Sri S Narayana

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

HYD, Criminal Court Complex · Hyderabad · Telangana

Sri S Narayana, II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, is posted at HYD, Criminal Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 168 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC cases.

168

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/300607/2016 Acquitted

SHO SULTHAN BAZAR vs Vsc s m raj

12 Feb 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Present : Sri.S.Narayana, II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 12th day of February, 2019.

C.C.No.607 of 2016.

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police,

Sultanbazar Police Station, Hyderabad ... Complainant.

And

C.S.M.Raj S/o.Late Chandra Sekhar, aged 65 yrs occu: Retired Employee, R/o.4-1-70,71,Hanuman Tekdi, Koti, Hyderabad. …. Accused.

This case is coming before me final hearing on 11.2.2019 in the presence of learned APP for the state and of M/S. T.Muralidhar Reddy, Counsel for the accused, and upon hearing them and upon perusing the evidence adduced by both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of police, Sultanbazar P.S ,

Hyderabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.112/2016 for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A IPC with the following allegations 2The case of the prosecution is that on 23.5.2016 at 1700 hours the complainant/ Smt.Yelipati Yelamandamma,PW1,wife of the deceased came to

Police Station and lodged a written complaint stating that on 22.5.2016 in the morning hours her husband/ deceased along with her son in law

Yedukondalu went to Hanuman Tekdi, the house of the accused for construction work. At about 1400 hours, she received a phone call from her son-in-law stating that her husband fallen from the 3rd floor to ground floor and he was under un conscious condition stating that the condition of her husband is serious and undergoing the treatment and asked her to come over to Osmania Genera Hospital. While undergoing the treatment, her

Page No. 2CC No. 607 of 2016 husband succumbed to the injuries. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against the accused. Basing on the complaint lodged by PW1, PW10

G.Ramakrishna, S.I of police has registered a case in Cr.No.112/2016 U/S 337 IPC and he issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, PW10 received information that the injured died as such, he altered the section of law from, Section 337 IPC to 304-A IPC and submitted the alteration of section of law. Then, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Lws.9 and 10, PW0. The

Doctor PW11 conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to Head injury. He visited the scene of offence, and on 13.6.2016 the accused came to Police

Station and on his inquiry,the accused admitted his guilt, he effected arrest of accused and released him on bail. After receipt of medical certificates of injured persons, PME he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/S 304-A IPC. Hence,the accused is liable for punishment for the said offence.

3Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable Under Section 304- A IPC against the accused.

4On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required u/sec 207 of Cr.PC. Thereafter, the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C to explain the accusation leveled against him in brief for the offence U/S 304-A IPC. The accused has denied the said offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5During course of trial, Pws.1 to 11 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. PW1 is the complainant, who lodged the complaint with the police, PW2 to 4 are the witnesses to the alleged accident, PW5 to 9 are the panch witnesses for the inquest

Page No. 3CC No. 607 of 2016 panchanama and inquest panchanama PW10 is the S.I of police who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, and PW11 is the Doctor who gave opinion about the death of the deceased. EX.P.1 is the statement of

PW1, EX.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama, EX.P.3 is the rough sketch,

EX.P.4 and P.5 are the signatures of PW8 on scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch,EX.P.6 is the inquest panchanamna, EX.P.7 is the FIR,

EX.P8 is the alteration memo, EX.P.9 is the PME report.

6After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused has denied the said incriminating material and he did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

7Heard the arguments from both sides.

8Now the point for determination in this case is :

“1.Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences U/S 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?” 9 Point:- PW1 is the complainant and the wife of deceased. She deposed that on 22.5.2016 her husband and son-in-law left the house to attend a construction work at the house of the accused and she received a telephonic message from her sin in-law that her husband fell from the third floor and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. She further deposed that she rushed to the hospital and found her husband died while undergoing treatment, as such her statement was recored by the police EX.P.1 is her statement.

10 Pws.2 to 5 are the relatives of the deceased and PW1. They only deposed that the deceased and his son in law went to the construction work and the deceased fell down from third floor to the ground floor. Except this

Page No. 4CC No. 607 of 2016 they did not depose anything against the accused.

11PW6 is the one of the circumstantial witness he deposed that he is doing Kirana shop business at the house of the accused. He deposed that about 2 years back in the morning hours, he heard a sound from out side, immediately, he rushed there and found one person fell on the ground from the building and he came to know that he was fell from the construction of building and he was shifted to Hospital for treatment and the accused is the owner of said building, he came to know that the injured was succumbed to the injuries, he was examined by the police and recorded his statement.

12PW7 the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. He deposed that in the month of May,2016 while he was passing through Rajadhani Bar and Restaurant, the police informed him that one person fell down from the construction of building and they conducted scene of offence panchana EX.P.2 and prepared rough sketch under EX.P.3.

13PW7 admitted in his cross examination that by the time, he reached to the scene of offence,the police already prepared EX.P.2 and P.3. He signed on the same at the request of the police and he was giving evidence at the instance of police.

14PW8 is another panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch by name T.Harikishan. He deposed that he do not know anything in this case at the request of the police he signed on EX.P.4 and P.5 scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch.

15PW8 admitted in his cross examination that on 23.5.2016 the police called him to the scene of offence and they prepared EX.P.4 and P5 and he signed on them after going through same and he is deposing false to help the accused.

Page No. 5CC No. 607 of 2016 16PW9 P.Keshava Rao is the friend of the decesed. He deposed that he knows the deceased, he fell down from a building and died as he received head injury and the police held inquest over the dead body of deceased and he signed on EX.P.6 inquest panchanama.

17PW11 is the Doctor by name G.Devaraju,who is working as

Asst.,Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical

College, Hyderabad. He deposed that on receipt of requisition he conducted

Post mortem over the dead body of the deceased and found 13 anti mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased, she gave opinion that the deceased died due to head injury and EX.P.9 is the Postmortem report.

18PW10 is the S.I of police and the Investigating Officer by name

G.Ramakrishna. He deposed that he worked as S.I of police in

P.S.Sultanbazar, Hyderabad at the relevant point of time. According to him on 23.5.2016 at 1700 hours, he received a complaint from PW1 and basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.112/2016 U/S 337 IPC and issued EX.P.7

FIR. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of ofence and prepared scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. PW10 further deposed that he received information that the injured succumbed to the injuries and he filed alteration memo vide EX.P.8. He secured the presence of PW9 and LW10 and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in their presence. He examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1 to 6. On 13.6.2016 the accused surrendered before him and effected his arrest and released him on bail. After collection of PME report and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence

U/ S 304-A IPC.

19In his cross examination PW10 admitted that he examined the neighours of the accused house but the said persons did not say that they

Page No. 6CC No. 607 of 2016 have not seen the incident. He has not taken any photographs of the scene of offence. PW10 further stated that he has not ascertained what type of the negligence caused by the accused. He has not mentioned in the charge sheet that what precautions have to be taken by the accused.

20The prosecution has to prove the ingredients of the section 304- A IPC i.e., causing death by negligence which reads as follows:- “ Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both” 21As discussed above, none of the witnesses have stated in their evidence that the accused is responsible in causing death of the deceased,

PW10 admitted in his cross examination that he has not he has not ascertained what type of the negligence caused by the accused. He has not mentioned in the charge sheet that what precautions have to be taken by the accused. In general while construction work is going on , the owner of the building has to take precautions such as by covering the under construction building with plastic sheet or taurpaline, but in the instant case, none of the witnesses have stated the above said fact. Here in the instant case,the deceased himself might be fallen from the third floor to the ground floor, as such he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and subsequently he died in the hospital while undergoing the treatment.

22Considering the evidence available on record and in view of the discussion made supra, absolutely, there is no evidence against the accused to prove that he has failed to take any precautions while the construction work was going on and where the deceased was fell down from the third

Page No. 7CC No. 607 of 2016 floor to the ground floor, and while undergoing the treatment, the deceased died in the Osmania General Hospital. Accordingly, this point is answered.

23In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/S 304-A

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is acquitted U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after 6 months and he is set at liberty.

Dictated to Steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 12th day of February, 2019.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence No. of witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence

PW1 : Smt.Y.Yelamandamma, complainant. Nil. PW2 : P.Yedukondalu,eye witness. PW3 : P.Ramaiah,circumstantial witness. PW4 : Ramaiah,witness. PW5 : Abdul Haji,circumstantial witness . PW6 : B.Sunil,circumstantial witness . PW7 : Mohd.Abdul Mateen,panch witness. PW8 : T.Harikiran, panch witness. PW9 : P.Keshava Rao,inquest panch. PW10: G.Ramakrishna,S.I and I.O. PW11: Dr.G.Deva Raju,conducted PME.

No. Of documents marked for Prosecution Defence

EX.P.1 is the statement of PW1. Nil. EX.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama. EX.P3 is the rough sketch. EX.P4 is the scene of offence panchanama. EX.P5 is the rough sketch. EX.P6 is the Inquest panchanama. EX.P7 is the FIR. EX.P8 is the alteration memo. EX.P9 is the PME Report.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE.

HYDERABAD.

Page No. 8CC No. 607 of 2016

FORM NO.72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 607/2016

DATE OF OFFENCE : 22.5.2016

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 23.5.2016

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 13.6.2016

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 13.6.2016

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 23.1.2018

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 23.1.2019

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 12.2.2019

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Afzalgunj, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED: C.S.M.Raj.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304-A, IPC.

FINDING Accused is found not guilty for the said offence and he is acquitted U/sec 255 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 15.2.2019

CALENDER CASE NO: 607/2016 DATE OF JUDGMENT:12.2.2019

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 18.6.2016

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 19.6.2016 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 05.7.2017 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED :17.8.2017

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 25.1.2019.

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Page No. 9CC No. 607 of 2016 Page No. 10CC No. 607 of 2016

FORM NO.72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 1157/2015

DATE OF OFFENCE : 7.7.2015

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 9.7.-2015

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 10.7.2015

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 11.7.2015

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 04-7-2017

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 07.8.2018

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 21.8.2018

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Afzalgunj, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED: T.Jangaiah and 5 others.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 143,147,341 r/w 149 IPC and section 3 of DPP Act .

FINDING Accused is found not guilty for the offences and tey are acquitted U/sec 255 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 27.8.2018

CALENDER CASE NO: 1157/2015 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21.8.2018

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 30.11.2015

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 11.12.2015 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 09.2.2016 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED :21.6.2016

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 10.8.2018.

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC/300609/2015 Acquitted

Afzalgunj vs B.Jagan Mohan Reddy

12 Feb 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Present : Sri.S.Narayana, II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 12th day of February, 2019.

C.C.No.609 of 2015.

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police,

Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad ... Complainant.

And

B.Janardhan Reddy S/o.Ram Reddy aged 52 yrs occu: RTC Bus Driver,E.No.4018880 Banaganapally Depot,R/o.Srinivasanagar,Nandyal, Kurnool District. …. Accused.

This case is coming before me final hearing on 27.12.2018 in the presence of learned APP for the state and of M/S. Talasila Suresh,Counsel

for the accused, and upon hearing them and upon perusing the evidence

adduced by both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of police, Afzalgunj P.S ,

Hyderabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.397/2012 for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A IPC with the following allegations 2The case of the prosecution is that on 22.6.2012 at 0500 PW1

G.Ramakrishna PC came to P.S and lodged a complaint in which he stated that he along with another PC were on patrolling duty on RC-I and received a VHF message to check National Lodge,Afzalgunj,Hyderabad. They went to the said place and found one RTC bus bearing number AP12 Z 0280 ( Banaganapally Depot) and the driver of said bus drove the same in a ash and negligent manner and while coming from Nayapool bridge towards

MGBS and dashed to a pedastrian who was crossing the road and the accused stopped the bus and shifted the injured to the Osmania General

Hospital for treatment. PW1 along with another P.C went to the said

Page No. 2CC No. 609 of 2015

Hospital and the Duty Doctor informed that due to the accident, the injured received invisible injuries on his head and bleeding from mouth and ear.

While undergoing the treatment, the duty Doctor declared the injured as died on 22.6.2012. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against the accused. Basing on the complaint lodged by PW1, LW8 M.A.Aslam Head

Constable of P.S.Afzalgunj, Hyderabad has registered a case in

Cr.No.397/2015 U/S 304-A IPC and he handed over the CD file to PW5

S.Ravi Babu, S.I of police, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad for further investigation.

During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of two panchas PW2 and LWs2, to 4 , drafted scene of offence panchanama, drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence. Then, he visited

Osmania General Hospital Mortuary and secured the presence of PW3 and

LW6 D.Santosh and held inquest over the dead of the deceased person, he examined and recorded the statements of PW2 and LW3. The Doctor who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased person at OGH and opined that the deceased died due to head injury in the accident.

On 22.6.2012, the accused voluntarily came and surrendered before him, and the accused admitted his guilt, then he effected his arrest and released the accused on bail. After receipt of PME report, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/S 304-A IPC. Hence,the accused is liable for punishment for the said offence.

4Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable Under Section 304-

A IPC against the accused.

5On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required u/sec 207 of Cr.PC. Thereafter, the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C to explain the accusation leveled against him in brief for the offence U/S 304-A IPC. The accused has denied

Page No. 3CC No. 609 of 2015 the said offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6During course of trial, Pws.1 to 6 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. PW1 is the complainant, who lodged the complaint with the police, PW2 is one of the witness to the alleged accident, PW4 is the panch witness for the inquest panchanama, PW5 is the

S.I of police and the Investigating Officer, PW6 is the Doctor who conducted

PME over the dead body of the deceased. EX.P.1 is the complaint lodged by

PW1, EX.P2 is the inquest panchanama, EX.P.3 is the FIR, EX.P.4 is the inquest panchanama and EX.P.5 is the PME Report..

7 After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused has denied the said incriminating material and he did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

8Heard the arguments from both sides.

9Now the point for determination in this case is :

“1.Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences U/S 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?” 10 Point No1:- PW1 is the complainant and previously worked as PC at

P.S.Afzalgunj,Hyderabad at the relevant point of time. He deposed 2The case of the prosecution is that on 22.6.2012 at 0500 PW1 G.Ramakrishna

PC came to P.S and lodged a complaint in which he stated that he along with another PC were on patrolling duty on RC-I and received a VHF message to check National Lodge,Afzalgunj,Hyderabad. They went to the said place and found one RTC bus bearing number AP12 Z 0280 ( Banaganapally Depot) and the driver of said bus drove the same in a ash and negligent manner and while coming from Nayapool bridge towards

Page No. 4CC No. 609 of 2015

MGBS and dashed to a pedastrian who was crossing the road and the accused stopped the bus and shifted the injured to the Osmania General

Hospital for treatment. PW1 along with another P.C went to the said

Hospital and the Duty Doctor informed that due to the accident, the injured received invisible injuries on his head and bleeding from mouth and ear.

EX.P.1 is the complaint lodged by him.

11PW2 Syed Atiq worked as PC in P.S.Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. He also deposed on the same lines to that of PW1.

12PW3 Syed Mukheem, who is one of the inquest panch witness. He deposed that he do not know anything in this case, on one day, Afzalgunj

Police called him to Mortuary at OGH and they obtained his signatures on some written papers, except that he do not know anything in this case, witness identified his signature on EX.P.2. At this stage,the learned Sr.APP declared PW3 as hostile, since he failed to support the version of prosecution. In the cross examination PW3 stated that the police Afzalgunj called him to OGH and they conducted inquest over the un known dead body of a person after that he signed on the same and now he is deposing falsehood.

13PW4 M.A.Aslam Retired ASI in the Police Station, Afzalgunj,

Hyderabad. He deposed that on 22.6.2012 at 5.45 hours he received a complaint from PW1 and basing on it, he registered a case in

Cr.No.397/2012 U/S 304-A IPC and issued EX.P.3 FIR and he handed over the CD file to PW5 for further investigation.

14PW5 S.Ravi Babu worked as S.I of police in P.S.Afzalgunj, Hyderabad at the relevant point of time. He deposed that on receipt of CD file from

PW4 he took up the investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and Lws. 2

Page No. 5CC No. 609 of 2015 to 4. Then, he secured the presence of PW3 and LW4 and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased under EX.P.4. On 22.6.2012, the accused voluntarily came and surrendered before him, and the accused admitted his guilt, then he effected his arrest and released the accused on bail. After receipt of PME report, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/S 304-A IPC.

15PW5 admitted in his cross examination that Pws1 and Lws 2 to 4 have not disclosed the name of the accused and also they identified the accused if shown to them. He has not filed any documentary evidence to show that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged incident.

He denied the suggestion that the accused is not responsible for the incident and he was falsely implicated in this case.

16PW6 Dr.K.Parvathi worked as Associate Professor in the Department of FSL, at Osmania General Hospital. She received a requisition from the

SHO, Afzalgunj to conduct PME over the dead body of the deceased on 22.6.2012 at 4.50 p.m and it was brought by one HC. Accordingly, she conducted PME and gave her opinion that the injured died due to head injury and EX.P.5 is the PME report.

17The learned defence counsel relied upon the following decisions:

1.2009 Law Suit ( AP ) 180 reported in High Court of A.P.between

P.Ranga Rso Vs.State of A.P it was held that:

“As far as the identity of the accused is concerned, the Court below have not considered the issue in proper perspective and the same resulted in miscarriage of justice. In view of the same, it appears that the findings of the lower court are perverse and the same have to be set aside.” 2.High Court of Himachal Pradesh between Rakesh Kumar Vs.State of

Page No. 6CC No. 609 of 2015

Himachal Pradesh reported in Law Suit 2013 615 it was held that at para

18. In High Court of Punjab and Haryana between Hartej Singh @ Tejinder

Singh Vs.Union Territory, Administration in 2009 Law Suit ( P&H) 379 wherein it was held that” “ The identification of the accused for the first time in the Court, in the absence of any test identification parade, during the Course of investigation, cold not be said to be sufficient to connect him with the present case. In this view of the matter, no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the respondent, therefrom. “ 19As stated supra, the above citations relied by the learned defence counsel will squarely applicable to the present facts of this case, the I.O in this case failed to conduct any Test Identification of the Accused before commencement of the trial. The I.O also failed to examine the original owner of the crime vehicle or to seize any documents showing that the crime vehicle was involved in this case. The I.O simply filed the charge sheet against the accused without following the above important aspects.

Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

20Considering the evidence available on record and in view of the discussion made supra, absolutely, there is no evidence against the accused to prove that he drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and due to the accident, the deceased died in the hospital. Accordingly, this point is answered.

21In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/S 304-A

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is acquitted U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after 6 months and he is set at liberty.

Page No. 7CC No. 609 of 2015

Dictated to Steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 12th day of February, 2019.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence No. of witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence

PW1 : S.Ramakrishna,PC, complainant. Nil. PW2 : Syed Atiz,HC, witness. PW3 : Syed Mukheem,inquest panch witness. PW4 : M.A.Aslam,HC,issued FIR. PW5 : S.Ravi Babu,S.I and and I.O. PW6 : Dr K.Parvathi,issued PME Report of deceased.

No. Of documents marked for Prosecution Defence

EX.P.1 is the complaint lodged by PW1. Nil.

EXP2 is the signature of PW3 on the inquest panchanama.

EXP4 is the FIR.

EX.P5 is the PME report.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE.

HYDERABAD.

Page No. 8CC No. 609 of 2015

FORM NO.72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 609/2015

DATE OF OFFENCE : 22.6.2012

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 22.6.2012

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 22.6.2012

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 22.6.2012

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 31.7.2018

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 04.2.2019

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 12.2.2019

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Afzalgunj, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED: B.Jaganmohan Reddy.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304-A IPC.

FINDING Accused is found not guilty for the said offence and he is acquitted U/sec 255 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 15.2.2019

CALENDER CASE NO: 609/2015 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13.2.2019

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 26.6.2015

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 26.6.2015 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 19.1.2016 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED :01.3.2016

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 08.2.2019.

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Page No. 9CC No. 609 of 2015 Page No. 10CC No. 609 of 2015

FORM NO.72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 1157/2015

DATE OF OFFENCE : 7.7.2015

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 9.7.-2015

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 10.7.2015

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 11.7.2015

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 04-7-2017

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 07.8.2018

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 21.8.2018

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Afzalgunj, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED: T.Jangaiah and 5 others.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 143,147,341 r/w 149 IPC and section 3 of DPP Act .

FINDING Accused is found not guilty for the offences and tey are acquitted U/sec 255 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 27.8.2018

CALENDER CASE NO: 1157/2015 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21.8.2018

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 30.11.2015

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 11.12.2015 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 09.2.2016 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED :21.6.2016

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 10.8.2018.

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC/300337/2017 Acquitted

PS Sultan Bazar vs Salandri Nagaraj Yadav

06 Feb 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Present : S.Narayana, II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 06th day of February, 2019.

C.C.No.337/2017.

Between: The Sub-Inspector of police,

Sultanbazar Police Station, Hyderabad. ... Complainant.

And

1. S.Nagraj Yadav S/o. Mallesh Yadav , aged 46 yrs,Occu: Business, R/o.4-2-613/F,Ramkoti. Hyderabad.

2.S.Shivanetra Yadav S/o.Laxman Yadav aged 28 yrs, occu: Pvt,job, R/o.4-2-613/F,Ramkoti.

Hyderabad. ......Accused.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 27-12-2018 in the presence of learned APP for the state and of M/S Indrasena Reddy, Counsel

for the accused/A1 and A2 and having stood over the matter for

consideration till this day, this court has made the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Subs-Inspector police, Sultanbazar, Hyderabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused/ A1 and A2 for the offences punishable

U/S 504,506 and 509 t/w 34 IPC with the following allegations.

2The brief facts of the case are that on 14.4.2017 at 7.30 p.m, PW1

Smt.Sumalatha came to Police Station and lodged a written complaint in which she stated that she is doing Botique work at her house and while she was standing there, the accused came on a motor cycle and taken her photos, when she asked the accused why they are taking her photographs,the accused abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences by saying that they will see her and her family end.

Hence, she requested to take necessary action against the accused. Basing on the complaint lodged by her, PW5, Krishna Prasad, S.I of police the Page No. 2CC No. 337 of 2017

Sultanbazar, Hyderabad has registered a case in Cr.No.59/2017 U/S 504,506 and 509 t/w 34 IPC and investigated in to the case. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Pws. 1 to 4, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch, on 21.4.2017, the accused voluntarily came to

Police Station and admitted their guilty, he effected the arrest of the accused and released on bail. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/S 504,506 and 509 t/w 34 IPC. Hence,they are liable for punishment for the said offences.

3The cognizance was taken for the offence U/S 504,506 and 509 t/w 34

IPC against the accused/ A1 and A2. On appearance of the accused, they were supplied with the copies of documents U/S 207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined U/S 251 Cr.P.C for the offences U/S 504,506 and 509 r/w 34

IPC. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4During the course of trial, Pws.1 to 5 are examined and got marked

EX.P.1 to P.8. PW1 is the complainant and she lodged the complaint. PW2 is the mother-in-law of PW1, PW3 is one of the eye witness to the alleged incident, PW4 is another eye witness to the case of prosecution , but he did not support the case of prosecution, PW5 is the eye witness, and PW6 is the

S.I of police and the Investigating Officer, EX.P.1 is the complaint lodged by

PW1, EX.P.2 is the crime detail form, EXP.3 is the rough sketch, EX.P.4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4, EX.P.5 is the FIR,EX.P.6 is the rough sketch,

EX.P.7 is the scene of offence panchanama, EX.P.8 is the photographs, EX.P9 is the memo.

5After closure of the complainant's evidence, the accused were examined U/S 313 Cr.PC for the incriminating material appearing against them. The accused have denied the said evidence and they failed to adduce the Page No. 3CC No. 337 of 2017 any defence evidence on their behalf.

6Heard the arguments from both sides.

7Now the point for determination is :

“ Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences U/S 504,506 and 509 t/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?” 8Point:- PW1 is the complainant. She deposed that PW2 is her mother-in-law, she knows Pws.3 and 4, she also knows the accused.

According to her on 14.4.2017 at 7.30 p.m, while she was standing at her house and while she was standing there, the accused came on a motor cycle and taken her photos, when she asked the accused why they are taking her photographs,the accused abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences by saying that they will see her and her family end.

Hence, she lodged a complaint under EX.P.1.

9PW1 was cross examined by the defence counsel, she admitted that there is civil disputes between herself and the accused. She further admitted that the accused filed a writ petition No.20189/2013 and it is pending before the Honble High Court and the Honble High Court gave direction to the Municipality to demolish the wall constructed by her and she do not know whether her in laws filed a SLP in the Honble Supreme

Court, she filed the present case only to harass the accused.

10PW2 is mother-in-law of PW1. She deposed that she knows A1 and A2 in the year 2017 the accused came to their house and quarreled with PW1 on road and were taking the photographs and they abused and fledaway, she was examined by the police and they recorded her statement.

11PW3 is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama. He deposed that about one year back, the police came to the house situated beside his office situated at Tarakarama Theatre and the police explained to the Page No. 4CC No. 337 of 2017 him and they took photographs and after knowing the same, he signed on

EX.P.2 scene of offence panchanama and EX.P.3 is the rough sketch.

12 The prosecution examined another panch witness as PW4. He deposed that he knows PW1. About one year back he was doing welding work infront of the house of PW1 and one of the neighboring residents of

PW1 has taken photos of their welding work, then PW1 questioned the said person why he was taking the photos of welding work, the police not examined him. At this stage, the learned Sr.APP sought permission to declare this witness as hostile, since he failed to support the case of prosecution and declared him as hostile. During the course of cross examination by the learned Sr.APP PW4 admitted that he stated before the police as in EX.P.4 his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C recorded by the police and at the instance of the accused and to help them he is speaking falsehood.

13PW5 is another witness to the incident, by name S.K.Sampath. He deposed that he is a mason by profession. About 6 months back, while he was doing the mason work at the house of PW2, A1 and A2 came there and took photos of the PW1 for which PW1 abused the accused, thereafter, the accused sped away from there, he was examined by the police and they recorded her statement.

14During the course of cross examination, PW5 admitted that on the date of alleged incident, the welders were working and the fire pieces fell on ther house of PW1, when the accused came to the spot and taken photographs and PW1 abused the accused.

15PW6 Krishna Prasad, worked as S.I of police in

P.S.Sultanbazar,Hyderabad at the relevant point of time. He deposed that on 14.4.2017 PW1 came to P.S and lodged a written complaint before him, basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.59/2017 U/S 504,506 and 509 the Page No. 5CC No. 337 of 2017 r/w 34 IPC and issued EX.P.5 FIR. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Pws. 1 to 4, visited the scene of offence and prepared EX.P6 scene of offence panchanama,drafted the rough sketch under EX.P7 in the presence of PW3 and LW6 T.Chennaiah. PW6 further deposed that he took the photographs of the scene of offence under

EX.P.8 and EXP9 is the deletion memo for the names of A3 and A4. On 21.4.2017 the accused came to Police Station and voluntarily surrendered

before him, he effected their arrest and enlarged them on bail, after

completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/S 504,506 and 509 r/w 34 IPC.

16In the instant case, Pws.1 and 2 admitted in their cross examination that there are civil disputes were pending between the accused and themselves. It seems that due to some misunderstandings the present incident might be happened. Even PW.3 and 4 who are the neighbours of

PW1 admitted that there was welding works were going on at that time,the accused came there and taken photographs, as such the alleged incident happened.

17The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of section U/S 504,506 and 509 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore,the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and they are to be acquitted for the said offences.

18Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the discussion made supra, and the evidence available on record, is not sufficient to hold that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences U/S 504,506 and 509 t/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered.

19In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences the Page No. 6CC No. 337 of 2017

U/S 504,506 and 509 t/w 34 IPC and the accused are acquitted U/S 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be canceled after 6 months, and they are set at liberty.

Dictated to Stenotypist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06th day of February, 2019.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence No. of witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence PW1 : S.Sumalatha,complainant. Nil.

PW2 : S.Nagamani, witness.

PW3 : Himanshu, witness.

PW4: Dharma,witness.

PW5: S.K.Sampath,neighbour of PW1.

PW6 : Krishna Prasad,S.I of police and I.O.

No. Of documents marked for

Prosecution Defence

EX.P.1 is the complaint lodged by PW1. Nil.

EX.P.2 is the crime detail form.

EXP.3 is the rough sketch.

EX.P.4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4.

EX.P.5 is the FIR.

EX.P.6 is the rough sketch.

EX.P.7 is the scene of offence panchanama.

EX.P.8 is the photographs,.

EX.P9 is the memo.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

the Page No. 7CC No. 337 of 2017

HYDERABAD.

the Page No. 8CC No. 337 of 2017

FORM NO.72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 337/2017

DATE OF OFFENCE : 14.4.2017

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 14.4.2017

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 21.4.2017

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 21.4.2017

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 1.8.2018

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 30.1.2019

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 06.2.2019

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Sultanbazar, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED:1.Nagaraj Yadav and Shivanetra Yadav.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION . 504,506 and 509 t/w 34 IPC

FINDING Accused are found not guilty for the said offences and they are acquitted U/sec 255 (1) Cr.PC.

SENTENCE : Acquittal TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 07.2.2019

CALENDER CASE NO: 337/2017 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06.2.2019

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 28.4.2017

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 29.4.2017 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 26.10.2017 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED : 13.3.2018

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 31.1.2019

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC/300023/2016 Acquitted

Afzalgunj vs Arun Bosle

31 Jan 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Present : Sri.S.Narayana, II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 31st day of January, 2019.

C.C.No.23 of 2016.

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police,

Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad ... Complainant.

And

Arun Bhosle S/o.Anand Bosle aged 32 yrs occu: Auto Driver R/o.14-8-301.Chudi Bazar, Begumbazar,Hyderabad. …. Accused.

This case is coming before me final hearing on 30.1.2019 in the presence of learned Sr.APP for the state and of M/S,K.Kiran Raj,Counsel

for the accused, and upon hearing them and upon perusing the evidence

adduced by both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of police, Afzalgunj P.S,

Hyderabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.460/2015 for the offences punishable Under Section 341,427 IPC and section 3 of

PDPP Act with the following allegations 2The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 1.7.2015 at 1630 hours PW1 G.Ramesh working as TSRTC Driver came to P.S and lodged a complaint stating that on 1.7.2016 at 1315 hours, he was driving the RTC bus bearing number AP.28 Z 5746 and when the same was reached near

Chaderghat X Roads, meanwhile one auto bearing number AP 28 TD 4-58

Piaggio Trolley auto kept infront of the bus and did not give way to move his bus. The driver of the auto/ accused came with wheel rod and broken the front glass of the bus and he along with PW2 conductor tried to catch the accused, but the accused ran away from there. Hence, he requested to take

Page No. 2CC No. 23 of 2016 necessary action against the accused. Basing on the complaint lodged by

PW1, PW3, M.Madusudhan, S.I of police registered a case in

Cr.No.460/2015 U/S 341,427 IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act and issued FIR and investigated in to the case. During the course of investigation , he visited the scene of offence drafted panchanama and prepared rough sketch. On 29.7.2015, the accused voluntarily came to P.S and surrendered

before him, he effected his arrest and released him on bail. After completion

of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/S 341,427 IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act. Thereby, the accused is liable for punishment for the said offences. Hence, the charge.

3Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable Under Section 341,427 IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act against the accused.

4On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required u/sec 207 of Cr.PC. Thereafter, the accused were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C to explain the accusation leveled against them for the offence U/S 341,427 IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act.

The accused has denied the said offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5During course of trial, Pws.1 to 4 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. PW1 is the driver and complainant,

PW2 is the conductor of the bus, PW3 is the S.I of police and the

Investigating Officer. PW4 is the conductor of the RTC bus, EX.P.1 is the complaint lodged by PW1, EX.P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2,EX.P.3 is the FIR, EX.P.4 is the scene of offence panchanama, EX.P.5 is the rough sketch.

6 After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstances

Page No. 3CC No. 23 of 2016 appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused have denied the said incriminating material and he did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

7Heard the arguments from both sides.

8Now the point for determination in this case is :

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences U/S 4 341,427 IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?” 9 Point:- PW1 G.Ramesh working as TSRTC Driver came to P.S and lodged a complaint stating that on 1.7.2016 at 1315 hours, he was driving the RTC bus bearing number AP.28 Z 5746 and when the same was reached near Chaderghat X Roads, meanwhile one auto bearing number AP 28 TD 4- 58 Piaggio Trolley auto kept infront of the bus and did not give way to move his bus. The driver of the auto/ accused came with wheel rod and broken the front glass of the bus and he along with PW2 conductor tried to catch the accused, but the accused ran away from there. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against the accused and EX.P.1 is the complaint lodged by him.

10PW2 is one of the eye witness by name Maruthi Dage. He deposed that he do not know anything about this case, and the police did not examine him and he do not know the accused. At this stage,the learned

Sr.APP declared this witness with the permission of this Court and he was declared hostile. During the course of cross examination, PW2 stated that he was examined by the police and they recorded his statement as in EX.P.2 his 161 Cr.P.C statement.

11PW3 is the S.I of police and the Investigating Officer by name

M.Madusudhan at the relevant point of time. He deposed that on 1.7.2015,

Lw7 Chandrasekhar S.I of police received complaint from PW1 and he

Page No. 4CC No. 23 of 2016 registered a case in Cr.No.460/2015 U/S 341 and 427 IPC and section 3 of

PDPP Act and he issued EX.P.3 FIR. Later, he handed over the CD file tol him for further investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1,2 and 4, visited the scene of offence under EX.P.4 and drafted rough sketch under EX.P.5. PW3 further deposed that he apprehended the accused on 29.7.2015 and the accused admitted his guilt and he released the accused on bail by complying the section 41 A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation , he filed the charge sheet.

12PW3 admitted in his cross examination that he went to the scene of offence on the same day and it does not contains CCTV cameras. He has not collected the glass pieces of the damaged bus, he has not examined any passengers of the bus and that his investigation is table investigation and he is speaking false and he created EX.P.4 and P.5 for the purpose of this case.

13Pw4 is the conductor of the said bus by name P.Jagapathi. He deposed that on1.7.2015 they started the bus bearing number AP28 Z 5746 towards

Chaderghat X Roads and PW1 informed him that some un known person broken the front glasses of bus. PW4 further deposed that immediately he got down from the bus tried to catch the said person, but he ran away from the spot., police examined and recorded his statement.

14In the instant case, Pws.1 and 4 failed to identify the accused as the person who broken the bus glasses and PW2 is one of the eye witness he too did not support the case of prosecution and he turned hostile. The remaining evidence that available on record is that of PW3 who is the S.I of police and the Investigating Officer. He deposed in a routine manner in favour of the prosecution. But his evidence is not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences U/S 341

Page No. 5CC No. 23 of 2016 and 427 IPC.

15Considering the evidence on record and in view of the discussion made supra, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences U/S 341 amd 427 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore,the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for the said offences. Accordingly, this point is answered.

16In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/S 341 and 427 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused is acquitted U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after 6 months and he is set at liberty.

Dictated to Steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 31st day of January, 2019.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence No. of witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence

PW1 : G.Ramesh,complainant. Nil. PW2 : Maruti Dage, witness. PW3 : M.Madusudhan,S.I and I.O. PW4 : P.Jagapathi,conductor of the bus.

No. Of documents marked for Prosecution Defence

EXP.1 is the complaint lodged by PW1 Nil.

EX.P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

EX.P.3 is the FIR.

EX.P.4 is the scene of offence panchanama.

EX.P.6 is the rough sketch.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE.

HYDERABAD.

Page No. 6CC No. 23 of 2016

FORM NO.71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 23/2016

DATE OF OFFENCE : 1.7.2015

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 1.7.2015

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 29.07.2015

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 29.7.2015

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 20.3.2015

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 25.1.2019

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 31.1.2019

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Afzalgunj, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED: Arun Bhosle.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 341 and 427 IPC.

FINDING Accused is found not guilty for the said offence and he is acquitted U/sec 255 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 5.2.2019

CALENDER CASE NO: 23/2016 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31.1.2019

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 29.12.2015

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 02.1.2016 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED :09.2.2016 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED :.8.2.2018

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 29.1.2019.

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Page No. 7CC No. 23 of 2016 Page No. 8CC No. 23 of 2016

FORM NO.72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 1157/2015

DATE OF OFFENCE : 7.7.2015

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 9.7.-2015

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 10.7.2015

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 11.7.2015

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 04-7-2017

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 07.8.2018

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 21.8.2018

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Afzalgunj, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED: T.Jangaiah and 5 others.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 143,147,341 r/w 149 IPC and section 3 of DPP Act .

FINDING Accused is found not guilty for the offences and tey are acquitted U/sec 255 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 27.8.2018

CALENDER CASE NO: 1157/2015 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21.8.2018

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 30.11.2015

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 11.12.2015 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 09.2.2016 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED :21.6.2016

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 10.8.2018.

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC/300288/2015 Acquitted

ps Abids vs Vsiqbal khan

31 Jan 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Present : Sri. S.Narayana, II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 31st day of January, 2019.

C.C.No. 288 of 2015. Between:

The State through Sub- Inspector,Abid Road, P.S. Hyderabad. ... Complainant

And

Iqbal Hussain S/o.Ahmed Khan aged 40 yrs occu: Labour R/o.14-8/9/114,Miralum Filter,

Hyderabad. .... Accused.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 29.1.2018 in the presence of learned APP for the state and of Sri.K.Gulabsingh, counsel for Accused and upon perusing the evidence adduced by both sides ,this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Abid Road, Hyderabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused herein for the offence under section 7(a)

(e) of A P Prohibiton Act.

2The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 24.6.2014 at 1800 hours PW2 Raghavender S.I of police, Abid Road, Hyderabad along with his staff were on patrolling duty and he received credible information about selling of I.D.liqour on footpath near Nizam College,Bus stand, Hyderabad.

Immediately, he secured the presence of Lws.2 and 3 V.Jayaraju and Shaik

Abdullah and proceeded to the said spot and found the accused having in possession of one black colour polythene cover and on inquiry, he stated that he brought the same from Dhoolpet and selling for Rs.7/-sachet each.

Then, he seized 40 sachets of I.D.liqour from his possession under cover of panchanama and brought him to P.S along with contraband and handed over to SHO, P.S.Abid Road, Hyderabad for taking necessary action. Basing

PAGE NO. 2CC 288 /2015 on the complaint lodged by him PW3 registered a case in Cr.No.222/2014

U/S 7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act has been registered and investigated in to the case. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, sent the samples to the FSL for his opinion and report. He effected arrest of the accused and on inquiry, the accused admitted his guilt and sent him to the Court for judicial custody. After collection of FSL report and on completion of investigation , he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/S 7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP

Act. Hence,the accused is liable for punishment for the said offence.

3The case was taken on file for the offence U/S 7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP

Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused copies of the case documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C 4The accused was examined U/sec 239 of Cr.PC for the offence U/S 7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. The accused denied the said offence. Therefore, a charge for the offence Under Section U/S 7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him. The accused denied the same , pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5To prove it's case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked EX.P.1 to P.5. PW1 is one of the panch witness, PW2 is the S.I of police who apprehended the accused and seized the contraband from the possession of the accused. PW3 is the S.I of police and PW4 is the S.I of police and the Investigating Officer. EX.P.1 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused,EX.P.2 is the seizure report, EX.P3 is the complaint lodged by PW2, EX.P.4 is the FSL Report and EX.P5 is the FIR.

6 After closure of prosecution evidence,the accused is examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstances. The accused denied the said incriminating circumstances, and he did not choose to adduce any

PAGE NO. 3CC 288 /2015 evidence on his behalf 7Heard both sides.

8 Now the point for determination in this case is :

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9 Point:- PW1 is one of the panch witness by name Prakash Jhadav. He deposed that he knows LW5 S.Ramu. According to him, on one day the Task

Force police called them to their office and obtained their signatures on some written papers without explaining the contents, except that he do not know anything about this case, witness identified his signature which is marked as EX.P.1. At this stage,the learned Sr.APP declared this witness as hostile, since he failed to support the case of prosecution and he was cross examined by her. During the course of cross examination, he stated that on 24.6.2015 at 1600 hours, the police called along with LW5 S.Ramu near

Nizam College bus stand where the accused was present and he confessed about the offence and the police have seized one Black colour pocket containing 40 I.D liqour sachets and the same were seized from the possession of the accused and after going through the same he signed and now he is deposing falsehood to help the accused.

10PW2 P.Raghavender, worked as S.I of police at Abid Road Police

Station at the relevant point of time. He deposed that he along with his staff were on patrolling duty and he received credible information about selling of I.D.liqour on footpath near Nizam College,Bus stand, Hyderabad.

Immediately, he secured the presence of Lws.2 and 3 V.Jayaraju and Shaik

PAGE NO. 4CC 288 /2015

11PW3 T.Rambabu, S.I of police worked at Abid Road,Hyderabad at the relevant point of time. He deposed that he received FSL report which is marked as EX.P.4 and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. Except this piece of evidence he did not depose anything against the accused.

12PW4 M.Laxman worked as S.I of police in P.S.Abid Road, Hyderabad at the relevant point of time. He deposed that on 24.6.2015 at 1800 hours, he received an English written complaint from PW1 along with the accused and contraband and basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.222/2014

Act.

13In the instant case,the prosecution has examined one of the panch witness PrakashJhadav as PW1, but he did not support the case of prosecution. Another panch witness S.Ramu LW5 was not been examined and the prosecution filed report stating that his whereabouts are not known. Hence, his evidence was closed.

14Now the evidence that available on record is that of Pws.2 to 4 who

PAGE NO. 5CC 288 /2015 are the police officials and naturally they will depose against the accused and in favour of prosecution to see that the accused will be convicted but their evidence is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. As such the prosecution is miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/S 7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. Therefore,the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and he is liable for acquittal.

15The law mandates that securing the presence of independent witnesses from the locality, where the alleged contraband was seized.. The scene of offence is located at a busy locality, but the I.O failed to secure the presence of independent witnesses from the locality. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is rests upon the sole and un corroborated evidence of PWs2 to 4, who are the police officials and they will support the case of prosecution in securing conviction against the accused 16 In the result, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A P Prohibition Act and the accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of 6 months.

17 Property Order:

The un-marked case property i.e.,40 sachets of I.D.liqour shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Grade-I Stenographer,transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this 31st day of January,2019.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence

No. Of witnesses examined for . Prosecution: Defenc PW1: Prakash Jhadav,panch witness. Nil.

PAGE NO. 6CC 288 /2015

PW2 : P.Raghavender,S.I of police and apprehended the accused. PW3 :BT.Rambabu,S.I. PW4 : M.Laxman,Sub-Inspector of police and I.O,

No. Of documents marked for

Prosecution Defence

EXP1 is the signature of PW1on panchanama. Nil. EX.P.2 is the seizure report. EX.P.3 is the complaint lodged by PW2.. EX.P.4 is the FSL Report., EX.P.5 is the FIR.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

PAGE NO. 7CC 288 /2015

FORM NO.71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 288/2015.

DATE OF OFFENCE : 24.6.2014

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 24.6.2014

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 24.6.2014

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 27.6.2014

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 18.6.2018

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 28.1.2019

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 31.1.2019

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : nil

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; Sub-Inspector of police, Abids,P.S.

NAME OF THE ACCUSED: Iqbal Hussain

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act

FINDING : The accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec 7(a) r/w 8(e) of APP Act and he is acquitted u/sec 248 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : Acquittal

TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD/2019 DATED 01.2.2019

CALENDER CASE NO: 288/2015 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31.1.2019

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 27.2.2015

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 02.3.2015 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 11.6.2015 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED ` : 03.7.2015

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 cr.PC : 29.1.2019

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Order Record 167 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/300607/2016	SHO SULTHAN BAZAR vs Vsc s m raj	12 Feb 2019	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/300609/2015	Afzalgunj vs B.Jagan Mohan Reddy	12 Feb 2019	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/300337/2017	PS Sultan Bazar vs Salandri Nagaraj Yadav	06 Feb 2019	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/300023/2016	Afzalgunj vs Arun Bosle	31 Jan 2019	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/300288/2015	ps Abids vs Vsiqbal khan	31 Jan 2019	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/300448/2015	PS Sultan Bazar vs Vsgurram ramakrishna	31 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/300910/2015	ABIDS vs Vsamith varma	31 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/300986/2015	ABIDS vs Vsbhahadur ali haji bhai baradai	31 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/301062/2016	State of Sultan Bazar vs A1- Md. Abdul Aziz Khan @ Irfan ALi	28 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/300253/2013	P.S Abids vs G.vivek jain	23 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/300312/2015	PS Sultan Bazar vs Vspankaj hola	21 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/300499/2016	Afzalgunj vs A3.G.Uma Maheshwar Yadav	18 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/300465/2016	ABIDS P.S vs A-1 SMT.PARVEEN AYESHA	17 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/300323/2013	P.S Abids vs Vssarwar khan	11 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/300501/2015	ps Abids vs Vssyed mohd khaleel	10 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/300040/2014	sultan bazar ps vs B KRISHNA	08 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/300899/2016	State Of Abids vs Mohan Singh	08 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/300879/2015	AFZALGUNJ PS vs Vsjala viashnav	07 Jan 2019	Judgment	—
CC/301246/2013	Afzalgunj vs Vskrishna	29 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300467/2013	PS.Abids vs Goundla srinivas goud	26 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300156/2013	PS.Sultan Bazar vs Suresh Jain	25 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300156/2012	SULTANBAZAR PS vs KISHAN KUMAR	12 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300772/2012	P.S Abids vs Subash Sharma	12 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300578/2016	SHO SULTHAN BAZAR vs A1 b shailaja	11 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300938/2016	State of sultan Bazar vs Muralidhar Lohiya	11 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300900/2016	State Of Abids vs S. Shiva Charan	08 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300578/2018	PS Afzalgunj vs Shaik Zubair	04 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300199/2008	CR SUDHER KUMAR vs RAJESH BHATIA	01 Oct 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300024/2015	AFZALGUNJ PS vs Vskamble devika	28 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300274/2016	Abids vs MA Akber Bilal	28 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300303/2015	Afzalgunj vs Vsdhamodar das bung	28 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300509/2015	Afzalgunj vs Vsanuradha	28 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300267/2008	Sultan Bazar PS vs Md.Ali alias Bablu	25 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300576/2016	SHO Sultan Bazar vs Vskirathana mahesh kumar	24 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300912/2013	Abids vs Madari Krishan	19 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300913/2013	Abids Road vs Madari Kishan	19 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/301057/2016	State Of Afzalgunj vs A1- Babulal @ Gopal	18 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300375/2015	Afzalgunj vs Vsmunnurai krishna	17 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300379/2015	Afzalgunj vs Vsgolla urukundu	11 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300259/2013	PS Abids vs Syed Subhan	07 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300224/2017	PS Sultan Bazar vs Bhathula Ravi Kumar @ Tinku	05 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300411/2012	P.S Sultan Bazar` vs M.Manohar	04 Sep 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300360/2016	Afzalgunj vs Lokapally Rajesh @ raju	31 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300677/2015	AFZALGUNJ PS vs Vskakulavaram padma	31 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300581/2016	SHO SULTHAN BAZAR vs A1 rsihi raj jaiswal	24 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300624/2013	PS AFZALGUNJ vs Syed mubashir ahmed	24 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300701/2015	Afzalgunj vs Jai Singh @ Ajay singh	24 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300346/2015	PS Sultan Bazar vs Vssrinivas	23 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/301157/2015	Afzalgunj vs T.Jangaiah	21 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300118/2013	SI of Police, PS Afzalgunj vs C. Mahadev Swamy	16 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300443/2014	AFZALGUNJ PS vs Vsmohd azam	16 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300847/2016	State Of Afzalgunj vs Subramanyam Raju	16 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300468/2013	PS.Abids vs B Atish agarwal	09 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/301187/2010	SULTANBAZAR PS vs MD ABUDL RAZAK	02 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300450/2008	SULTANBAZAR PS vs BHASKAR SURESH KUMAR	30 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300515/2015	Afzalgunj vs Vsgeetha	26 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300558/2016	Abids vs Vsmd jameel	24 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300591/2015	ps Afzalgunj vs Vsbalaiah	23 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300106/2016	Afzalgunj vs Syed Imran	19 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300745/2014	UNION OF INDIA vs MADRAS CEMENTS	19 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300878/2014	AFZALGUNJ vs MOHD SIRAUDDIN	18 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300743/2017	PS Sultanbazar vs A1. Mohd Abdul Gaffar @ Mohd Gaffar	17 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300239/2011	AFZALGUNJ PS vs WAJID QURESHI	16 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300215/2015	PS Sultan Bazar vs Suraj Joshi	13 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/301110/2016	Abids vs A1-Mohd. Mohsin Ali Shah @ Shareef @ Mouseen	13 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300128/2011	PS ABIDS ROAD vs SYED HUSSAIN	06 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300365/2015	Afzalgunj vs Vsmohd shareef	06 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300629/2015	Sultan Bazar PS vs Vseshwar	29 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300747/2012	Padam Chand Jain vs M.Narender	29 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300892/2015	AFZALGUNJ PS vs Vspotta chandra mohan yadav	29 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/301055/2015	Abids vs N.Raj Kiran	29 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300911/2012	Sultan Bazar PS vs G NAGESH	28 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300870/2015	Sultan bazar vs A1.Smt.Bhavani	27 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300027/2012	PS ABIDS ROAD vs MIR AHASAN ALI OSMANI	22 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300764/2013	Afzalgunj vs Sathra Ram Chowdary	22 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300309/2013	AFZALGUNJ PS vs Shamshuddin	20 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300350/2006	Afzalgunj PS vs Vijay Kumar.	19 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300508/2015	Afzalgunj vs Vssarder trilok singh	18 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300261/2014	Afzalgunj vs Akram Babu	13 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300140/2011	PS ABIDS ROAD vs SYED HUSSAIN	08 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300267/2013	SULTANBAZAR PS vs A Shanthaiah	07 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300587/2014	AFZALGUNJ vs SHAIK ABBU@ WAJID	04 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300210/2015	PS Sultan Bazar vs A1 Sanjay Agarwal A2 Musadilal Agarwal	01 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300840/2013	Afzalgunj vs P.Sathish Kumar	01 Jun 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300649/2016	afzalgunj ps vs A1 BHARATH KUMAR	17 May 2018	Judgment	—
CC/301053/2016	State of Sultan Bazar vs Aika Srinu	17 May 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300625/2017	PS Abids vs Syed Sameer @ Saddam	16 May 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300671/2016	Sultan bazar vs Mamidala Shankar rao	15 May 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300627/2015	Sultan Bazar vs M.Urmila Devi	14 May 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300902/2014	SULTANBAZAR PS vs S. Venkaiah	08 May 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300673/2015	AFZALGUNJ PS vs Vssuryavathi	07 May 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300166/2017	PS Sultan Bazar vs Mohd Moshin Ali Shah @ Shareef	04 May 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300626/2017	PS Abids vs Syed Sameer @ Saddam	04 May 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300627/2017	PS Abids vs Syed Sameer @ Saddam	04 May 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300630/2015	SULTANBAZAR PS vs Vsmohd mahboob ali	30 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300778/2014	PS ABIDS ROAD vs Vsashish agarwal	26 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300010/2016	Afzalgunj vs Kompally ravinder	23 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300231/2016	Afzalgunj vs Chitti Satyanarayana @ Satish	23 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
CC/300506/2015	Afzalgunj vs Vssyed ali agha	23 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
CC/301347/2009	Sultan Bazar PS vs P.Ajay Babu	20 Apr 2018	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 167 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Feb 2019		3
Jan 2019		15
Oct 2018		10
Sep 2018		14
Aug 2018		12
Jul 2018		13
Jun 2018		17
May 2018		10
Apr 2018		14
Mar 2018		24
Feb 2018		22
Jan 2018		14

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri S Narayana handled?

Sri S Narayana has handled 168 court orders since 2017 at HYD, Criminal Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 8 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri S Narayana hear?

Based on available records, Sri S Narayana primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at HYD, Criminal Court Complex.

Where is Sri S Narayana currently posted?

Sri S Narayana is posted as II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at HYD, Criminal Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri S Narayana available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri S Narayana are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri S Narayana dispose cases?

Sri S Narayana disposes approximately 8 cases per month, based on 168 orders handled over their tenure at HYD, Criminal Court Complex.

Since when is Sri S Narayana serving?

Sri S Narayana has been serving at HYD, Criminal Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

CC 100%

Posting History

May 2017 — Feb 2019

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate · 168 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Smt P Aruna Kumari

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

0 orders

Sri N Srikanth Babu

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

71 orders

Smt K Asha Rani

II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

517 orders

Smt. V. Rajani

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,...

24 orders

Smt. Swarnalatha Alakuntla

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

456 orders

Peddi Chandana

VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

53 orders

M.Sai Kumar

VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

3 orders

Ch Sampath

VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

189 orders

Smt V Sowmya

XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

214 orders

Devan Ajay Kumar

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

231 orders

Sri G Prabhakar

XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

2,981 orders

Smt E. Bharathi

XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

2,703 orders

Sri J. Vikram

Metropolitan Sessions Judge

6 orders

D.B.Sheetal

I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge

16 orders

Sri.K.Ajesh Kumar

V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge

254 orders

Sri B.Sujay

VII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge

268 orders

Ms. M. Archana Kumari

Special Court for the trial of the Protection of C...

67 orders

← View all judges at HYD, Criminal Court Complex