Miss. S.Manjula

1

O.S No. 230 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT SIRICILLA

PRESENT: Ms..S.Manjula Addl..Junior Civil Judge, Siricilla.

Friday, the 12th day of October, 2018.

O.S. NO.230 of 2016

Between:

Vennamaneni Shyamala, W/o. Late Narayana Rao, Aged: 75 years, Occ: Housuhold, R/o. H.No. 4-16, Marthanpet Village Konaraopet Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District. … Plaintiff.

A n d

1) Ailineni Yella Rao, S/o. Venkat Rao, Aged: 63 years,

2) Ailineni Mahender Rao, S/o. Yella Rao, Aged: 40 years,

Both are R/o. H.No. 4-27, Marthanpet Village, Konaraopet Mandal.

3) Appala Neeraja, W/o. Mallesham, Aged: 31 years, R/o. H.No. 2-87/1, R/o. Nagaram Village Konaraopet Mandal, Dist: Rajanna Sircilla.

… Defendants.

This suit is coming on 12-10-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Narsinga Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants are set exparte, having been heard and having stood over for consideration the Court delivered the following :

: J U D G M E N T:

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their agents, from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over her agricultural lands bearing Sy.No. 603/I, measuring Ac.1-00 guntas and Sy.No. 604/F, measuring Ac.1-00 guntas, total measuring

Ac. 2-00 guntas, which is one piece of land, within the boundaries

2

O.S No. 230 of 2016

mentioned in the schedule annexed hereto, situate at Kolanoor Village

Konraraopet Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

2. The brief averments made in the plaint are that plaintiff is the owner in possession of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 603/I, measuring Ac.1-00 guntas and Sy.No. 604/F, measuring Ac.1-00 guntas, totally measuring Ac.2-000 guntas, which is one piece of land, within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plaint, situate at Kolanoor V/o. Konaraopet Mandal, District: Rajanna Sircilla, hereinafter called as suit schedule land.

Previously, her husband by name Vennamaneni Narayana Rao,

S/o. Laxman Rao was owner and possessor of the suit land. The name of said Vennamaneni Narayana Rao is still continuing in the concerned revenue records pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule land till now. The said Vennamaneni Naryana Rao was issued Rythu pass book in respect of the suit schedule land. The said Vennamaneni Narayana

Rao died intestate in the year 1996 leaving his wife i.e., she herein, his sons namely Late V. Kondal Rao, V. Ramchander Rao and V. Jagan

Mohan Rao as his only legal heirs V. Kondal Rao also died intestate leaving his wife by name V. Ramadevi, his son V. Vamshikrishna as his only legal heirs. She is the legally wedded wife of Late Vannamaneni

Narayana Rao, After the death of Vennamaneni Narayana Rao, she being elder of the family she looking after the entire family affairs being the kartha of the family. The sons of the said Vennamaneni

Narayana Rao are settled other places as such she is looking after, supervising and managing all immovable properties of her joint family including the suit schedule land. Now she is in peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule land till now without

3

O.S No. 230 of 2016

any interruption from anybody. She filed the documents I.e., Original

Rythu Pass Book, Certified copies of pahani for the year 1995-96, 2014- 15, two online pahanies for the fasli year 1424, on line pahani for the fasli year 1426, online form No. 1-B, issued by Mee-Seva in the above suit.

That the defendant No.1 is the father of the defendant No.2. The defendant No.3 is the strong supporters of the defendants No.1 and 2.

The defendants are the strangers to her suit schedule land and the defendants have no rights or interests whatsoever over the suit schedule land. The defendant No.1 is having land towards east and south side of the suit schedule land. The defendants developed ill intention against her to occupy the suit schedule land. With the said ill- intention, the defendants are causing recurring interference with her possession over her suit schedule land but she resisted the illegal acts of the defendants and remained in possession thereof. Finally on: 19- 11-2016 at Kolanoor Village Konaraopet Mandal the defendants came to the suit schedule land and tried to occupy the same by dispossessing her from her suit suit schedule land but she with help of her family members resisted the illegal acts of the defendants and remained in possession thereof. The defendants left the suit schedule land by threatening her that they would come and occupy the suit schedule property one or other day with their brutal force. So she filed the above suit against the defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule land.

3. On receipt of summons, the defendants remained set to exparte.

4

O.S No. 230 of 2016

4. The plaintiff filed her affidavit in chief which is treated as Chief

Examination of PW1 and in the evidence of PW1, Exs.A1 to A13 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

5.Now the issues that are to be decided are as follows:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is in possession over suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants D1 to D3 and others restraining them from interfering with peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

Issue No.1:

AS per the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of her case, the exhibits A1 to A13 shows about the particulars of suit schedule properties Ex.A1 is the Original Rythu pass book in which the plaintiff is shown as possessor over the suit schedule properties.

Ex.A13 is the new original pattedar pass book and title deed in which the plaintiff is shown as owner and possessor over suit property as on the date of 20-04-2018 and the plaintiff to show her continuous possession over suit properties and she has filed Ex.A2 to A12 which are the Certified copies of Adangal pahanies and extracts of Mee-Seva

Pahanies pertaining into suit properties. The documentary evidence shows that the plaintiff is in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit properties as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2 and 3:-

As per the version of the plaintiff, it is her claim that the defendants are strangers to the suit properties and they are

5

O.S No. 230 of 2016

continuously disturbing her peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit properties along with their men. On perusal of the records it is observed that the defendants have failed to challenge the version of the plaintiff and not even appeared before the court even after receiving the summons. Though there is settled law that the plaintiff has to prove her case with sufficient evidence and she shall not depend on the weakness of defendants, the record shows that the plaintiff has able to prove her case by adducing documents i.e., exhibits A1 to A13. In view of above circumstance and discussion the court is of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief against the defendants. Hence, Issue No.2 and 3 answered accordingly.

6. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is granted exparte perpetual injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property i.e., bearing Sy.No.603/1, measuring Ac. 1-00 guntas., and

Sy.No. 604/F measuring Ac. 1-00 guntas, totally measuring Ac. 2-00 guntas situated at Kolanoor V/o. Konaraopet Mandal of the plaintiff and the workmen, the supporters of the defendants are also prevented from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. Any interim application shall stand closed.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, on this the 12th day of October, 2018.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRICILLA.

6

O.S No. 230 of 2016

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS: PW.1: Vennamaneni Shyamala -Exparte-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 is the Original Rythu Pass Book, Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-1996 Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 2014-2015, Ex.A4 is the Online pahani for the fasli year 1424, Ex.A5 is the Online pahani for the fasli year 1424, Ex.A6 is the Online pahani for the fasli year 1426, Ex.A7 is the Online pahnai for the fasli yar 1426, Ex.A8 is the Online Form No. 1-B Ex.A9 is the Mutation proceeding No.B/632/2017, dt: 16-08-2017, Ex.A10 is the Mutation proceeding No.B/632/2017, dt:16-08-2017, Ex.A11 is the I-B Namuna (ROR), dt: 09-04-2018 issued by Mee-Seva Ex.A12 is the pahanies for fasli year (2017) 1427 issued by the Mee- seva. Ex.A13 is the Original New Pattedar Passbook title deed.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: -Nil-

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRICILLA.

1CC. No. 616 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

VEMULAWADA.

Present :- Miss S. Manjula, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sircilla, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada.

Wednesday, this the 30 th day of December, 2020

CC.No. 616 of 2020

Between:- The State of Telangana represented by SHO, PS Boinpalli. Cr.No.63/2019.

...Complainant

/ / AND //

Vengali Bixapathi @ Chikkudu Krishna S/o Durgaiah, aged 29 years, Mudiraj, Occ: Driver, R/o Dubbaka (v & M) of Siddipet District.

... Accused.

This case is coming before me on 30-12-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Bonpalli has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal Code (herein after called as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the case are :-

It is the case of the prosecution that the Lw-1/Singireddy Bal Reddy came to police station and lodged a complaint stating that he is resident of Srihari Nagar,

Ramnagar, Karimnagar. On 2-6-2019 at night some unknown offenders have entered into his own house at Kodurupaka village by broke open the latch of the door and committed theft of one gold chain wg. 1 tula, two gold rings each wg ¼ tula worth of

Rs.23,000/- and net cash of Rs. 2,000/-. On 3.6.2019 at about 6 am his younger sister

Pasham Anjavva informed the same to him over phone as she while attending house works in the morning looked at his house and found the doors of his house were opened and she went there and found the latch of door was broken, on that he left 2CC. No. 616 of 2020

Karimnagar went to his house and found almirah in his house was opened and the above said items were subjected to theft, hence requested to take necessary action.

3-On receipt of complaint from the complainant/Lw1, the Lw8/P. Lakshma

Reddy, SI of police has registered a case vide Cr.No. 63/2019 for the offence

U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal Code, against the accused and took up investigation.

After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal Code.

4-After careful consideration of the material preposition, this Court had taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 IPC against the accused.

5-Accused is produced from District Jail, Karimnagar. Copies of all the relevant documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Criminal

Procedure Code (herein after called as Cr.P.C.) and he expressed his willingness to admit his guilt and he is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the charges framed against him for the offence U/Sec. 457, 380 of IPC. Accused pleaded guilty for the above said offence.

I accept the plea of the Accused as true and voluntary one, without there being any threat, coercion or duress. Hence, I find the Accused guilty of the offence U/Sec.

457, 380 of IPC and convicted him U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the above said offence.

6-Heard the Accused on the quantum of sentence, he stated that he is having old aged parents and he is the only one to look after his parents. Therefore, requested the Court to take lenient view about imposing quantum of sentence. He pleaded mercy stating that he is repenting for his mistake.

7-Perused the record. Considering such submission, and the nature of offence and circumstances of offence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to take a lenient view and accordingly Accused is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of Sixteen (16) 3CC. No. 616 of 2020 months and also sentence to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for a period of one week for the offence U/Sec. 457 IPC and further he is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of Sixteen (16) months and to pay a fine of

Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred Only) for the offence U/Sec.380 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo SI for a period of one week. Both sentences shall run concurrently. Total fine amount of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred Only).

The case property which was given to its original owner for interim custody vide in Crl.M.P.No. 242 of 2020, dated 13.10.2020 shall be made absolute, after expiry of appeal time.

The remand period undergone by the accused from 21.08.2019 to till date i.e., 30.12.2020, is ordered to be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. The accused has not paid the fine amount.

The jail authorities are hereby directed to set at liberty the Accused, if his further presence is not required in any other case or crime. The office is directed to furnish a free copy of judgment to the accused.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer and after corrections, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of December, 2020.

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sircilla. FAC: Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENSE: -None- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

-Nil--Nil-

Material Objects MARKED:- – Nil -

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sircilla. FAC: Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

4CC. No. 616 of 2020

1CC. No. 616 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

VEMULAWADA.

Present :- Miss S. Manjula, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sircilla, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada.

Wednesday, this the 30 th day of December, 2020

CC.No. 616 of 2020

Between:- The State of Telangana represented by SHO, PS Boinpalli. Cr.No.63/2019.

...Complainant

/ / AND //

Vengali Bixapathi @ Chikkudu Krishna S/o Durgaiah, aged 29 years, Mudiraj, Occ: Driver, R/o Dubbaka (v & M) of Siddipet District.

... Accused.

This case is coming before me on 30-12-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Bonpalli has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal Code (herein after called as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the case are :-

It is the case of the prosecution that the Lw-1/Singireddy Bal Reddy came to police station and lodged a complaint stating that he is resident of Srihari Nagar,

Ramnagar, Karimnagar. On 2-6-2019 at night some unknown offenders have entered into his own house at Kodurupaka village by broke open the latch of the door and committed theft of one gold chain wg. 1 tula, two gold rings each wg ¼ tula worth of

Rs.23,000/- and net cash of Rs. 2,000/-. On 3.6.2019 at about 6 am his younger sister

Pasham Anjavva informed the same to him over phone as she while attending house works in the morning looked at his house and found the doors of his house were opened and she went there and found the latch of door was broken, on that he left 2CC. No. 616 of 2020

Karimnagar went to his house and found almirah in his house was opened and the above said items were subjected to theft, hence requested to take necessary action.

3-On receipt of complaint from the complainant/Lw1, the Lw8/P. Lakshma

Reddy, SI of police has registered a case vide Cr.No. 63/2019 for the offence

U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal Code, against the accused and took up investigation.

After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal Code.

4-After careful consideration of the material preposition, this Court had taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 IPC against the accused.

5-Accused is produced from District Jail, Karimnagar. Copies of all the relevant documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Criminal

Procedure Code (herein after called as Cr.P.C.) and he expressed his willingness to admit his guilt and he is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the charges framed against him for the offence U/Sec. 457, 380 of IPC. Accused pleaded guilty for the above said offence.

I accept the plea of the Accused as true and voluntary one, without there being any threat, coercion or duress. Hence, I find the Accused guilty of the offence U/Sec.

457, 380 of IPC and convicted him U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the above said offence.

6-Heard the Accused on the quantum of sentence, he stated that he is having old aged parents and he is the only one to look after his parents. Therefore, requested the Court to take lenient view about imposing quantum of sentence. He pleaded mercy stating that he is repenting for his mistake.

7-Perused the record. Considering such submission, and the nature of offence and circumstances of offence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to take a lenient view and accordingly Accused is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of Sixteen (16) 3CC. No. 616 of 2020 months and also sentence to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for a period of one week for the offence U/Sec. 457 IPC and further he is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of Sixteen (16) months and to pay a fine of

Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred Only) for the offence U/Sec.380 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo SI for a period of one week. Both sentences shall run concurrently. Total fine amount of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred Only).

The case property which was given to its original owner for interim custody vide in Crl.M.P.No. 242 of 2020, dated 13.10.2020 shall be made absolute, after expiry of appeal time.

The remand period undergone by the accused from 21.08.2019 to till date i.e., 30.12.2020, is ordered to be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. The accused has not paid the fine amount.

The jail authorities are hereby directed to set at liberty the Accused, if his further presence is not required in any other case or crime. The office is directed to furnish a free copy of judgment to the accused.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer and after corrections, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of December, 2020.

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sircilla. FAC: Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENSE: -None- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

-Nil--Nil-

Material Objects MARKED:- – Nil -

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sircilla. FAC: Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

4CC. No. 616 of 2020

1CC. No. 897 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

VEMULAWADA.

Present :- Miss S. Manjula, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sircilla, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada.

Wednesday, this the 30 th day of December, 2020

CC.No. 897 of 2020

Between:- The State of Telangana represented by SHO, PS Vemulawada Town. Cr.No.23/2020.

...Complainant

/ / AND //

A1:Vadluri Nagaraju S/o Laxman, aged 28 years, Madiga, R/o Thatipally v/o Jagtial mandal. A2:Narayana Alwal War @ Kamalesh S/o Thaligram, aged 32 years, Madiga, R/o Biruru v/o Rajoru, Ballarsh of Maharastra street.

... Accused.

This case is coming before me on 30-12-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Vemulawada Town has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence U/Sec.380 of Indian Penal

Code (herein after called as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the case are :-

It is the case of the prosecution that the Lw-1/Ragula Sathish came to police station and lodged a complaint stating that he is working as Assistant Executive

Engineer in Deputy Executive Engineer Office, at Vemulawada. On 9.1.2020 at about 5.00 pm after completion of his duties, locked to his office and went to house. Later on 10.01.2020 at about 08.30 hrs, he went to office, opened his office room door, entered into the office and his Computer was not found. Immediately, he came outside and noticed another door of his office was also opened, some unknown 2CC. No. 897 of 2020 offenders have entered into his office and committed theft of Computer, Printer and its peripherals besides chairs, Engineer Tool kit and Testing tools, all are worth of

Rs.30,000/-, hence requested to take necessary action.

3-On receipt of complaint from the complainant/Lw1, the Lw8/M.

Malakonda Rayudu, SI of police has registered a case vide Cr.No. 23/2020 for the offence U/Sec.380 of Indian Penal Code, against the accused No.1 and 2 and took up investigation and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.380 of Indian Penal

Code.

4-After careful consideration of the material preposition, this Court had taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec.380 IPC against the accused No.1 and 2.

5-Accused No.1 & 2 are produced from District Jail, Karimnagar. Copies of all the relevant documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Criminal

Procedure Code (herein after called as Cr.P.C.)and they expressed their willingness to admit their guilt and they are examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the charges framed against them for the offence U/Sec. 380 of IPC. Accused No.1 & 2 are pleaded guilty for the above said offence.

I accept the plea of the Accused No.1 & 2 as true and voluntary one, without there being any threat, coercion or duress. Hence, I find the Accused No.1 & 2 guilty of the offence U/Sec. 380 of IPC and convicted them U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the above said offence.

6-Heard the Accused No.1 & 2 on the quantum of sentence, they stated that they are having old aged parents and they are the only earning members of their family.

Therefore, requested the Court to take lenient view about imposing quantum of sentence. They pleaded mercy stating that they are repenting for their mistake.

3CC. No. 897 of 2020 7-Perused the record. Considering such submission, and the nature of offence and circumstances of offence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to take a lenient view and accordingly Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo SI for a period of

Eleven (11) months each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each (Rupees one hundred

Only) for the offence U/Sec.380 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo SI for a period of one week each.

The case property which was given to its original owner for interim custody vide in Crl.M.P.No. 31 of 2020, dated 05.02.2020 shall be made absolute, after expiry of appeal time.

The remand period undergone by the accused No.1 and 2 from 11.01.2020 to till date i.e., 30.12.2020, is ordered to be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Fine amount is not paid by the accused.

The jail authorities are hereby directed to set at liberty the Accused No.1 & 2, if they further presence is not required in any other case or crime. The office is directed to furnish a free copy of judgment to the accused No.1 & 2.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer and after corrections, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of December, 2020.

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sircilla. FAC: Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENSE: -None- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

-Nil--Nil-

Material Objects MARKED:- – Nil -

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sircilla. FAC: Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

1CC. No. 897 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

VEMULAWADA.

Present :- Miss S. Manjula, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sircilla, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada.

Wednesday, this the 30 th day of December, 2020

CC.No. 897 of 2020

Between:- The State of Telangana represented by SHO, PS Vemulawada Town. Cr.No.23/2020.

...Complainant

/ / AND //

A1:Vadluri Nagaraju S/o Laxman, aged 28 years, Madiga, R/o Thatipally v/o Jagtial mandal. A2:Narayana Alwal War @ Kamalesh S/o Thaligram, aged 32 years, Madiga, R/o Biruru v/o Rajoru, Ballarsh of Maharastra street.

... Accused.

This case is coming before me on 30-12-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Vemulawada Town has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence U/Sec.380 of Indian Penal

Code (herein after called as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the case are :-

It is the case of the prosecution that the Lw-1/Ragula Sathish came to police station and lodged a complaint stating that he is working as Assistant Executive

Engineer in Deputy Executive Engineer Office, at Vemulawada. On 9.1.2020 at about 5.00 pm after completion of his duties, locked to his office and went to house. Later on 10.01.2020 at about 08.30 hrs, he went to office, opened his office room door, entered into the office and his Computer was not found. Immediately, he came outside and noticed another door of his office was also opened, some unknown 2CC. No. 897 of 2020 offenders have entered into his office and committed theft of Computer, Printer and its peripherals besides chairs, Engineer Tool kit and Testing tools, all are worth of

Rs.30,000/-, hence requested to take necessary action.

3-On receipt of complaint from the complainant/Lw1, the Lw8/M.

Malakonda Rayudu, SI of police has registered a case vide Cr.No. 23/2020 for the offence U/Sec.380 of Indian Penal Code, against the accused No.1 and 2 and took up investigation and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.380 of Indian Penal

Code.

4-After careful consideration of the material preposition, this Court had taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec.380 IPC against the accused No.1 and 2.

5-Accused No.1 & 2 are produced from District Jail, Karimnagar. Copies of all the relevant documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Criminal

Procedure Code (herein after called as Cr.P.C.)and they expressed their willingness to admit their guilt and they are examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the charges framed against them for the offence U/Sec. 380 of IPC. Accused No.1 & 2 are pleaded guilty for the above said offence.

I accept the plea of the Accused No.1 & 2 as true and voluntary one, without there being any threat, coercion or duress. Hence, I find the Accused No.1 & 2 guilty of the offence U/Sec. 380 of IPC and convicted them U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the above said offence.

6-Heard the Accused No.1 & 2 on the quantum of sentence, they stated that they are having old aged parents and they are the only earning members of their family.

Therefore, requested the Court to take lenient view about imposing quantum of sentence. They pleaded mercy stating that they are repenting for their mistake.

3CC. No. 897 of 2020 7-Perused the record. Considering such submission, and the nature of offence and circumstances of offence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to take a lenient view and accordingly Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo SI for a period of

Eleven (11) months each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each (Rupees one hundred

Only) for the offence U/Sec.380 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo SI for a period of one week each.

The case property which was given to its original owner for interim custody vide in Crl.M.P.No. 31 of 2020, dated 05.02.2020 shall be made absolute, after expiry of appeal time.

The remand period undergone by the accused No.1 and 2 from 11.01.2020 to till date i.e., 30.12.2020, is ordered to be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. Fine amount is not paid by the accused.

The jail authorities are hereby directed to set at liberty the Accused No.1 & 2, if they further presence is not required in any other case or crime. The office is directed to furnish a free copy of judgment to the accused No.1 & 2.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer and after corrections, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of December, 2020.

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sircilla. FAC: Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENSE: -None- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

-Nil--Nil-

Material Objects MARKED:- – Nil -

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Sircilla. FAC: Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.