evidence on his behalf.

8. The learned counsel for the accused filed his written arguments.

The learned counsel for accused submitted that the complaint was given to the police at a delayed stage when the alleged offence took place on 10.7.2007 and the alleged complaint under Ex-P12 was given by PW.1 with proceeding and the said complaint was registered with delay on 16.7.2007.

In Ex-P13 FIR, PW9 failed to give reasons for the delay why the complaint was given with „6‟ days and failed to enquire with LW.1. It is further submitted that in respect of value of property involved is kept blank in

Column No.10 of the FIR. He further submitted that PW.10 who states that he had conducted the investigation in the above case based on Ex.P12 also failed to explain such delay. This being the case of prosecution and such serious failure gives cause for a reasonable doubt that no such occurrence as alleged by the prosecution to have taken place on 10.7.2007 took place and no panchanama was held at the time of alleged offence. Further the place of occurrence being the godown, Agricultural Market yard, Anantapuramu is a busy place surrounded by several persons with activities occurring every minute. Further the failure of RDO, LW.1 Gangadhar Reddy and other

Revenue Officers has not calling upon independent /Private witnesses to act as mediators, but their deliberateness in calling all society members and not conducting panchanama itself shows that the entire inspector is tainted with sever lacunas and absolute possibilities of false implications. Further a contradictory testimony by interested witnesses cannot usually be treated as conclusive and the same was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as reported in 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 48 (SC). Further the Hon‟ble Apex court in 2017 (1)

ALD (Crl.).57 (SC) held that “evidence of interested witnesses requires careful scrutiny before any contusion is made rest upon it conviction of accused”. Non-examination of independent witnesses despite place of occurrence being a busy place is a serious lacuna on the part of investigation, as held by the Hon‟ble supreme Court in 2016 (1) ALD (Crl).

300 (SC). That the Hon‟ble High Court of A.P is a case of Bheemagonda and others Vs State of A.P. reported in 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 93 to be read in conjunction with the present case “Omissions in the case of prosecution when FIR does not State as to the list of documents and the nature of such documents though alleged to have been mentioned in Ex-P13 and further the reasons for delay as being left unexplained and such other omissions which are obvious and fatal in a case of the nature where FIR was prepared admittedly after confabulations with a delay and these omissions give raise to serious suspicion whether alleged offence took place, in the manner, in which it was projected by the prosecution

9. The learned A.P.P opposed the Written Arguments and requested to convict accused.

10. Heard both sides.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

“W hether the prosecution bring home the guilt of accused for the offences U/S.408,409 IPC?

12. P O I N T :- Coming to the facts and circumstances of the case and probability of occurrence in the manner as narrated by the prosecution, it needs to be considered thoroughly or scrutinize the evidence of prosecution witnesses, since they are interested witnesses. LW.1 is the first informant to the police and accordingly to the prosecution, he set the criminal law into motion upon receipt.

13. PW.1 C.V.Prasad, the then Tahsildar his evidence reveals that on 11.07.2007 he observed news in Eenadu Daily news paper in district edition published news as “Ardharathri Verusenaga Taralimpu” with a caption and vehicles bearing No AP-02-U-4194 and AP-02-U-4775 two lorries transported groundnut seeds without bills on 10.7.2007 night. On the same day morning

LW.1 telephoned him and requested to come to near market yard godown for verifying. At 11:00 AM. PW.1 went to Market yard godown and there

LW.1 and accused already present. LW.1 enquired with accused regarding

Stock registers, bills. One Sankar Reddy, who is assistant to accused produced the stock register and bills, P.W1 and LW.1 observed that on 10.07.2007 opening balance is 2,546 quintals of ground nut and the distribution is showed as 2214 quintals and balance showed as 274 quintals instead of 332 quintals and they found the difference of 58 quintals pertaining to 193 bags. The bills pertaining to 193 bags are not produced by the accused. He further stated that affer that LW.1 came to the conclusion that there is a misappropriation of 58 quintals and after that LW.1 sent a report to the collector.

14. PW.3 Ashok Kumar, the then Assistant Director of Agriculture in

Anantapuramu, he know accused as he is the president in the Primary

Agriculture Co-operative Society. On 9.07.2007 while he was in the market yard premises the agriculturist made galata and the same was heard by

PW.2, and he instructed the accused to close the godown as time is over.

PW.3 further deposed that on 10.07.2007 the incident published in news paper with a caption “Akrama Verusanaga Taralimpu” for that LW.1 and

PW.1 enquired about the incident and they preferred complaint.

15. The prosecution treated PW.2, PW.4 to PW.7 as hostile and they did not speak anything incriminating against the accused and the prosecution treated them hostile and marked their Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5 respectively. However, the prosecution could not elicit anything from them in favour of its case.

Therefore, the evidence of PWs-2, 4 to 7 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

16. PW.8, Syed Muqthar Ahmad, Deputy Manage in A.P Co-operative

Oil Seeds, Tapovanam, Anantapuram, he deposed that on 06.01.2010 III

Town Police, Aantapuramu called him and requested to provide records by way of attested copies i.e Ex.P6 is the attested copy of minutes of meetings

dated 2-5-2007, Ex.P7 is the attested copy of proceedings of the District

Collector, Anantapuramu. Ex.P8 is the attested copy of DCMS letter regarding allotment center. Ex.P9 is attested copy of utilization certificate.

Ex.P10 is the attessted copy of payment and receipt particulars. Ex.P11 is the covering letter dt.06.01.2010.

17. PW.9 Shubha Kumar, S.I of Police, I Town, Anantapuramu. On 16.07.2007 while he was in Police Station. LW.1 sent a letter in connection with fraud took place regarding seeds distribution and letter is marked as

Ex.P12. Basing on that he registered a case in Cr.No 133/2007 U/S.408 and 409 IPC and issued copies to all concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P13. Later further investigation done by PW10 Mansooruddin.

18. PW.10 S. Mansooruddin, S.I of Police, deposed that on 14.8.2009, he took up investigation as the CD file was obtained from S.I

Shubha Kumar from Rayadurg P.S on the point of jurisdiction from

Ananthapuramu I Town to Ananthapuramu II Town and he gone through the contents of the case investigated by Shubha Kumar. On 17.8.2009, he sent a requisition to Assistant Director, Agriculture, Market Yard, Ananthapuramu to give authorization of seeds distribution and safeguard of the stock point of ground nut seeds and gave requisition to Motor Vehicle Inspector to furnish the ownership of the crime vehicles. On 18.8.2009, he sent a requisition to

RDO, Ananthapuramu to handover the original bills which are seized on his inspection on the night of 9.7.2007 at Market Yard Godowns,

Ananthapuramu. On 20.8.2009, he received information from MVI of AP-02-

U-4194 and AP-02-U-4775 as per the records available in the MV Office from

Form 24-E Register. One M.Thippaiah s/o Muthyalappa of Tagarakunta village, Kanaganapalli Mandal is the owner of the AP02-U-4194 and G.Gouse

Peera (L.W.10) s/o K.Allabakash, Neeruganti Street, Old Town,

Ananthapuramu, is the owner of the vehicle AP-02-U-4775. On 24.8.2009, he received a reply letter copy of guidelines of authorization from PW.3 to distribute the seeds, AP Oil fed grovers Federation Limited, Ananthapuram is authorised by the District Collector, Ananthapuramu vide RC.No.B6/1675/07 dt.6.6.2007. Ex.P-15 is the said letter for distribution of ground nut subsidy during 2007. In turn, AP Oil Fed was appointed the Primary Agricultural Co- operative Society Limited, Chiyyedu, Ananthapuramu Rural mandal headed by President Sri Adinarayana Reddy allotment of sale of agency and ground nuts. On 16.11.2009, he flashed radio message to Shubha Kumar to hand over the records and material evidence in this case. He sent a requisition to

Asst. Director, Agricultural Market Yard, Ananthapuramu to hand over the records and bills bearing 2460 to the quantity of 57.90 quintals in 193 bags and also enquiry report of Shankar Reddy who is the Godown Incharge and handing over the keys of godown to the accused and action taken report. On 18.11.2009, Agricultural officer PW.3 sent a report that MRO,

Ananthapuramu is having the bills and his office is not competent to take action against the incharge of the godown. On 19.11.2009, he wrote a letter to the District Collector, Ananthapuramu about handing over the records in this case from MRO Office. On 20.11.2009 at 6.00 PM, he reached MRO office, Ananthapuramu, examined RDO and MRO and recorded their statements and received bills books vide Rc.No.2199/DYSO/2009 dt.20.11.2009 and original bills of 1-50. Ex.P-16 is the said letter from RDO dt.20.11.2009. On 23.11.2009 at 6.00 PM, he received material from

Chiyyedu Agricultural Cooperative Society two registers i.e., one Stock

Register certified by Seed Inspector and another Stock Register opened after the offence took place and folder containing way bills of unloaded from

M.Narayana swamy, Secretary, Chiyyedu society. He examined PW.4 and

PW.5 M.Narayana Swamy and G.Sankar Reddy who are the clerks and

Godown incharge. They told that A-1 put 143 bags outside on asking him, he told them that he gives bills in the morning, in the meantime, MRO and

RDO came and seized the bags, on 13.7.2007, he was suspended by the

President and continued till 1.4.2008, he was taken on job and posted for half salary. On 28.11.2009 at 10 AM, he obtained the presence of PW.6

E.Narasimhulu and recorded his statement who is the owner of the vehicle

AP-02-U-4194 and he stated that Golla Nagaraju is the driver at the time and after that he removed the driver and he does not know the whereabouts of the driver. He examined LW.10 Gouse Peera who is the owner of the vehicle AP-02-U-4775. He stated that Shaiksha vali is the driver and

S.Adinarayana Reddy took the vehicle on hire and after that he was removed from the job and he does not know his whereabouts. On 30.12.2009, he visited DCMS Office, Ananthapuramu and examined PW.7 S.Rajasekhar

Reddy who is the incharge of the Godown Seeds Distribution from the beginning and his statement was recorded. He handed over attested Xerox

Copies of ledger and deed agreement with the accused. Attested copy of ledger is marked as Ex.P-17. Bill of ground nut Kharif 2007 is marked as

Ex.P-18. Ex.P-19 is the letter pad from Anantapur District Cooperative

Marketing Society Limited showing NIL balance of ground nut Kharif 2007.

On 30.12.2009 PW.7 Rajasekhar Reddy also handed over him one sale agreement between Business Manager, Anantapur District Co-opeative

Marketing Society Ltd., and the accused. Sale agreement dt.5.2.2007 is marked as Ex.P20. On 6.1.2010 he came to A.P Cooperative Oil seeds

Grover‟s Federation Ltd., Divisional Office, Anantapurau where he secured the presence of PW.8 examined him and recorded his statement and on the same day, PW.8 handed over the attested copies of the documents and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

19. The evidence of PW.1 is that the accused is single window president of Chiyyedu Society for the distribution of groundnut seeds. PW.1 further admitted that the society after paying amount, they have to take the stocks from DCMS and they will get in turn only 2% Commission and the same was remitted to the society and ROC.No.B6/1675/27 is issued by the

District Collector, Anantapuramu for distribution of seeds and was marked as

Ex.P1. PW1 further admitted that he deposed before police that he observed.

On 9.07.2007 the opening balance is 2546 quintals and on that day 2214 quintals were distributed and closing balance is 332 quintals. PW.1 further admitted that on 9.07.2007 night, all the agriculturists tress passed inside of market yard godown and witness adds that above incident was taken place on 11.07.2007 and further admitted that the bills were found in gowdown were not brought into register. PW.3 admitted in his cross examination that he came to know through S.I there is mis-appropriation of 57 quintals and he has no personal knowledge. As per the version of PW.1 he stated before police that on 9.7.2007 the opening balance is 2546 quintals and on that day 2214 quintals were distributed and closing balance is 332 quintals but in chief-examination he stated that he observe the opening balance on 10.7.2007 and found misappropriation. He further admitted that he did not bring the bills which were found in godwon into register. This shows that there is discrepancies in evidence of PWs.1 and 3 and creates a doubt whether there is a misappropriation is done by accused. As per the evidence of PW.9 did not state any reason for delay and omission of Column No FIR i.e. value of property and did not seize any stock registers. PW.10 admitted during his cross-examination that he did not point over the alleged discrepancies is seed distribution in the seized bills 1 to 50 and he also found no shortage of cash regarding seized groundnuts PW.9 also founds that there is no endorsement in the stock registers by the revenue officials that there is variation in stock. This shows that the Investigation Officer made table made investigation. Therefore it is held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Secs.408, 409 of I.P.C and he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27 th day of November,

2017.

Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1 C.V. Prasad, the then MRO, who -- NONE attended the verification of the stock along with LW.1 K. Gangadhar Reddy, RDO.

PW-2 R. Ramaiah is the Godown in charge.

PW.3 Ashok Kumar, then Assistant Director of Agriculture, Anantapuramu.

PW.4 M. Narayana Swamy, clerk, who is the counter incharge of the godown.

PW.5 G. Sankar Reddy, clerk, Godown incharge who was responsible for unloading the stocks.

PW.6 E. Narasimhulu, owner of the vehicle used by the accused in the commission of offence.

PW.7 Rajasekhar Reddy, Business Manager, DCMS, Anantapuramu.

PW.8 Syed Muqthar Ahmad, Deputy Manager of A.P. Co-operative Oil Fed.

PW.9 R. Subha Kumar, the then S.I of Police, who registered the case and investigated into the case.

PW.10 S. Mansooruddin, the then S.I of Police is the Investigating Officer, who filed charge sheet in this case

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 from 11th line onwards to till end. Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 from 10th line onwards till end. Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 from 10th line onwards till end. Ex.P4 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6. Ex.P5 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7. Ex.P6 : Attested copy of minutes of meeting dt.2.5.2007. Ex.P7 : Attested copy of DCMS letter regarding allotment centre. Ex.P9 : Attested copy of utilization certificate. Ex.P10: Attested copy of payment and receipt particulars. Ex.P11: Covering letter dt.6.1.2010. Ex.P12: Letter (report). Ex.P13: First Information Report. Ex.P14: Rough Sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P15: Letter from Assistant Director Agriculture, dt.24.8.2009. Ex.P16: Letter from RDO dt.20.11.2009. Ex.P17: Attested Xerox Copies of ledger and deed agreement with the accused. Ex.P18: Bill of ground nut Kharif 2007. Ex.P19: Letter pad from Anantapuramu District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited nil balance of ground nut Kharif 2007. Ex.P20: Sale Agreement dt.5.2.2007. Ex.P21: Letter to RTO, Anantapuramu dt.17.8.2009. Ex.P22: Attested copy of vehicle particulars. Ex.P23: Bill Books (1-50 Nos). Ex.P24: Groundnut stock Register containing pages from 1 to 172. Ex.P25: Stock Register of A.P Oil Fed Groundnut stock Register containing 30 pages. Ex.P26: Form-C and Bills numbering from 1 to 148. Ex.P27: Two mahazars.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

Ex.D-1 : Contradiction in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.

- NIL -

JFCM

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Ananthapuramu.

Commence- Apprehension Released Close of Sentence Offence Report ment of of Accused on Bail Trial or Order Trial ' 10.07.2007 '16.07.2007 '-- '-- '12.12.2012 '23.11.2017 '27.11.2017

Judgment in C.C.No. 4 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu III Town P.S.

Crime No: 133/2007

Father's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Name of the Name Accused

Single 42 A. window A. Adinarayana Reddy Hindu Chiyyedu Irikalapalli Yrs. Appireddy presi- dent

Offence: U/Secs. 417, 420 of I.P.C.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Secs.408, 409 of I.P.C and he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon‟ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

PRESENT :- Smt. S. Bhargavi, Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Thursday, the 30 th Day of November, 2017

CALENDAR CASE.No.159/2013

Between :-

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mahila P.S. Anantapuramu. ... Complainant

AND

1) K. Siddaiah, aged about 40 years, S/o. K. Anjaneya, R/o. D.No.10/5-45, Makthal Pet, Rayachur Town, Karnataka State.

2) K. Veeraiah, aged about 52 years, S/o. K. Anjaneya, R/o.D.No.10/5-45, Makthal Pet, Rayachur Town, Karnataka State.

3) Lakshmi Devi, aged about 45 years, W/o. K. Veeraiah, R/o.D.No.10/5-45, Makthal Pet, Rayachur Town, Karnataka State.

4) Besta Raju @ Madhava Swamy, aged about 38 years, S/o. B. Hussainappa, D.No.6-64, Telugu Street, Kurnool City. (died)

The case against A-4 abated as died. … Accused Nos.1 to 3

This case coming on 28-11-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri C. Raghurama Reddy, Sri C. Ashok Kumar Reddy, Advocates

for the Accused Nos.1 to 3, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the

material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S., Anantapuramu filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-4 for the offences U/Sec.498-A r/w.34 I.P.C,

Secs 3 and 4 of D.P Act in Cr.No.43/2012.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that, LW.1

K.Aruna Jyothi is first daughter of LW.2 M. Narayana. LW.1 studied up to

M.A. On 5.11.2009 the marriage of LW.1 K. Aruna Jyothi (defacto complainant) was performed with A-1 K. Siddaiah at Shadikhana, Gooty and at the time of marriage, on the demand of the accused, LW.2 gave

Rs.2,00,000/- cash and 10 tulas of gold to the accused as dowry. After the 2 marriage LW.1 joined A-1 to lead marital life at Rayachur, lived along with

A-2 and A-3 happily for a period of three months. After that A-1 to A-3 instigated by A-4 and they criticized LW.1 by stating that at the time of marriage LW.1 gets very less dowry. A-1 to A-3 tortured LW.1 mentioned silly things in the house and she went to Anantapur after taking A-1’s permission to console LW.2 as his health is very difficult. A-1 to A-3 made phone calls to LW.1 and tortured her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- as additional dowry. A-4 also said to LW.1 that if she did not get additional dowry, he made second marriage to A-1. In this issue on the request of LW.1, her relatives LW.3

A.Guruswamy and LW.4 S. Srinivasulu along with LW.1 went to Rayachur and request the accused not to harass LW.1 and left her at her matrimonial house. In the month of December, 2011 with the influence of A-4, A-1 to A-3 beat LW.1 indiscriminately and abused her in filthy language and necked out her from their house by saying LW.1 should bring Rs.1,00,000/- from LW.2.

On that LW.1 came to her parent’s house and a panchayat was held in the presence of elders, but in vain. On the report of LW.1 K. Aruna Jyothi,

LW.5 D. Seshaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S, Anantapuramu registered a case in Cr.No.43/2012 U/Ss.498-A r/w.34 IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of

D.P Act and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence at Srinivasa Nagar, Anantapuramu, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and drawn rough sketch. On 15.07.2012 at 6:00 PM, LW.5 Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S arrested

A-1 to A-3 and sent them for remand. On17.7.2012 at 7:30 AM, he arrested

A-4 and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation, LW.5 filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-4.

3. After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu for the offences U/S. 498-A r/w.34 IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P Act and numbered as CC.1013/2012.

3

4. On appearance of A-1 to A-4, copies of case records were furnished to them as required Under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. As per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Session Judge,

Anantapurmu in Order Dis No.6789 dt.30-09-2013 this case was transferred to this court and renumbered the same as C.C 159/2013.

6. The accused A-1 to A-4 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and a charge U/S.498-A I.P.C and Secs 3 an 4 of D.P Act was framed, read over and explained to A-1 to A-4 in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial A-4 died, Death Certificate of A-4 was filed on 24.12.2014 and case against him was abated.

8. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-3. PW.1 K. Aruna Jyothi, defacto complainant. PW.2

Narayana is the father of PW.1. PW.3 A. Guru Swamy and PW.4

S.Sreenivasulu are relatives of the PW.1. PW.5 B. Seshaiah, is then Sub-

Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S., Anantapuramu. Ex.P1 is complaint of PW.1.

Ex.P2 is the First Information Report. Ex.P3 is the Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.

9. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused A-1 to

A-3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating evidence deposed against them by the prosecution witnesses. They further stated that they have no more to say and they do not have any defence evidence on their behalf.

10. The learned A.P.P for the state deposed that all the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution as such the accused are entitled for conviction.

11. For contra the learned counsel for defence argued that PW.2 to

PW.4 are the interested witnesses they being father and uncle of PW.1 and 4 more particularly they are hearsay witnesses and as such their evidence cannot be considered. He further contended that the marriage of PW.1 is performed in the year 2009 and the father of PW.1 is a electrician and he is earning Rs.100/- per day and they have no such capacity to give dowry who have been living on the earning of PW.2. PW.1 admitted that her allegation that she stayed only 3 months after the marriage and as such the learned defence contended that the accused never harassed PW.1. The prosecution had not examined any of the independent witnesses at the residential locality of accused and even the witnesses who deposed had not spoken the specific day and time of demanding dowry and basing on the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution the accused are entitled for acquittal even under benefit of doubt and prayed to acquit the accused.

In support of their contentions the learned defence counsel for the accused relied on the following citations; Sanga Sunitha Vs. State of Telangana, through SHO, PS

Karimanagar I Town, rep. by is public prosecutor and

another, reported in 2017 (1) ALT (Crl.) 209 (A.P).

The Public Prosecutor and another Vs. Kamidi Veera

Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy & Others, reported in

2011 (1) ALD (Crl.) 55.

Gulam Mohd. Moizuddin Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2007 (1) ALD (Crl.) 804.

Natari Parvati Vs. State of A.P, reported in 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 731.

Meeta Siaraju Vs. State of A.P, reported in 2012 (2) ALT (Crl.) 5.

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ashok Kumar, reported in 2002 (0) Crl. J.3606.

Ashok Vishnu Davare Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 (1) CCR (SC) 313.

12. Heard both sides.

13. Now, the point arose for determination is:

5 “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A-1 to A-3 for the offences under Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P Act beyond all reasonable doubt? ”

14. P O I N T :- PW.1 K. Aruna Jyothi deposed that PW.2 is her father, PWs.3 and 4 are her paternal uncle. On 5.11.2009 her marriage was performed with A-1 at Shadi Khana, Gooty as per the rites and customs prevailing in the community in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.2.00 Lakhs cash and 10 tulas of gold as dowry. After the marriage the accused looked after her very well for three months. Then with the permission of A-1, she went to Gooty as her father was sick. A-1 to A-3 made calls to her demanding additional dowry and tortured her and she joined with A-1 and A-1 to A-3 tortured her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. There-after a panchayat was held in the presence of elders, but in vain. A-3 challenged her that if she won’t get amount accused will perform second marriage to A-1, A-1 to A-3 beat her indiscriminately, abused her in filthy language and necked her out from the house of A-1 to A-3 stating that PW.1 should get additional dowry, otherwise the accused will perform second marriage to A-1. Now she is residing with her parents. Her gold ornaments as well as her clothes are with accused till today. On 4.7.2012 he gave report Ex.P1 in Mahila P.S

As seen from the cross-examination of PW.1 that her father was a private electrician and A-1 filed divorce case in M.C.47/2013 on the file of

Family Court, Rayachur and she further admitted that she preferred an appeal against the decree and Judgment passed in M.C.47/2013 in Gulbarga

High Court. She further admitted in her cross-examination that “it is true she mentioned in her counter in M.C.47/2013 that her parents gave dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold and incurred Rs.5,00,000/- to perform marriage of PW.1 at Gooty”. She further admitted that her father is aged about 75 years and he is private electrician and he is earning Rs.5,000/- per month and all family members are depending on that income and she 6 further admitted that Rs.5000/- is not sufficient to maintain their family and

PW.2 does not have any bank account. PW.1 further admitted that PW.2 is not having any landed property and as on the date of marriage PW.1 is aged about 32 years and A-1 is 10 years elder than PW.1. She further admitted that she never deposed that Pw.1 gave additional dowry and after that she returned to her matrimonial home after three months of marriage and there are residential houses in and around her in-laws house.

15. PW.2 Narayana deposed that PW.1 is his daughter. On 5.11.2009, he performed the marriage of PW.1 with A1 at Shadikhana,

Gooty. At the time of marriage, he gave cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and 10 tolas of gold as dowry to accused. After the marriage, PW.1 went to Rayachoor along with A1 to lead marital life. A1 to A3 along with A-4 Besta Raju (died) tortured PW.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was informed to him by P.W.1 through phone. In the year 2011, when he was hospitalized at Gooty, PW.1 visited Gooty to see him. At that time, all the accused called her through phone and demanded her to bring

additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- otherwise, they will not allow her to lead

marital life with A1. After that herself along with LW.3 A. Guruswamy and

LW.4 S. Srinivasulu took her daughter PW.1 went to Rayachur and tried to pacify the matter. Then, they left PW.1 in the house of A1 and returned to

Gooty. PW.1 was sent back to their house by accused as she did not bring

additional dowry as the accused demanded. A panchayat was held in the

presence of LWs.3 and 4. But the accused did not change their attitude towards PW.1. As the accused did not take PW.1 to in-law house, P.W.1 remained in his house. A1 is a unemployee. In the year 2012, P.W.1 filed report against accused at Ananthapuramu.

During the cross-examination he admitted that he is working as private education and used to earn Rs.100/- per day and PW.2 is having bank account in Andhra Bank, Gooty and he further admitted that he did not 7 remember whether he drawn the amount from the bank and paid towards dowry and PW.2 again volunteers that he did not drawn any amount from the bank to pay dowry. PW.2 further admitted that he handed over dowry to

A-4 who mediated the marriage of PW.1 and the accused is resident of

Kurnool and PW.2 not observed A-4 Raju at the house of A-1 to A-3 at

Rayachur at any point of time and that neither he nor PW.1 did not give any complaint to the nearest police station regarding the additional dowry demanded by A-1 to A-3. He did not depose the date and year on which A-1 to A-3 demanded additional dowry and also A-1 to A-3 harassed PW.1 both physically and mentally and PW.1 completed her graduation and A-1 is studied up to intermediate and a counseling was held between PW.1 and

A-1. PW.2 never deposed that he had given any additional dowry and it is true A-1 filed divorce O.P against PW.1 before Hon’ble Family Court Rayachur and court granted divorce to A-1 and PW.1.

16. PW.3 A. Guru Swamy deposed that PW.1 is his daughter-in-law.

In the year 2009, the marriage of PW.1 was performed with A1 K.Siddaiah in

Shadikhana, Gooty. At the time of marriage of PW.1 presented cash of

Rs.2,00,000/- and 10 tolas of gold towards dowry to accused. After the marriage, PW.1 joined with A-1 at Rayachur. After some time, PW.1 lead happy marital life with A1 and thereafter the accused demanded additional dowry to P.W.1. PW.2 informed him the same fact through phone. After that he went to Rayachur along with PW.1, PW.2 and LW.4 S. Srinivasulu to the house of accused and there they convened a panchayat between PW.1 and A1 in the presence of DSP and asked A1 to look after PW.1 well. But, as the accused did not take PW.1 to their house, himself, PW.1, P.W.2 and

LW.4 S. Srinivasulu returned to Gooty.

During the cross-examination of PW.3 he admitted that PW.2 is brother-in-law as he belongs to his caste and he also attended the marriage of PW.1. PW.3 further admitted that he did not witness while presenting 8 dowry amount to A-1 parents. PW.3 further admitted that PW.2 is private electrician and was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m and PW.2 informed him through phone about the harassment made by A-1 to PW.1 for want of additional dowry. He further admitted that there was no panchayat held between PW.1 and A-1 at Gooty.

17. PW.4 S. Sreenivasulu deposed that PW.1 is his sister’s daughter.

On 5.11.2009, the marriage of PW.1 and A1 was performed at Shadi Khana in Gooty. After the marriage, PW.1 went to matrimonial home at Rayachur.

One year after the marriage, PW.2 informed him through phone stating that the accused are harassing PW.1 demanding additional dowry. She went to

Gooty and met PW.1 and they both went to the house of the accused at

Rayachur. There were talked with accused and they expressed their inability of giving additional dowry to A1. After that they brought PW.1 along with them to her parental house. For about 8 times, they came to the house of

A1 to compromise the matter, but in vain and they did not take PW.1 to her matrimonial home. Thereby, P.W.1 preferred a compliant against accused

During the cross-examination of PW.4, he admitted that PW.2 shifted his family to Tadipatri from Gooty. As on 2012 the parents of A-1 died. After the death of parents of A-1, he is depending on his brother i.e., A-2 and A-2 is residing along with his family at Sakthi Nagar which is at a distance of 11 or 12 KMs from Rayachur.

18. PW.5 B. Seshaiah then S.I of Police, Mahila P.S., Anantapuramu deposed that on 4.7.2012 at about 6.00 PM, PW.1 came to the Police

Station and presented a written complaint. Then, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.43/2012 u/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC and sec.3 & 4 of DP Act and issued Ex.P2 FIR and he submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and took up investigation. Then, he examined PWs.1 and 2 in the police station itself. On 5.7.2012, he secured the presence of PWs.3 and 4 at Sreenivasa

Nagar, Anantapur, examined them and recorded their statements.

9

On 16.07.2012, himself along with HC 1449, PC 1392 and WHC 200 came to

Rayachur and reached the scene of offence i.e., house of accused at 4.30

PM. There, they came to know that the accused are residing in Maktal Pet,

Rayachur. Then, they went to the said place and they found A1 to A3 i.e., two male persons and one female person and they arrested A1 to A3 and he also prepared Ex.P3 rough sketch of the scene of offence. Then, he along with the arrested persons returned to Mahila PS on the same day in the early morning at 2.30 AM. As it is late night, on the next day, he sent A1 to

A3 for remand. On 17.7.2012, while he was present in the Police Station, A4 came to the Police Station and surrendered before him and after observing formalities, he sent A4 to remand and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet in this case.

During cross-examination he admitted that during his investigation he did not examine the neighbours of scene of offence in Rayachur. He further admitted that PW.1 did not state before him or in Ex.P1 that in the month of

December 2011 A-1 to A-3 beat PW.1 indiscriminately and necked her out of the house stating that PW.1 should get additional dowry otherwise they will perform second marriage to A-1. He further admitted that his investigation does not reveals that PWs.2 to 4 held panchayat in the presence of police of

DSP Office, Rayachur. He further admitted that PW.2 did not state before him that all the accused demanded PW.1 additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and PW.3 also did not state before him that PW.2 informed to him about the harassment of accused against PW.1 and PW.2 informed him through phone that all the accused harassed PW.1 and demanded additional dowry and on that PW.4 went to Gooty and from there went to Rayachur and also held panchayat for eight times at Rayachur between A-1 and PW.1.

19. Prior to discussing the evidence of witnesses whether the case was proved or not, this is the time to go through the meaning of Sec.498-A

IPC. Wherein Sec.498-A contained two clauses (a) and (b) and to attract 10

Sec.498-A IPC it has to establish that cruelty or harassment while PW.1 was to force her to cause grave bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or the harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal demand for dowry.

20. On scrutinizing the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 it is an admitted fact that the marriage of PW.1 was performed with A-1 and she lived with

A-1. PW.1 joined matrimonial home after marriage and there she lived three months. Her marriage was performed in the year 2009 and the report was given on 4.7.2012 and a panchayat was held between PW.1 and A-1 in the presence of elders. She was subjected to physical and mental harassment for demand of additional dowry in the hands of accused, though corroborated by PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4. No additional dowry was given and no specific demand from accused, the nature of physical or mental harassment were brought on record mere deposing that accused harassed

PW.1 physically and mentally.

Mere deposing that PW.1 was subjected to physical and mental harassment, no specific overtacts were spoken against the accused and

PW.3 and PW.4 are hearsay witnesses.

21. Apart from this the prosecution had failed to examine the neighbours of accused at which place PW.1 was subjected to harassment and there were no eye witnesses either for demanding of additional dowry with regard to the physical and mental harassment of PW.1. Keeping in view of the nature of offence which ought to have been taken between four walls of a house, PW.1 had not spoken any specific ovetact the cruelty is not made out from the prosecution witnesses. Even before coming to conclusion this court perused by the defence, wherein the Judgment reported in 2008 (2)

ALT (Crl.) 301 (A.P) between M. Madhusudhana Rao Vs. State rep. by

WPC, CIDPS., Hyderabad in para No.31 “as seen from the above narrated evidence there is no direct evidence other than the self serving 11 testimony of PW.1 regarding the alleged beating or scolding as already observed supra the evidence of PW.1 is belated.”

22. Hence in this case on hand also if at all the accused harassed her, she being an educated working woman she ought to have protested the same without keeping quiet and ought to have spoken the specific overt acts against accused and as such the mere allegation of harassment is not considered. As was discussed in para 13 of Judgment reported in “2006

Crl.J.1710 between Vadala Vinay Kumar Vs. State of A. P, it was observed that in the entire evidence of PWs.1 and 2 what is stated by them is “then the victim informed about the ill-treatment and the behavior of the accused. Nothing was spoken as to what was that ill-treatment and the behavior of accused, but the said allegation in my consider view appeared to be omnibus, held that is not sufficient requirement to attract the provisions of Sec.498-A IPC.” As per the evidence available for the case on hand also mere deposing of harassment the specific nature of harassment was not spoken and as such the Judgment will rescue the accused.

23. As was observed in 2013 AIR (Crl.) 468 between Indrajith

Suresh Prasad Bind and ors.Vs State of Gujarath at Para Nos.6 and 7…...... mere demand of dowry without proof of cruelty or harassment caused to the deceased by the appellants cannot make the appellants liable for the offence U/S.498-A. Similarly for the case on hand also the cruelty or harassment are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

24. Thus keeping in view of the above all observations and discussions as the nature of harassment either physically or mentally was not proved with regard to any specific over act at any particular point of time and even the demand of additional dowry is not proved this court finds no reason to find the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt to convict the accused.

12

25. Hence basing on the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and the material available on record, this court safely comes to the conclusion that the prosecution is not able to bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charges framed U/S.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and as such they can be acquitted for those offences beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal.

26. In the result, the accused A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-3 shall stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30 th day of November,

2017.

Judl. First Class Magistrate

Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1 K. Aruna Jyothi -- NONE (defacto complainant).

PW-2 Narayana, (Father of PW.1).

PW-3 A. Guru Swamy (Relative of PW.1).

PW-4 S. Sreenivasulu (Relative of PW.1).

PW-5 B. Seshaiah, (Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S., Anantapuramu).

13

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 Complaint of PW.1. -- NIL

Ex.P-2 First Information Report.

Ex.P-3 Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

- NIL -

JFCM 14

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Apprehen- Commence

Released Close of Sentence Offence Report sion of -ment of on Bail Trial or Order

Accused Trial

prior to '04.07.2012 '16.07.2012 '20.07.2012 '21.04.2015 '28.11.2017 30.11.2017 04.07.2012

Judgment in C.C.No. 159 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S., Anantapuramu

Crime No: 43/2012

Father's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Name of the Name Accused

Private 40 Karnataka K. Siddaiah K. Anjaneya Hindu employRayachur Yrs. State ee 52 Senior Karnataka K. Veeraiah K. Anjaneya Hindu Rayachur Yrs. Asst. State 45 W/o. K. House Karnataka Lakshmi Devi Hindu Rayachur Yrs. Veeraiah Wife State

Late Besta Raju @ 38 B. Hindu -- Kurnool Kurnool Madhava Swamy years Hussainappa

Offence: U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P Act.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-3 shall stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.

Judl. First Class Magistrate

Spl. Mobile Court,

Anantapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

PRESENT :- Smt. S. Bhargavi, Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Monday, the 27 th Day of November, 2017

CALENDAR CASE No.20/2012

Between :-

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Garladinna P.S. ... Complainant

AND

1) Bala Shankar, age 24 years, S/o. Subramanyam, Clerk, R/o. Khadarpet Village, Pamidi Mandal.

2) P.K. Sameer, age 38 years, S/o. Mahaboob, r/o. Indira Nagar, Dharmavaram Town.

3) Makam Nagarjuna Guptha, age 42 years, S/o. Late Ramachandraiah, Pamidi Village and Mandal,

4) Chiyyedu Prabhakar Guptha, resident of Flat No.311, Rajahamsa Apartments. … Accused Nos.1 to 4.

This case coming on 21-11-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of

Sri P.G. Vittal, Advocate for the Accused Nos.1 to 4, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Garladinne Police Station filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-4 for the offences U/Secs.420, 468, 471 r/w.34 I.P.C in his station Crime No.110/2008.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that on 27.11.2008 at 6:00 AM, while LW.2 M. Somasekhar Rao, Dy. S.P., Vigilance and Enforcement Wing, Anantapur, LW.3 Lojari Sudhakar, Inspector of

Police, Vigilance and Enforcement Wing, Anantapuramu, LW.4 Chabala

Ramakrishna, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and LW.5 T. Shaikshavali,

Tahsildar, Anantapuramu, along with their office staff were conducting checks on vehicles on NH-7 Road, Near Kallur Village and they noticed a 2 lorry bearing No.AP-02-W-1266 was found Ground nut seed bags in the lorry and three persons were found in the cabin. Among them one of them A-1 working as clerk to A-3, Second one is driver (A-2) of the lorry and third one is cleaner of the lorry. Then LWs.2 to 5 directed the inmates to produce the records pertaining to the stock in the lorry and valid documents for transport of goods. Then A-1 produced the records. On keen observation they found that one way bill No.79 has no security features were found and make it clear that it is a created document and one Way bill and invoice, there are no signatures of Commercial Tax Officials and the seals also appeared to be different with the office seals. Seal of Agricultural marketing committee on the backside of the invoice does not appear to be genuine. All the three documents that were produced are not genuine and the notification of VAT registration is appears to be old one i.e., dt.25.3.2005 and as on that date no such notification was issued by AP State Commercial Tax Department and does not contain most important ID numbers and Logo also differed. A-1 stated that A-3 is the owner of the goods. The same was drafted as

Mahazarnama for seizure of documents and vehicle along with goods in the presence of mediators i.e., LW.6 M. venkataramudu, Revenue Inspector and

LW.7 G. Aswarthanarayana, VRO. Accordingly LWs.2 to 5 handed over the said lorry with Ground nut seeds of 17000 KG and the above said documents to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer III i.e., LW.1, who has authorized to file a criminal case against the said accused. On the complaint of LW.1

T.Ramesh Kumar, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Anantapuramu, LW.10

E.Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Garladinne P.S registered a case in

Cr.No.110/2008 U/Ss.468, 471 and 420 r/w.34 IPC and took up investigation and he examined the witnesses, recorded their statements. On 12.1.2009 at about 8:00 AM at Yeguvapalli Bus Stop in the presence of mediators, LW.10 E. Swamy, S.I of Police, arrested the accused and sent him for remand. On his interrogation, A-1 revealed that he is working as 3 clerk for A-3 since one year and further told that six months ago he along with A-2 and A-3 went to A-4, who is creator of forged document and he further revealed that A-4 furnished all the documents so that to enable them to transport the above said goods from Pamidi to Ahmed Nagar. A-2 arrested on 22.1.2009 at Kallur ‘Y’ Junction and sent him for remand. A-3 and A-4 Voluntarily surrendered before the Addl. Judicial I class Magistrate’s

Court, Anantapuramu on 2.1.2009. After completion of investigation, LW.10

E.Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Garladinne P.S filed charge sheet in this case.

3. After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu for the offences U/Ss.468, 471, 420 r/w.34 I.P.C and numbered as C.C.517/2009. As per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Session Judge, Anantapurmu in Order Dis

No.4353 dt.5-6-2012 this case was transferred to this court and renumbered the same as C.C 20/2012.

4. On appearance of A-1 to A-4, copies of case records were furnished to them as required Under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused A-1 to A-4 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and a charge U/Secs.420, 468, 471 I.P.C was framed, read over and explained to A-1 to A-4 in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 6 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-12. PW.1 T. Ramesh Kumar Reddy, Deputy

Commercial Tax Officer Circle-I, Anantapuramu (defacto complainant). PW.2

M.Somasekhara Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and

Enforcement Wing, Anantapuramu. PW.3 C. Ramakrishna, Deputy

Commercial Tax Officer attached to Vigilance & Enforcement Office, 4

Anantapuramu. PW.4 M. Venkataramudu, Revenue Inspector, Garladinne

Mandal (mediator at the time of seizure). PW.5 K. Ramachandra, mediator at the time of arrest of A-1. PW.6 E. Swamy, S.I of Police, Garladinne P.S, who is the Investigating Officer in this case. Ex.P1 is Complaint of PW.1. Ex.P2 is

Invoice dt.26.11.2008. Ex.P3 is the way bill dt.26.11.2008. Ex.P4 is Xerox

Copy of registration certificate. Ex.P5 is Four statements of the accused with their own handwriting. Ex.P6 is the panchanama. Ex.P7 acknowledgment.

Ex.P8 is signature of PW.5 on the mahazar dt.12.1.2009. Ex.P9 is weighing slips received by New Sudheer Weigh Bridge Bill No.4260. Ex.P10 is First

Information Report. Ex.P11 is Rough sketch. Ex.P12 is mahazar dt.12.1.2009.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused A-1 to

A-4 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating evidence deposed against them by the prosecution witnesses.

They further stated that they have no more to say and they do not have any defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the accused filed his written arguments. Perused the written arguments.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A-1 to A-4 for the offences Under Secs. 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt ? ”

10. P O I N T :- PW.1 T. Ramesh Kumar Reddy, the then Deputy

Commissioner of Tax Officer, Circle-I, Anantapuramu deposed in his evidence that on 27.11.2008 at about 7:00 PM while he was in office, PW.2

M.Somasekhar Rao given a written complaint after checking the vehicle bearing No.AP-02-W-1266 while carrying 1700 Kgs of ground nut seeds from

Kallur to Ahammad Nagar in Maharastra that they have interception near 5

Kallur, vehicle of driver and other third person. PW.1 further deposed that the Vigilance Official enquired about the documents towards transportation of seeds, then they produced invoice and way bills and then they found that the invoice and way bills are not original, that was forged one and then they drafted panchanama and taken into custody of the vehicle and along with goods and also taken the custody of three persons, and the same was produced before him. Afterwards, he verified the documents produced by them i.e., invoice and way bills and registration certificate compared with the records of their Department. The number which was visibly invoiced produced by the accused was compared with their data and the registration number was not allotted in their Department and the dealer name was also not registered and VAT number was also not tallied. The invoice and way bills contain different person’s signatures, in way bill the Government features were not there, and the registration certificate was also used bogus particulars. After completion of verification, he came to conclusion and preferred a complaint in Garladinne P.S along with his complaint, he handed over Invoice, way bills registration certificate, panchanama, confession statement of the accused. Witness identified his complaint and the same was marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the invoice dt.26.11.2008. Ex.P3 is the way bill dt.26.11.2008. Ex.P4 is the Xerox Copy of registration certificate (defence counsel raised objection for marking of Xerox Copy). Ex.P5 is 4 statements of the accused with their own handwriting. Ex.P6 is the panchanama. After giving complaint. Police examined him and recorded his statement. As they have given complaint the accused transporting the vehicle with forged documents and causing loss to the revenue authorities, and the vehicle seized was handed over to the concerned police, and the ground nut seeds seized, as per court orders he have handed over to one Adinarayana.

6

As seen from the cross-examination of PW.1 he admitted that he had not received any written orders from CTO-I. Further admitted that ACTO intelligence is the person to take action, with regard to alleged offences related to fake documents. He further admitted that he was not present at the time of drafting panchanama and he did not know the contents of panchanama. PW.1 further admitted that on 27.11.2008 the vigilance department handed over the accused to the police on the same day. He further admitted that S.P having supervising power to taken any irregularities arises in their office. PW.1 further admitted that he did not file any written opinion from the intelligence ACTO with regard to way bills.

PW.1 admitted that one ACP case is pending against himself and complaint is given by lorry owner.

11. PW.2 M. Somasekhara Rao deposed in his evidence that he worked as DSP Vigilance and Enforcement Department. PW.2 further stated that he knew A-1 to A-3. On summoning by S.P to PW.3, PW.4, LW.3, LW.5,

LW.7 and himself are collectively went to Gooty to Anantapuramu, where vehicle checking arranged at Kallur Village and checking started around 5:30

AM and there they stopped lorry bearing No.AP-02-W-1266 and found three persons in the vehicle and S.P questioned them about their identify particulars and they revealed their names and identity particulars as P.K.

Sameer i.e., A-2, driver of Dharmavaram and one person by name

Ramanjaneyulu native of Khadar peta and another person disclosed his name as Balasankar i.e., A-1 working as a clerk under Nagarjuna Gupta of

A-3 of Pamidi Village and he found 342 bags weighing 50 Kgs each of ground nuts and A-1 informed that, A-1 instructed to take the goods to Ahamad

Nagar of Maharastra and on verification with way bills and invoice bearing

No.79 found fake one. The SP recorded the statements of accused and taken the signatures on statements. The S.P sent two constables to Pamidi 7 to get A-3 Nagarjuna Gupta, owner of the goods and the said constables brought A-3 before SP and on interrogation A-3 admitted that A-3 got fake way bill from one Gupta, who is resident of Plot No.311 of Rajahamsa

Apartment, Anantapur and the SP seized the goods and vehicle in the presence of mediators under cover of a mahazarname and subsequently he seized goods and vehicle along with the accused persons and handed over to

Commercial Tax Officer i.e., CTO, Anantapur for further action.

As seen from the cross-examination of PW.2 that he himself being police officer he got power to arrest. He further admitted that neither S.P nor himself nor C.I Vigilance of their department effected arrest of accused persons and further admitted that he has no knowledge about the identification of way bills as fake.

12. PW.3 C. Ramakrishna, DCTO, Vigilance and Enforcement

Department, Aantapuramu, deposed that on 27.11.2008 himself, SI of

Police, MRO and other staff went to kallur road for conducting vehicle checkup and at about 6:00 AM they made to halt a vehicle bearing No.AP- 02-W-1266 and questioned the inmates of said vehicle and the said persons reported that there are 342 groundnut bags contained in the said vehicle and each bag is weighing about 50 Kgs and they questioned the inmates of vehicle pertaining to the bills for the said ground nut packets and they verified the said bills found in Ex.P2 invoice and way bill and Vat Ex.P3

Registration certificate and the moment they saw the Ex.P2 invoice bill they came to conclusion that it is fake bill. Ex.P2 contains the dealer at Produttur issued way bill to dealer namely Manoj Kumar Dalmandi, Ahamed Nagar,

Maharastra and Ex.P2 of its bag contains seal of ACTO, CTO-I of

Ananthapuramu and it also contains Prodduttur CTO seal and verified all those bills and they concluded that the bills are fake bills. After seizing the ground nuts and bills and as the said area comes under purview of CTO-I of 8

Ananthapuramu they transmitted the said record and seized groundnuts to

CTO-I Office.

During the cross-examination of PW.3, he admitted that in ACTO Office there is a intelligence Officer attached to their department to CTO-I Office and he is alone competent to find out the genuineness of documents and its features. PW.3 further admitted that he did not obtain any report from ACTO (intelligence) attached to CTO-I Office, Anantapuramu or from any

Government analyst. He admitted that he did not enquire with Sai Viajayaka

Forum at Proddatur to know about consignment as alleged in this case regarding documents.

13. PW.4 M. Venkataramudu, then Revenue Inspector, Garladinne deposed that on 27.11.2008 his Tahsildar called him over phone and instructed him to proceed Vigilance Office for attending inspection and he proceeded to Vigilance Office. The Vigilance Department conducted vehicles check on NH.7 road and noticed a lorry bearing No.AP-02-W-1266 came from Kallur side and they found ground nut seeds bag in the lorry and asked for way bills. A-1 working as clerk under A-3 and one person was a lorry cleaner and the Commercial Tax Officer directed the inmates of the lorry to produce the documents pertaining to goods and A-1 produced the way bills and found that the way bills are fake one and the vigilance authority examined the accused and recorded their statements and seized lorry and goods under cover of Ex.P6 mahazar and he and LW.7 Aswarthanarayana,

VRO acted as panchayatdars.

14. PW.5 Ramachandra deposed that police did not arrest A-1 on 12.1.2009 at Yeguvapali Village under cover of mahazar in his presence and witness identified his signature on the mahazar which is marked as Ex.P8.

Police obtained his signature on some papers at police station, but he does not know the contents of those papers.

9

PW.5 turned hostile ad prosecution seeks permission to treat the witness as hostile and no material evidence is elicited from the evidence of

PW.5 and thus the evidence of PW.5 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

15. PW.6 E. Swamy, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Garladinne

P.S deposed that on 28.11.2008 PW.1 came to police station and presented

Ex.P1 written complaint along with the other documents i.e., original bill

No.79 dt.26.11.2008 is Ex.P2. VAT Certificate, Panchanama Proceedings is

Ex.P6. Weighing slips received by New Sudheer Weigh Bridge Bill No.4260 is marked as Ex.P9. Basing on the complaint, he registered the same in

Cr.No.110/2008 of Garladinne P.S under Secs.468, 471, 420 r/w.34 IPC and submitted FIR copies to all concerned officer. F.I.R is marked as Ex.P10.

Then he examined the complaint as PW.1 and recorded his detailed statement and he proceeded to the scene of offence and drawn the Ex.P11 rough sketch and he surprised the houses of A-1 and A-2 and found were not in the house. On 15.12.2008 he proceeded to Vigilance Office and secured PW.2, PW.3, LW.3 Sudhakar and LW.5 Shaikshavali and recorded their detailed statements. On 12.1.2009 he arrested A-1 Bala Sankar in the presence of mediators by name K. Rama chandra (PW.5) and LW.9 Yellappa under cover of mahazarnama dt.12.1.2009 at Yeguva Palli Village bus stop cross. Mahazar is marked as Ex.P12. On 22.1.2009 he arrested A-2

Shameer at Kallur Y Junction of Garladinne and after completion of all formalities he sent A-1 and A-2 for remand. In this case A-3 and A-4 got anticipatory bail on 21.2009. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet in this case.

16. The evidence of PWs.1 to 6 coupled with Exs.P1 to P12 categorically shows that the accused A-1 to A-4 produced fake documents regarding the ground nut seeds of 342 bags pertaining to 50 Kgs while 10 conducting vehicle checking near Kallur Village. But PW.1 to PW.6 are official witnesses, except PW.5 K. Ramachandra, who is a mediator did not support the version of prosecution. As per the prosecution on 27.11.2008 PW.1 handed over all the accused to the police and he did not file any written opinion from the intelligence, ACTO with regard to fake way bills. PW.6 deposed in his chief examination that he arrested A-1 on 12.1.2009 in the presence of mediators and on 22.1.2009 A-2 was arrested at Kallur junction of Garladinne Mandal, but in cross-examination he admitted that PW.1 presented the accused at the time of presentation of complaint and he further admitted that Ex.P6 i.e., panchanama contains only one duplicate way bill and no other documents were mentioned. Prosecution failed to investigate the pin number 28800199923 bill relating to Vinayaka Trading

Company, Proddatur and also failed to investigate one Sri Prabhakar Guptha, resident of VAT 311, Rajahamsa Apartment, Anantapuramu, regarding way bill No.7189416 dt.26.11.2008 whether it is forged documents or not.

Prosecution fails to enquire Asst. Commercial Tax Officer, Intelligence, i.e.,

CTO-I, Anantapuramu about the seal affixing. PW.6 fails to gather separate opinion with regard to Exs.P3 and P4 and also Exs.P2 and Ex.P9. Prosecution fails to examine the person who issued way bridge receipt i.e., New Sudheer

Weigh Bridge. All these factors clearly shows that whether they seized any documents from the possession of A-1 to A-4 or whether they were planted for the purpose of this case. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against A-1 to A-4 beyond all reasonable doubt.

17. In the result, the accused A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the offences under Secs.420, 468 and 471 I.P.C and they are acquitted under

Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-4 shall be in force for a 11 period of six months in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27 th day of November,

2017.

Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW.1: T. Ramesh Kumar Reddy, (defacto complainant). Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Circle-I, Anantapuramu.

PW.2: M.Somasekhara Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement Wing, Anantapuramu.

PW.3: C. Ramakrishna, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer attached to Vigilance & Enforcement Office, Anantapuramu.

PW.4: M. Venkataramudu, Revenue Inspector, Garladinne Mandal (mediator at the time of seizure).

PW.5: K. Ramachandra, Mediator at the time of arrest of A-1.

PW.6: E. Swamy, S.I of Police, Garladinne P.S, who is the Investigating Officer in this case.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW.1. Ex.P2: Invoice dt.26.11.2008. Ex.P3: Way bill dt.26.11.2008. Ex.P4: Xerox Copy of registration certificate. Ex.P5: Four statements of the accused with their own handwriting. Ex.P6: Panchanama. Ex.P7: Acknowledgment. Ex.P8 : Signature of PW.5 on the mahazar dt.12.1.2009. Ex.P9 : Weighing slips received by New Sudheer Weigh Bridge Bill No.4260. Ex.P10: First Information Report. Ex.P11: Rough sketch. Ex.P12: Mahazar dt.12.1.2009.

12

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

- NIL -

JFCM 13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Ananthapuramu.

Commence- Apprehension Released Close of Sentence Offence Report ment of of Accused on Bail Trial or Order Trial 12.01.2009 12.01.2009 (A-1) (A-1)1(A- 12 27.11.2008 '28.11.2008 '26.11.2012 '21.11.2017 '27.11.2017 '22.01.2009 '28.01.2009 (A-2) (A-2)

Judgment in C.C.No. 20 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Garladinne P.S.

Crime No: 110/2008

Father's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Name of the Name Accused 24 SubramanyaKhadarpet Bala Shankar Hindu Clerk Pamidi Yrs. m Village 38 P.K. Sameer Mahaboob Hindu -- Indira Nagar Dharmavaram Yrs.

Makam Nagarjuna 42 Late Rama Hindu -- Pamidi Pamidi Guptha Yrs. chandraiah

Chiyyedu Prabhakar 68 Narayana Anantapura Hindu -- Anantapuramu Guptha Yrs. Swamy mu

Offence: U/Secs. 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the offences under Secs.420, 468 and 471 I.P.C and they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-4 shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

PRESENT :- Smt. S. Bhargavi, Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Friday, the 14 th Day of July, 2017

CALENDAR CASE.No.46/2011

Between :-

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mahila P.S, Anantapur. ... Complainant

AND

G. Veera Reddy, age 44 years, S/o. Late Peddi Reddy, Cherlopalli Village, Peddapappur Mandal. … Accused.

This case coming on 05-07-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of Sri B. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S, Anantapur filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.498-A I.P.C in No.6/2010.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that,

PW.1 V. Venkata Lakshmi is the defacto complainant and wife of accused,

PW.2 V. Lakshmi Devi is the mother of PW.1. The marriage of PW.1 was solemnized with accused on 05.07.1991 and during the marriage accused demanded dowry and PW.2 gave Rs.80,000/- to him as dowry. During their wed lock they begot a female child and on suspicious over PW.1, the accused used to harass her. PW.1 worked as activist in Anganwadi Centre at

P. Kondapur Village, Peddapappur Mandal and she lived in the centre itself.

The accused visited to the village and picked up quarrel with her. As PW.1 got life threat from the accused, she got transferred to Anantapur on 01.08.2007. But the accused did not leave PW.1 and used to come to her house and to the centre and picked up quarrel with her. While so on 2 04.02.2010 at about 10:00 AM while PW.1 was at Anaganwadi Centre, the accused came there abused and beat her demanding for additional dowry and due to fear the children in the Anganwadi Centre ran away from the centre. PW.3 D. Maqua Jan and PW.5 G. Ramanjinamma @ Ramanji are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. On the report of PW.1 V. Venkata Lakshmi,

PW.6 M.P. Indira, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S, Anantapur, registered a case in Cr.No.6/2010 U/S.498-A I.P.C and investigated into the case.

During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and on 13.02.2010 he sent the accused for remand. After completion of investigation, PW.6 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. After filing charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance by the

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu for the offence U/S.498-A

I.P.C and numbered as C.C.276/2010. As per the proceedings of Hon'ble

District and Session Judge, Anantapurmu in Order Dis No.4353 dt.13.07.2010 this case was transferred to this court and renumbered the same as C.C.46/2011.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required Under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and a charge

U/S.498-A I.P.C was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 6 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4. PW.1 V. Venkatalakshmi defacto complainant and wife of the accused. PW.2 V. Venkata Nagi Reddy is younger brother of the

PW.1. PW.3 C. Macbul Jan, PW.4 S.P. Uma Devi and PW.5 C. Ramanjamma are the eye witnesses. PW.6 M.P. Indira, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mahila P.S, Ananthapuramu. Ex.P1 is the complaint of PW.1. Ex.P2 is 161

Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P3 is the First Information Report. Ex.P4 is the 3

Rough Sketch. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1

Venkatalakshmi the defence marked Certified Copy of Compromise petition in I.A.No.387/2012 as Ex.D-1 and Certified Copy of Award Passed by the

Family Court, Anantapuramu in O.P.84/2011 as Ex.D2.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witnesses. He further stated that he has no more to say and he do not have any defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now, the point arose for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence Under Sec. 498-A I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt? ”

10. P O I N T :- PW.1 V. Venkatalakshmi deposed that her marriage was solemnized with the accused on 5.7.1991 at Tirupathi as per

Hindu rites and customs prevailed in their community. At the time of marriage the parents of PW.1 gave Rs.80,000/- cash as dowry and bear expenditure of marriage. After the marriage she joined with the accused and due to wed lock she blessed with one baby girl and PW.1 and the lived happily for a period of 11 years, later the accused used to harass her for

additional dowry and also harassed her for providing gold and land from her

parents. The accused used to beat her and abuse her for non-satisfying his demands for providing of additional dowry and gold. The accused used to visit her office i.e., Anganwadi office there also her husband used to quarrel with her at Kondapuram as she unable to tolerate the harassment of her husband and she transferred from Kondapuram to Anantapuramu, even though the accused used to quarrel with her and demands additional dowry.

On 04.02.2010 while she was present in Anganwadi Office at about 10:00

AM, the accused came and beat her and on noticing the same their office 4 helper and others came and rescued her from the hands of her husband and hence she filed Ex.P1 complaint against the accused.

11. PW.2 V. Venkata Nagi Reddy, deposed that PW.1 is his elder sister. The accused is his brother-in-law. In the year 1992 the marriage of

PW.1 was performed with the accused at Thirupathi as per their rites and customs in the presence of elders of both parties and they given gold and cash worth Rs.80,000/- during their wed lock they begot a female child.

After the marriage the accused looked after PW.1 till 2007 and there-after the accused harassed PW.1 mentally and physically for a land owned by them at Cherlopalli Village and same was informed by PW.1 to them and then they expressed their inability for the same and PW.1 unable to bear the harassment and she preferred complaint against the accused.

12. PW.3 C. Macbul Jan deposed that PW.1 used to inform her that the accused used to harass PW.1 for want of additional dowry and the accused beat PW.1 and the also used to visit Anganwadi School where PW.1 was working now and then and she used to raise quarrel with her. On 4.02.2010 she went to Anganwadi Centre at 10:00 AM for reports and at that time she witnessed that the accused was quarreling with PW.1 for want of additional dowry and on noticing the same, she advised PW.1 and accused to live amicably and later she came to know PW.1 lodged complaint on that day.

13. PW.4 S.P. Uma Devi deposed that PW.1 used to inform her that she used to harass her for want of additional dowry and the accused also used to visit Anganwadi School where PW.1 was working now and then and used to raise quarrel with her. On 4.2.2010 she attended her duties at

Anganwadi Centre at about 10:00 AM and the accused came to said centre and quarreled with PW.1 and she witnessed the same in which the demanded additional dowry and on noticing the same, she advised PW.1 and 5 the accused and directed them to live amicably and later she came to know that PW.1 lodged complaint on that day.

14. PW.5 G. Ramanjanamma deposed that she does not know the accused, who is present in the court hall and she does not know anything about the case facts and she never saw whether the accused harassed PW.1 or not. PW.1 did not state anything incriminating against the accused in her evidence. The prosecution treated her hostile and cross-examined her and marked her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements as Ex.P-2. But the prosecution did not elicit anything in her cross-examination in favour of its case. Therefore, it is held that the evidence of PW-5 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

15. PW.6 M.P. Indira, the then S.I of Police, Mahila P.S deposed that on 6.2.2010 at about 10 AM, while he was present in the Police Station, he received written complaint from PW.1. Basing on the complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.6/2010 u/s 498-A IPC and issued FIRs to all concerned officers. FIR is marked as Ex.P3 and he examined PWs.1 and 3 and Venkatalakshmi and recorded their statements in the police station. On 12.2.2010, he visited the scene of offence. There, he secured the presence of PW.2, PW.4 and PW.5, examined them and recorded their statements and he prepared Ex.P4 rough sketch at the scene of offence. On 13.2.2010 at 8.00 AM, he arrested the accused and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet in this case.

16. Here in the case prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 to prove the material allegations leveled against accused. Among them, PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW.2 brother and PW.3 is friend of PW1, PW4 is friend and PW5 is colleague. PW6 is the investigation officer. It is the contention of the learned defence counsel that PW.2 to PW.5 are interested witnesses and so in absence of independent evidence, their evidence cannot be relied upon.

Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the 6 evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 need not discarded on the mere ground of their relationship. No doubt PW.1 and PW.2 are related witnesses. The present case is a matrimonial offence and in such cases, witnesses will naturally be the relatives or neighbours of the defacto complainant. In such circumstances, it is the bounden duty of the court to ascertain the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 with utmost care and caution. If the evidence of those witnesses is free of inconsistencies and embellishments, their evidence can be safely relied upon and their evidence need not be corroborate with independent evidence.

17. It is the evidence of PW1 Venkatalakshmi that her marriage was solemnized on 05.07.1991 at Thirupati as per Hindu rites and customs. Due to the said wedlock they blessed with one girl child. They lived happily for 11 years. Later accused used to harass her for additional dowry and also harassed her for providing gold and land from her parents. Accused used to bet her and used to abuse her for non-satisfying the demands for providing of additional dowry and gold. PW1 is working as Anganwadi teacher at

Kondapuram and the accused used visit there to quarrel with PW.1. PW.1 unable to tolerate the harassment of accused PW.1 transferred from

Kondapuram to Anantapur and there also he is used visit Anantapur to quarrel with PW1. On 4.02.2010 while PW.1 present in Anganwadi Office at about 10.00 A.M, accused came and beat, on notice the same PW.1 office helpers and others came and rescued.

18. Admittedly PW1 is her cross examination that “filed Civil suit against accused”. But it was not elicited whether the said suit is still pending.

When such is a case the issue will be decided by the competent civil court that whether accused has right to sell away his house without consent of his wife and children. PW1 in her cross examination admitted that since 5 to 6 years PW.1 living separately from her husband by deserting the accused and for that accused preferred divorce O.P at Gooty. PW.1 further admitted that 7 she preferred DVC as the accused sold his house and also admitted that

PW.1 demanded the accused to get partition of accused’s ancestral property for several times and demanded several times for handing over half salary and custody of the 2nd Petitioner. Admittedly PW.1 deposed that PW1 and accused did not live together at any point of time under one roof. This factor absolutely throws doubt over the case of the prosecution, hence EX.P1 is liable to be suspectable. Prosecution also examined PW.5 G.Ramanajinamma stating that he is the eye witness to the harassment caused by the accused to PW1. But she did not support the case of the prosecution and she deposed

before this court that he does not know anything about the case. It is the

evidence of PW.2 Venkata Nagi Reddy, who is the brother of PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that “Since 2007 there is no complaint U/S.498-A

IPC is lodged against accused”. This also clearly shows a doubt that there is ample of time to prefer a complaint for harassment. But they did not prefer.

PW.3 and PW.5 are friends of PW1 and their evidence is also suspectable as they are interested witnesses.

19. PW1 further admitted in her cross-examination that “myself and accused entered in to compromise in I.A.No.387/2012 on the file of the family court Anantapur. And Petition marked as EX.D1 and EX.D2 is the certified copy of award passed by the family court. This clearly shows that

PW.1 never attempts to withdraw the present C.C.46/2011. This factor clearly shows that with an intention of harassing accused PW.1 roped the accused in this case.

20. On perusal of the evidence of PW6 M.P Indira, SI of Police she deposed that on 06.02.2010 while she was in police station at 10:00 A.M

PW1 came to the police station and gave a written complaint basing on which the present case was registered Under EX.P3. She examined PW.1 to

PW.5 and the mother of PW.1 V. Lakshmi Devi and recorded their statements on 12.02.2010, she visited scene of offence and drawn a rough 8 sketch as EX.P4. On 18.02.2010 he arrested the accused and sent to judicial custody and after completion of the investigation, she filed charge sheet she admitted that, she did not examine the inmates of houses and EX.P4 clearly shows that there is home situated at the scene of offence, but prosecution failed even to summon them in this case and they did not verify the attendance particulars of accused on 04.02.2010 at APSRTC bus Depot at

Tadipatri. Admittedly a civil suit also filed by PW.1 against accused this issue has to be decided by the civil court. All these factors clearly shows that whether there is any passing of dowry and any harassment taken place between PW.1 and accused and non-examination of LW.2 V. Lakshmi Devi who is the mother of PW.1 throws a doubt on the prosecution. Prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

21. In view of above discussion, the court finds no conviction and satisfactory evidence to hold that accused subjected PW.1 to cruelty as defined either of the limbs of explanation provided under Sec.498-A of IPC.

Whenever a doubt creeps into the prosecution case, it is well settled preposition of law that the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Therefore, the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/S.498-A of Indian Penal Code.

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.498-A of I.P.C and he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accusedshall be in force for a period of six months in terms of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 14 th day of July, 2017.

Sd/- S. Bhargavi.

Judl. First Class Magistrate

Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW-1 V. Venkatalakshmi -- NONE (defacto complainant and wife of the accused).

PW-2 V. Venkata Nagi Reddy (Younger brother of the PW.1).

PW-3 C. Macbul Jan (eye witness)

PW-4 S.P. Uma Devi (eye witness)

PW-5 C. Ramanjamma (eye witness)

PW-6 M.P. Indira, (the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S, Ananthapuramu).

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 Complaint of PW.1. Ex.D1 Certified Copy of Com- promise petition in I.A.No.387/2012.

Ex.P-2 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.D2 Award Passed by the Family Court, Anantapuramu in O.P.84/2011

Ex.P-3 First Information Report.

Ex.P-4 Rough Sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

- NIL -

Sd/- S.B.

JFCM // True Copy //

Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.