Ms. S.rajyalakshmi

APWG100004322018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

cum-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NARSAPUR.

PRESENT:- Smt.S.Rajyalakshmi,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Narasapur.

Monday, this the 20th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No. 475/2018

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasapur Town Police Station in Cr.No. 176/2018 ……. Complainant

And

Appala Srinivasu, S/o Viswa Nadham, Aged 53 years, R/o D.No.9-10-18, 10th ward, Maddipatla vari street Narasapur Town.

……. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 13-04-2026 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri K.V.B.K.P., Advocate for Accused and upon hearing and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasapur Town

Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 176/2018 for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of Essential

Commodities Act.

2

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 21.08.2018 the L.W.1-N.Sreedevi, Deputy Tahsildar along with

L.W.7 to 8 vigilance officers received credible information about the offence and proceeded to D.No.9-10-2018, Maddipatlavari street, 10th ward,

Narasapur town at about 11.00 A.M., by collecting two mediators and surprised the accused house premises. At that time, the accused using domestic consumer but he visiting domestic GLP cylinder for commercial purpose and selling the same to higher rates by filling the Gas into 2kg and 5 kgs Cylinders through Ithadi Valves by purchasing the domestic gas cylinders from the gas consumers with a view to gain pecuniary benefits. On that L.W.1 seized 2 empty HPCL domestic cylinders, 1 empty BPCL domestic cylinder, 1 full HPCL domestic cylinder, 2 empty HPCL commercial cylinders total 6 cylinders from the possession of the accused and it was cheated by dishonestly in the presence of mediators under cover of mediators report.

The seized property handed over to L.W.6-Gayathri Gas Company, HPCL

Delaer, Narasapur for safe custody until further orders of the Collector under proper acknowledgment. Basing on the mediators report, L.W.11-Sub-

Inspector of Police, Narsapur Town P.S. registered a case in Crime No.

176/2018 under section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities

Act.

3. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, drawn rough sketch of scene and sized two volve bronzes. Later, he issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to accused. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

4. The Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 420 IPC and

Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act against the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

3

6. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., Charges has been framed against accused for the offences under section 420 IPC and

Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked Exs.P-1 to

Ex.P-10 and M.O.1. The prosecution given up the evidence of L.W.9-G.Jaya

Prasad and L.W.9-D.Ramarao. Accordingly, the prosecution side evidence stood closed.

8. The accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure

Code by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in

Telugu, for which, he denied the incriminating the material and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on his behalf.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel for accused.

10. Perused the entire material available on record.

11. Now the point that arise for determination is as follows :

Whether the prosecution is able to established the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of

Essential Commodities Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

12. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. P.W.1 and P.W.5 are the revenue officials, P.W.2 to P.W.4, P.W.6 to P.W.8 are the independent witnesses, P.W.9 is the investigation officer in this case. Ex.P1 is the Report, Ex.P2 is the attested copy of custodian receipt for seized stock, Ex.P3 is the Report

Section 6-A, Ex.P4 to Ex.P6, Ex.P8 are the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.2 to

P.W.4, P.W.7. Ex.P7 is the attested copy of mediators report, Ex.P9 is the FIR,

Ex.P10 is the Rough Sketch.

4

13. The stand of accused is total denial. He contended by way of suggestion that false case has been foisted against him for statistical purpose.

14. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.9, coupled with documentary evidence clinchingly shows that the accused secured gas cylinder from the neighbors and the same was filled in the cylinders 2kgs and he used to sell cylinder with cost of Rs.90/- per kg with higher rates. In contravention orders issued under

Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act and therefore, the accused are liable for the charges levelled against him.

15. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.5 are the Revenue Official and there are no independent witness to prove the case and its shows that a false case is foisted against the accused for the statistical purpose and hence they are entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.

16. In view of rival contentions, entire evidence is perused on this court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions of both sides.

17. Point:

In order to bring home the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities

Act, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused have illegally transport or found in possession of PDS rice, which is meant for public distribution purpose in contravention of any order passed under section 3 of

Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

18. To prove these aspects, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.9, out of whom, P.W.3 is the revenue official, firstly, this court finds it appropriate set out the facts deposed by on 21.08.2018, she received information from the vigilance officer/LW.7 and requested her to attend at the time raid along with mediators. On that she along with LW .9 and LW.10 went to D.No.9-10-18, 5 10th ward, Maddipatlavari Street, Narsapuram. At that time LW.7 and LW.8 were present. They went to one rented house i.e Appala Srinivasa Rao and there we checked and nothing was found in the house and they went to the narrow space of the house and there they found 6 cylinders. Out of 6 cylinders, 4 are domestic cylinders and 2 are commercial cylinders. 1 domestic cylinder was full and the remaining cylinders was empty and 2 commercial cylinders are also empty. On enquiry, the accused revealed that he used to procure the gas cylinders from the neighbors i.e. gas consumers and the same was filled in the cylinders of 2 Kgs and he used to sell the cylinder with cost of Rs.90 per K.g. and other cylinders will sell to marriage purpose with a profit of Rs.100/-. On that the domestic cylinders was contributed by the Government in the form of subsidy to the consumers.

Clause 3(1)(C) and 7(1)(c) of L.P Gas control Act 2000 and Petroleum Product

Act 1980 and explained to the accused that he is violating the provisions of

Essential Commodities Act 1955. Later, they seized the 6 cylinders and 2 valves under the cover of mediators report. The sized 4 domestic cylinders and 2 commercial cylinders handed over to Gayatri Gas Agency for safe custody until further orders. The 2 valves are handed to SHO, Narsapuram

Town P.S. On that she gave report to the police and she handed over mediators report and statement of the accused and custodian receipt.

19. During the cross examination of P.W.1 admitted that no written permission was submitted to the court claiming only oral instructions from the

Tahsildar. P.W.1 described the location as having a library on one side and residential houses on the other but conceded that no inquiries were made with nearby residents. PW.1 acknowledged not weighing the cylinders not taking photographs of the scene and not carrying the Petroleum Act book. P.W.1 identified commercial cylinders as blue (19 kg) and domestic cylinders as red (14.2 kg) and stated that the valves were made of bronze but could not confirm whether such cylinders are available in the market. PW.1 further admitted that no independent witnesses’ signatures were obtained. P.W.1 6 denied the suggestions that the cylinders were not seized at the scene and that the mediator’s report was prepared at the police station under police instruction.

20. The P.W.2 to P.W.4, P.W.7 are turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

21. P.W.5-B.Yeshoda, VRO deposed that on 21.8.2018 at about 11.00 A.M., he along with L.W.9 and civil supplies DT Vigilance Officers of Eluru went to the 13th ward atD.No.9-10-18 of Maddipatlavari street of Narasapur, there they noticed one person sitting in front of the house and on enquiry, he revealed his name as Appala srinivasarao Rao and he is residing in the said house on rental since 5 years and he is doing finance business and also doing filing of gas cylinders through brass volves for 100/- per kg and sells to functions. On searching, they found six cylinders at the said of his house lane. Five cylinders belongs to HP gas company and one Cylinder belongs to Bharath Gas

Company. Four cylinders belongs to Domestic purpose and two cylinders belongs to commercial purpose. One domestic cylinder was filled with gas and remaining five cylinders are empty. The total value of the six gas cylinders are

Rs.9,905/-. They seized the said six cylinders and also valves under the cover of mediators report. During the cross examination of P.W.5 admitted that he has to take permission from higher authorities to act as mediator and the same was not submitted before the court. P.W.5 wrote 5 to 6 mediators report. P.W.5 did not secure the Aadhar card of the accused. P.W.5 did not enquire the neighbors of the house of the accused that accused was staying since 5 years in the said house. P.W.5 do not remember whether he signed on the labels which was affixed on the seized volves. P.W.5 admitted that the cylinders will be available in the open market. P.W.5 do not capture photos and video graphs of the scene of offence.

22.P.W.6-T.Sivakrishna Sravan deposed that on 21.8.2018, P.W.1 made a phone call to him and instructed him to handover the 6 Gas Cylinders, one 7 empty cylinder belongs to Bharath Gas Company. Four cylinders belongs to domestic purpose and two HP empty cylinders belongs to commercial purpose. Out of four three cylinders belongs to HP gas company and one cylinder belongs to Bharath Gas Company. P.W.6 went to the place of offence and handed over the said cylinders for safe custody. The worth of the above said cylinders are Rs.9,900/-. During the cross examination of P.W.6 stated that he did not file any documentary proof to show that he is the proprietor of

Gayatri Gas Company Narsapuram and running the said gas company. P.W.6 admitted that he did not submit license to the court. P.W.6 went to the scene of offence i.e. near to Vijayalakshmi eye hospital. P.W.6 cannot say the door number of the scene of offence. There are no identity slips were affixed on the said seized cylinders. The cylinders may be available in the open market.

23. P.W.8- G.V.V.Nageswara Rao, Inspector of Police deposed that on 21.8.2018 at about 11.00 A.M., he along with two mediators and other police staff went to the Maddipatlavari street bearing D.No.9-10-18 and there they found one person standing before the said house and informed the said person about themselves and for search of his house and on enquiry he revealed that his name is Appala Srinivasa Rao and there they found 6 cylinders 4 domestic and 2 commercial cylinders which was kept in the side of the said house in that 1 cylinder belongs to HP company was full with gas and other cylinders are empty. They enquired about the gas cylinders, he replied that he used to sold gas cylinders with the higher price to marriages and functions. He also confessed that he used to fill the gas in the empty 2 kgs and 3 kgs cylinders and used to earn Rs.500/- per day. On that as the filling of gas and selling of the subsidy cylinders is an offence. There VRO drafted the mediators report. The seized gas cylinders along with two valves are handed over to the Gayathri Gas Agency by P.W.1 for safe custody. During the cross examination of P.W.8 stated that they received information prior to going to the scene of offence and the same was not disclosed in my records. P.W.8 did not issue any summons to the PW.1 and PW.5 and LW.9. P.W.8 did not obtain 8 any search warrant from my higher authorities. P.W.8 did not recorded the statement of the accused.

24. P.W.9-K.Chandra Sekhar, SI of Police deposed that on 8.0.2018 at about 02.30 P.m., he received covering letter along with mediators report from

Deputy Tahsildar, Narasapur along with two bronze valves. Basing on the report, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 176/2018 under section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of EC Act. He examined P.W.1 in the police station and recorded her statement. On the same day, he went to the scene of offence situated at Maddipatlavari street, D.No.9-10-18, Narsapur and there he prepared rough sketch. There he examined P.W.2 to 8 and recorded their statements and on the same day, he issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet. During the cross examination of P.W.9 stated that he did not participate in the raid and registered the FIR based solely on a report. P.W.9 admitted that columns 8 and 9 of the FIR were left blank, though column 8 mentioned “no delay,” despite acknowledging a delay between the date of offence and FIR registration. P.W.9 further conceded that the report was dated 29.08.2018 but was received only on 08.09.2018 through local tappals, without mentioning the source and that no mediators’ signatures were obtained on the FIR. PW.9 also admitted that he did not receive the seized cylinders under Section 6A of the

E.C. Act, 1955, and failed to examine certain witnesses. P.W.9 acknowledged that MO.1 contained rust had no slips and was a commonly available product in the market though he denied that it was not an iron valve. P.W.9 further stated that he had no prior acquaintance with the accused, went alone to the scene of offence, and had not received any report of the accused selling cylinders at higher prices.

25. At is juncture, it is the first and foremost contention of the learned defence counsel P.W.1 and P.W.5 are officials and their evidence cannot be believed as gospel truth in the absence of corroborative evidence. Per contra 9 the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that they are official witness. Though this Court finds some force in the contention of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it is the duty of this Court to scrutinize the evidence of official witness with utmost care and caution.

26. In the present case, it is clearly observed that the prosecution failed to produce any independent witnesses from the location where the alleged seizure took place. No neutral individuals from the area were examined or brought forward to support the claim that rice meant for the gas cylinders was recovered from the possession of the accused. Furthermore, there is no credible independent testimony to corroborate the circumstances surrounding the accused's arrest, which was purportedly carried out in conjunction with the preparation of the mediators report marked as Ex.P7. This significant omission casts a serious doubt in the mind of this Court regarding the veracity of both the alleged seizure and the arrest. In criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving seizures and arrests, the presence and testimony of impartial, independent witnesses lend credibility and reliability to the prosecution’s version of events. However, in this case, such independent corroboration is entirely lacking.

27. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence from neutral sources, the Court finds it difficult to place full reliance on the statements of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.5, who are official witnesses. While official witness can play a crucial role in establishing facts, their testimonies alone—without being supported by independent and reliable evidence—are insufficient to prove the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt.

28. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that accused were found in possession of cylinders, it remains the fundamental duty of the prosecution to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused used to procure the gas cylinders from the neighbors and used to sell the cylinder for commercial 10 purpose . Mere possession of rice does not, in itself, amount to an offence unless it is conclusively proven that the rice belonged to the domestic gas cylinder and was unlawfully diverted from its intended beneficiaries. In this regard, the learned defence counsel rightly contended that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the accused had purchased domestic gas cylinders from neighbors and were illegally transporting it to another state for resale. The burden lies squarely on the prosecution to prove each element of the alleged offence with credible and admissible evidence.

29. According to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.5, their conclusion that the seized rice was meant for public distribution was primarily based on the alleged confessional statements made by accused.

However, these alleged confessions was categorically denied by the accused during cross-examination through suggestions, thereby challenging the voluntariness and authenticity of such statements. In criminal jurisprudence, confessions made to police officers, unless corroborated by other independent evidence, are inherently weak forms of evidence and cannot form the sole basis for conviction. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to substantiate its claim by producing corroborative evidence showing that accused had indeed procured the gas cylinders from neighbors for the purpose of illegal resale.

However, a close examination of the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.5 reveals a conspicuous absence of any details or explanation as to how they identified the gas cylinders as domestic cylinders, apart from merely relying on the disputed confessions. There is no mention of distinctive packaging, markings, or any official records linking the seized gas cylinders to government supply chains. Moreover, the Investigating Officer also failed to examine or bring on record any neighbors who allegedly sold the gas cylinders to the accused. The prosecution did not take any steps to trace or verify the source of the rice through records maintained at fair price shops, civil supplies departments, or ration cardholder statements. In the absence of such critical and corroborative evidence to establish that the gas cylinders was sourced from the neighbors, 11 the prosecution’s version remains speculative and unsubstantiated. Without proof that the gas cylinders was obtained from neighbors in the village of

Narasapur and was being transported for illegal resale at higher prices, the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.5 alone cannot be treated as sufficient to establish the guilt of accused. Accordingly, the evidence on record falls short of the standard required to sustain a conviction.

30. On summing on the entire evidence, it is crystal clear that except oral evidence of revenue officials that they found accused illegally possession of 2 empty HPCL domestic cylinders, 1 empty BPCL domestic cylinder, 1 full HPCL domestic cylinder, 2 empty HPCL commercial cylinders total 6 cylinders and there is no convincing and independent evidence to establish that accused are doing business with domestic gas cylinders. It appears that the prosecution as well as investigating officer have simply relied upon the confessional statement allegedly made by accused under Mediators report (Ex.P7).

31. In view of these lacunae and infirmities, the Court holds that in the absence of any independent evidence of ration card holders, who were said to have sold gas cylinders to accused or any customer, who used to purchase the rice from accused at higher prices, the evidence of PW1 and P.W.5 cannot be the basis to convict the accused. Apart from this, there is no whisper in their evidence about the order alleged to contravened or violated by accused.

The copy of the said orders is also not filed before the Court. So this court holds that the prosecution failed to establish that accused violated the orders passed under section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, which is punishable under section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act.

32. For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under sections 7(1) of

Essential Commodities Act. Hence, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

12

33. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of E.C. Act and he is acquitted under

Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

M.O.1. Two bronze valves shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 20th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 :N.Sreedevi, Deputy Tahsildar - None - P.W.2 :P.Chandra Rao P.W.3 : Y.Dorababu P.W.4 : V.Naga Satya Srinivasa Rao P.W.5 : B.Yeshoda, VRO P.W.6 : T.Srikrishna sravan P.W.7 : Y.Srinivasa Rao P.W.8 : G.V.V.Nageswara Rao, Inspector of Police P.W.9 : K.Chandra Sekhar, SI of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1/ ---- : Report Ex.P-2/ ---- : Attested copy of custodian receipt for seized stock Ex.P-3// ---- : Report Section 6-AS EC Ex.P-4/ ---- : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P-5/ ---- : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P-6/ ---- : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P-7/ ---- : Attested copy of mediators report Ex.P-8/ ---- : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Ex.P-9/ ---- : FIR Ex.P-10/ ---- : Rough Sketch 13

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1. Two bronze valves

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

14

APWG100004322018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

cum-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NARSAPUR.

CALENDAR CASE No.475/2018

1. Date of offence : 21.08.2018

2. Date of complaint or report : 08.09.2018

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 41-A Cr.P.C

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : 41-A Cr.P.C.

5. Date of commencement of trial : 22.11.2019

6. Date of close of trial : 13.04.2026

7. Date of sentence or Order : 20.04.2026

8. Explanation of delay if any : --- COMPLAINANT: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasapur Town Police Station in Cr.No.176/2018

ACCUSED: Appala Srinivasu, S/o Viswa Nadham, Aged 53 years, R/o D.No.9-10-18, 10th ward, Maddipatla vari street Narasapur Town.

Section of Law : U/S. 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of E.C. Act Finding of the Court : Not found guilty Sentence/Order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of E.C. Act and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. M.O.1. Two bronze valves shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.

1

APWG100002592023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION)-cum-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NARASAPUR.

PRESENT:- Smt. S.Rajyalakshmi,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class,

Narasapur.

Monday, this the 20th day of April, 2026

C.C. No.80/2026

(Old STC No.55/2023)

Between:

Donga Rama Chandra Sekhar, S/o D.V.V.Satyanarayana, Male, Aged 41 years, Business, R/o D.No.3-103, Kattavari

...... Complainant.

Meraka, Lakshmaneswaram Village, Narasapur Mandal.

And

Dodda Ravi Kumar, S/o D.Nageswara Rao, Aged 53 years, Business, R/o Flat No. 501, Sri Vinayaka Towers, 7th lane, ….… Accused. Currency Nagar, Vijayawada.

This case is coming before me on 01-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Subhash Babu and Sri Ch. Teja Chand, Advocates for Complainant and Sri B.V.S.Nagaraju and Sri A.Subrahmanyam, Advocates

for accused and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a private Complaint filed by the Complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, praying this Court to punish the accused and to award compensation.

2

2. The brief averments of the Complaint :-

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant on 22.08.2021 for his family expenses, discharging sundry debts and executed

Promissory Note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of persisting demands, the accused did not pay anything.

Subsequently, on 30.01.2023 the accused issued a cheque bearing No.005300 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Lakshmipuram Branch towards part satisfaction of the promissory note debt. The complainant presented the said cheque on 30.01.2023 through State bank of India, Seetharampuram Branch, but on 30.05.2023 dishonored the cheque returned said cheque as “Funds

Insufficient” with cheque return memo. Then complainant got issued a

Registered notice on 13.02.2023 demanding to repay the amount within 15 days of receipt of notice; the same was received by the accused and issued reply notice with false and baseless allegations. Hence, the complainant filed the private Complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. On further appearance of accused, he was examined under section 251

Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The complainant as P.W.1 and produced Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 documents.

Ex.P1 is the original promissory note, dt.22.08.2021. Ex.P2 is the Original cheque. Ex.P3 is the Original Cheque return memo; dt. 31.01.2023, Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice, dt.13.02.2023. Ex.P5 is the served acknowledgment.

Ex.P6 is the Reply notice, dt. 22.02.2023. The first attestor of Ex.P1 promissory note was examined as P.W.2.

3

7. After completion of Complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed against him by the complainant witnesses, having understood the same, he denied and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on his behalf.

8. Heard the counsel for complainant as well as defence.

9. The contention of the complainant is that the accused has approached the complainant to borrow an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for his necessities and executed a promissory note in his favour on 22.08.2021. On 30.01.2023, the accused issued cheque bearing No.005300 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Lakshmipuram Branch. When the complainant has presented the said cheque for collection through his banker State Bank of India,

Seetharampuram branch for collection the above said cheque in turn was sent for collection but the cheque was dishonored with an endorsement “Funds

Insufficient”. Hence the complainant filed this present case having left with no other way to have his debt satisfied.

10. The defence counsel argued that the accused never received any consideration from the complainant in the presence of attestors and scribe and never executed any promissory note in favour of complainant and filed the present case against the accused at the instance of one Mahadeva

Satyanarayana and Mahadeva Neelima. Therefore, the accused pray the court to dismiss the complaint.

11. In support of his contention relied upon the judgments i.e.,

i) In Rekha Sharad Ushir V. Saptashrungi Mahil Nagari Sahkari Patsana Ltd, ii) In M/s. Lohiya Industries v. M/s. S.S.Industries Enterprises Ltd., iii) In Poola Dasari naganna V. Khatravath Hussainamma, iv) In N.Prem Chander, Hyd v. Myakala Shiva Prakash.

4

v) In M.Nagesh v. State of A.P., vi) In Birakati Mohan rao v. Kandregual Hima Prasad, vii) In G.Alwal Reddy v. State of Telengana viii) In K.Subramani v. K.Damodara Naidu,AIR 2015 SC( CRI) 333,

12. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the Complainant proved that the accused has issued the

cheque bearing No. 005300, dated 30.01.2023 for Rs.5,00,000/- to discharge

his liability in which, on presentation it was dishonored due to funds

insufficient and accused also not complied the legal notice which was

issued by the Complainant, thereby committed an offence punishable

under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ?

POINT : 13.

It is undoubtedly true that a case for the commission of the offence punishable U/sec. 138 of NI Act, can be tried summarily. However, there is no exception for complainant regarding degrees of burden of proof and alike in all other criminal cases, he has to prove his case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. For which, he can avail benefit of certain presumptions which were incorporated by legislature with an object to improve the credibility of negotiable instruments in commercial transactions and the reverse burden is fixed upon accused to dispel the presumptions drawn in favour of complainant

U/secs.118 and 139 of NI Act. Considering the nature of offence on hand, the initial burden always rest upon complainant to prove that Ex.P2 cheque had been issued by accused.

14. In order to discharge his burden, the complainant examined his own self as PW.1 on his affidavit wherein he deposed that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on 22.08.2021 for his family expenses and on the even date of those money transaction, executed demand promissory note under Ex.P1 in his 5 favour agreeing that he would repay the borrowed amount along with interest @ 18 % p.a. Inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused did not pay the amount. Subsequently, on 30.01.2023 the accused issued a

Ex.P2 cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank, Lakshmipuram Branch.

PW.1 presented cheque before his banker State Bank of India,

Seetharampuram, but returned the cheque due to funds insufficient as Ex.P3 on 31.01.2023. Subsequently, he caused a statutory notice under Ex.P4 on 13.02.2023 requesting the accused to arrange the amount for payment of which he had issued Ex.P2 cheque. Said notice was received by the accused as Ex.P5 served postal cover on 15.02.2023 and issued reply notice on 22.02.2023 as

Ex.P6.

15. During the cross-examination of P.W.1 stated that he is engaged in prawn culture/business but has not filed any documentary proof to substantiate it, though he claims the income is reflected in his income tax returns. P.W.1 further deposed that he paid Rs.6,00,000 in cash to the accused from his business income, despite knowing legal restrictions on cash transactions above

Rs.20,000, and denied that this affects the maintainability of the case. P.W.1 admitted limited knowledge about the accused’s residence and details of Ex.P1, including its attestors and scribe. P.W.1 acknowledged a pending civil suit filed by the accused disputing the enforceability of the alleged debt and admitted receiving and replying to legal notices. P.W.1 further stated his monthly expenses and financial commitments but conceded he has no documentary proof of having Rs.6,00,000 at the time of the transaction, though he claims to have shown it in income tax returns and can produce records. P.W.1 denied suggestions that he lacks financial capacity, that the debt is not legally enforceable or that the documents were not executed by the accused and asserted prior acquaintance with the accused in connection with business dealings, while denying that the case was filed falsely or at the instance of others.

6

16. In order to discharge his burden, the complainant examined his own self as PW.1 and existence of Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability. The complainant’s case is that the accused borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- on 22.08.2021 for his family expenses, discharge of debts and business investment. This fact is clearly pleaded in the complaint and reiterated on oath by PW.1. The evidence of

PW.1 remained consistent and unshaken in cross-examination. To substantiate the loan transaction, the complainant produced Ex.P1-Promissory Note dated 22.08.2021. The execution of Ex.P1 is supported by the evidence of PW.2, the first attestor, who categorically deposed about the presence of the accused, passing of consideration and signing of the document by the accused. PW.1 deposed that towards repayment of the said debt, the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque dated 30.01.2023. The cheque was presented within their validity period and was returned unpaid for “Funds Insufficient”, as evidenced by Ex.P3.

17. Once issuance and dishonor of the cheque is proved, presumptions under

Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued for consideration and towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The accused failed to rebut the said presumptions by any probable defence and a bare denial of execution of the promissory note and cheque and an allegation of misuse of blank signed instruments. However, the accused failed to produce any documentary evidence, lodge any complaint regarding misuse, or seek expert opinion on the disputed signatures. Mere denial without supporting material does not rebut the statutory presumptions. Though, the accused questioned the financial capacity of the complainant, the complainant explained his source of income through agriculture and business. In the absence of serious doubt created by the accused, the complainant is not required to prove financial capacity once statutory presumption arises. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on record, in the absence of any probable defence rebutting the statutory presumptions, this Court holds that the 7 complainant has successfully established the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability against the accused.

18. Once execution of cheque is admitted or proved, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise in favour of the complainant. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441,

held:“The presumption mandated by Section 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability.”

19. To prove the issuance of cheque towards discharge of debt and dishonor

PW.1 deposed that towards legally enforceable debt arising under Ex.P1 promissory note, the accused issued Ex.P2 chequebearing No.005300 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Lakshmipuram Branch.

The cheque was presented within his validity period and was returned unpaid with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”, as evidenced by Ex.P4, the accused did not dispute that the cheque belong to his account his denial of signature is a bald denial unsupported by any expert evidence.

20. The Hon’ble Supreme court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4

SCC 197, it was held that even a signed cheque voluntarily handed over attracts the presumption under Section 139. Hence, this court holds that the cheque was issued towards discharge of liability and were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.

21. Now coming to the compliance of mandatory provisions of sec.138 of NI

Act Service of legal notice. The complainant issued statutory notice under Ex.P4

dated 13.02.2023 to the accused within the prescribed time, demanding payment

of the cheque amount. Ex.P5 served postal acknowledgment shows that the notice was served to the accused on 15.02.2023 and issued reply notice with false and baseless allegations on 22.02.2023 as Ex.P6. Ex.P6 shows that the accused has taken a bald and evasive defence by denying the loan transaction 8 and execution of Ex.P1 promissory note. However, the reply notice does not contain any specific or plausible explanation as how the Ex.P2 cheque came into the possession of the P.W.1, whether the Ex.P2 cheque was stolen or misuse, whether any complaint or legal action was initiated by the accused regarding the allegedly misused. The reply notice is general in nature and does not mentioned the reasons.

22. In C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed (2007) 6 SCC 555, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such return amounts to deemed service and

the drawer cannot escape liability by deliberately avoiding notice. Hence, statutory requirement under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is duly complied with.

23. Coming to the strength of defense set up by accused, when the witness denied the suggestion about misusing of blank signed cheque said to have been secured from accused, it is obligation of the accused to prove the probabilities of such suggestion. The defence of the accused is a denial of execution of Ex.P1 promissory note and Ex.P2 cheque, coupled with an allegation that blank signed instruments were misused in collusion with third parties. However, the accused failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the said plea. No complaint was lodged alleging misuse of cheque, nor were any steps taken to send the disputed cheque or signatures for expert opinion. Mere denial and bald allegations, without supporting material, do not constitute a probable defence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

24. In Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that the accused must raise a probable defence supported by cogent evidence and mere denial is insufficient. Further, in Kumar Exports v.

Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, it was held that presumptions cannot be 9 rebutted by a mere plausible explanation without proof. Hence, the defence set up by the accused is untenable and liable to be rejected.

25. The judgments relied upon by the defence are fact specific and distinguishable as the relate to cases, where the complainant failed to prove the transaction or the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption. In the present case, the complainant has proved all foundational facts and the accused has failed to rebut the presumptions under section 118 and 139 of

Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, the citations filed by the defence are in applicable. A precedent is an authority for what its decide and can’t be applied in the absence of factual similarity.

26. On overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, this

Court finds that the testimony of PW.1 is consistent and duly corroborated by

Exs.P1 to P6 and the evidence of PW.2, the first attestor of the promissory note.

The defence version is unsupported by any documentary or expert evidence and rests only on bare denial. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remain unrebutted. In Hiten P. Dalal v.

Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once foundational facts are proved, the Court is bound to draw the statutory presumptions. The accused failed to raise any probable defence so as to create doubt about the complainant’s case. Therefore, the evidence of in cross examination supports under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the accused brings convincing rebuttal. Although, there are minor inconsistencies, the core transaction is supported by the documentary evidence and statutory presumption, which the accused failed to rebut. Accordingly, the evidence on record, taken as a whole, clearly establishes the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act stands un-rebutted. Accordingly, the point is answered.

10

27. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, he is convicted for the same under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

Accused is reported that he is having wife, who is bed ridden and he is having old aged ailments, having children and I am the only bread winner of the family and prays the Court to take lenient view while imposing the sentence. The object of incorporation of chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act to create trust and efficacy in cheque transactions. Therefore, accused is not entitled any benevolent provisions U/sec.3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and Sec.360 of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the accused shall sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment of Six (6) Months and shall pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant under section 357(2) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for another Three (3) Months.

Accused is not in judicial custody during the course of trial. Therefore, no need to pass order U/sec.428 Cr.P.C.

Accused is informed about his right to free legal aid and to prefer an appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble Appellate Court.

The copy of Judgment is given to the accused forthwith on free of cost and obtained acknowledgment.

11

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

P.W.1 : Donga Rama Chandra Sekhar

P.W.2 : Chintapalli Chinta Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P-1/22.08.2021: Original Promissory Note for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- executed by Accused in favour of Complainant.

Ex.P-2/30.01.2023: Original cheque, bearing No.005300 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Lakshmipuram Branch

Ex.P-3/31.01.2023: original cheque return memo

Ex.P-4/13.02.2023: Office Copy of legal notice

Ex.P-5/15.02.2023:Served acknowledgment

Ex.P-6/22.02.2023:Reply Notice

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

12

APWG100002592023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION)-cum-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NARSAPUR.

CC. No.80 of 2026

(Old STC No.55/2023)

Date of offence:31.01.2023

Date of complaint:24.03.2023

Date of cognizance taken:01.05.2023

Date of apprehension of accused:--

Date when accused was released :-- on bail

Date of commencement of trial:03.01.2024

Date of close of trial:01.04.2026

Date of Judgment:20.04.2026

Complainant:Donga Rama Chandra Sekhar, S/o D.V.V.Satyanarayana, Male, Aged 41 years, Business, R/o D.No.3-103, Kattavari Meraka, Lakshmaneswaram Village, Narasapur Mandal.

Name of Husband/ AgeReligiVillageMandal/ Occupation AccusedonDistrict father’s name

Dodda Ravi S/o 53 --R/o Flat No. 501, Sri Business Kumar D.NageswyearVinayaka Towers, 7th ara Rao,s,lane, Currency 13

Nagar, Vijayawada

Nature of offence: Dishonor of Cheque

Section of Law:U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, he is convicted for the same under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the accused shall sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment of Six (6) Months and shall pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant under section 357(2) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for another Three (3) Months.

Accused is not in judicial custody during the course of trial. Therefore, no need to pass order U/sec.428 Cr.P.C.

Accused is informed about his right to free legal aid and to prefer an appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble Appellate Court.

The copy of Judgment is given to the accused forthwith on free of cost and obtained acknowledgment.

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

APWG100002462022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION)-cum-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NARSAPUR.

PRESENT:- Smt. S. Rajyalakshmi,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Narsapur.

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No.154/2022

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogalthur Police Station In Cr.No.167/2022 ……. Complainant

And

Veeravalli Satyanarayana, S/o late Sitharamayya, Aged 50 years, R/o Komatithppa Village, Mogalthur Mandal. ……. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 29-04-2026 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri B.Krishna, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogalthur Police

Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.167/2022 for the offence under Sections 506(ii), 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The factual matrix of the present case as reflected out from the charge sheet is as follows:

2

The L.W.1-Veeravalli Satyavathi is resident of Komatithippa village,

Mogalthur Mandal. She and the accused have Ac.0.14 cents of joint house site, but the accused started construction of house in the said site without deliver to her share. On 7.3.2022 at about 04.00 P.M., she questioned about the accused acts, then the accused abused her with utmost vulgar language to insult her modesty and threatened her on point of death by armed with knife roused upon her. On 08-03-2022 L.W.1 lodged report before Mogalthur Police station. Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.7-U.Rajendra, Asst., Sub-

Inspector of Police registered the case in Cr.No.167/2022 for the offence under Sections 506, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. During the course of investigation, L.W.7- Asst., Sub-Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, prepared rough sketch. Later, L.W.8-R. Mallikharjuna Reddy,

Sub-Inspector of Police took up investigation and issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

4. The Cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 506 and 509

Indian Penal Code against the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

6. The accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C charges has been framed under sections 506, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 marked. The Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.2-Kavuru Chandrakala. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence was closed.

3

8. The accused was examined were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence and no documents was marked.

9. Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned defence counsel.

10. Perused the entire material available on record.

11. Now the points that arises for determination are as follows:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused

for the offence punishable under sections 506, 509 Indian Penal

Code, 1860 beyond reasonable doubt?

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. PW.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1, P.W.3 to P.W.5 are the independent witnesses. P.W.6 and

P.W.7 are the investigation Officers. Ex.P1 is the Police Report. Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 are the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 and P.W.4, Ex.P4 is the

FIR, Ex.P5 is the Rough Sketch.

12. The Stand of accused is of total denial. No oral evidence was adduced on his behalf.

13. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of

P.W.1 to 3 clinchingly establishes that the accused abused her with utmost vulgar language to insult her modesty and threatened her on point of death by armed with knife roused upon her. That the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly proves about the acts committed by the accused against

P.Ws.1 to 3 thus he is liable to be convicted under the leveled offence punishable under Sections 506, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

14. Au contraire, the learned counsel for accused vehemently contended that the versions spoken by P.W.1 to P.W.3 and this contradictory versions makes the case of prosecution as highly improbable. He further submitted that 4 due to civil disputes, P.W.1 filed the present false case against the accused, the entire case of prosecution has to be looked with suspicion and all the accused are entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.

15. In view of rival contentions, entire evidence is perused and this court has given thoughtful consideration to the contention of both sides.

16. POINT :

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 506, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to 6. Out of which PW.1 is the defacto complainant, who set the criminal law into motion by giving the statement to the Police. Her evidence goes to show that Ac.0.14 cents of land in Komatithippa village and it belongs to her father-in-law. Out of Ac.0.14 cents, Ac.0.07 cents to the accused and Ac.0.07 cents to her husband. Her husband died 8 years back. The accused constructing house in her Ac.0.07 cents. On that he along with L.W.3 went to the accused and asked about the construction. On that the accused replied that they have no connection with the Ac.0.07 cents of land and accused outraged on her daughter/L.W.3. During the cross examination of P.W.1 admitted lack of memory regarding key details such as the date of the incident and when she lodged the police report. She stated that she is currently residing in Visveswarayapuram, Malikpuram Mandal and confirmed certain family residence details, including that some relatives have been living in different villages for years and that they never resided in Komatithippa village.

She knowledged that her father-in-law was granted patta land in Komatithippa

North but expressed ignorance about financial transactions related to it, the land’s exact boundaries and tax receipts. She admitted that no partition suit was filed though she later admitted that the land had been partitioned with fixed boundaries and that the accused was constructing a house on a share of the land. PW.1 described the living arrangements among family members and stated that the accused lived in a shed not purchased by him. She said it occurred at noon when she arrived with LW.3 and her son-in-law from East 5

Godavari. She admitted that disputes led to intervention by elders, after which she was sent to file a police complaint. She also acknowledged the existence of prior cases involving the parties, including complaints filed at Mogaltur

Police Station and a petition submitted at the Collector’s office.

17. P.W.2-Rayudu Padma deposed that P.W.1 and accused are having

Ac.0.14 cents of house site in Komatithippa village of Mogalthur Mandal. The accused did not deliver the house site belongs to her mother/P.W.1 and he started construction of a house. On 07.03.2022 at 04.00 P.M., when P.W.1 asked the accused to show the site and thereby the accused abused and insulted P.W.1 and threatened to kill P.W.1 with a knife. Thereafter P.W.1 ran away from that place and informed the matter to the village elders. But the accused did not listen the words of the village elders. During the cross examination of P.W.2 admitted that they currently have no documentary proof of the schedule property but stated that documents exist in her grandfather’s name and could be produced. She knowledge that any claim over the property should be pursued through a partition suit and confirmed that the property, including a tiled house, remains un-partitioned. P.W.2 described her residence and family members’ locations and admitted longstanding disputes with the accused, including civil litigation in Bhimavaram. P.W.2 admitted that her mother lodged the complaint due to not receiving benefits from the land and that there have been multiple disputes, including incidents involving coconut harvesting and counter-cases.

18. P.W.3-S.Mohana Rao deposed that on 7.2.2022 in between 10.00 to 11.00 a.m., the accused is trying to construct a house in the site of P.W.1 on that P.W.1 and her children obstructed the accused for not constructing the house. On that the accused scolded P.W.1 and her children in filthy language and outrage her and the same was placed before him by P.W.1 at about 03.00

P.m., he called the accused, the accused came to the scene of offence, while he tried to pacify the matter, but the accused did not hear her words and 6 outrage P.W.1 and her children before him. During the cross examination of

P.W.3 stated that he is a native of Perupalem village but settled in

Komatithippa village, owning Ac. 8.00 cents of land and confirmed that the accused and his family are also residents of the same village. P.W.3 admitted that most lands in Komatithippa are government-assigned lands and detailed landholdings of his family members, including his wife, brothers and daughter- in-law. P.W.3 knowledge certain land transactions, including purchases by his family and others and provided partial details of survey numbers and boundaries, though he could not recall some specifics. P.W.3 denied ever taking lease of the accused’s father’s land and clearly admitted that he did not witness the incident in question. P.W.3 further acknowledge prior civil disputes including a suit filed by the accused in Bhimavaram court, but expressed lack of knowledge about its current status.

19. P.W.4 and 5 did not support the prosecution case, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor has declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court. In the cross examination P.W.4 and 5 denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 i.e. statements of P.W.4 and 5 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

20. P.W.6-U.Rajendra, ASI of Police deposed that on 8.3.2022 at about 02.00 P.M., P.W.1 came to the police station and gave a report. Basing on that he registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 167/2022 under section 509, 506(ii) IPC. P.W.8 visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch. During the cross examination of P.W.6 stated that the complaint was submitted by PW.1 on 08.03.2022 at about 2:00 PM, she alone came to the police station with a written report. P.W.6 admitted that he did not inquire into the delay in lodging the complaint. P.W.6 deposed that he examined LW.1 to LW.5 at the scene of offence around 3:00 PM on the same day, though he knowledge that the report was not given immediately after the incident. P.W.6 further admitted 7 that he did not obtain signatures of LWs 1 to 5 and that PW.1 had not initially mentioned LWs 2 to 5 in her statement, but they were later secured and examined at the scene. P.W.6 stated that LW.4 (PW.3) was not shown in the rough sketch and admitted that the alleged weapon (knife) mentioned in the complaint was not seized. P.W.6 also came to know that certain names were not mentioned in Ex.P1 and that he did not verify PW.1’s Aadhaar card or inquire into any civil disputes between the parties.

21. P.W.7-R.Mallikharjuna Reddy, SI of Police deposed that on 9.3.2022 he received CD file from P.W.6 and verified the investigation done by the PW.6 and found it on correct lines. He again visited the scene of offence and there he examined L.W.1 to L.W.6 on collaboration of previous 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of them. On 10.3.2022 the accused came to the police station and on identification, he served 41-A Cr.P.C., notice to the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. During the cross examination of P.W.7 admitted that the charge sheet does not bear the date beneath his signature and stated that he had visited the house of PW.1 at

Komatithippa village during the course of enquiry.

22. Upon careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that the evidence of P.W.1 being the de facto complainant suffers from material inconsistencies and lack of clarity regarding crucial aspects such as the date and time of the incident. P.W.1 admission during cross-examination reveal uncertainty about material facts and existence of prior civil disputes relating to the property in question. The testimony of P.W.2 though supportive of P.W.1 also indicates the existence of longstanding civil disputes between the parties and absence of documentary proof regarding possession and ownership of the disputed property. P.W.3 cited as an independent witness has categorically admitted that he did not witness the incident. Further, P.W.4 and P.W.5 who were projected as independent witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

8

23. Another important aspect is that the investigation also suffers from serious lapses. The alleged weapon (knife) was not seized. There is unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. Material witnesses were not initially mentioned in the complaint. No effort was made to verify the civil disputes between the parties, which appear to be the root cause of the incident. In the present case, inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses and the occurrence and the existence of prior civil disputes create a serious doubt about the prosecution version. Therefore, this Court is of the consideration opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under section 506, 509 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

24. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 506, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. No property is produced in this case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : Veeravalli Satyavathi

P.W.2 : Rayudu Padma

P.W.3 : Sathineni Mohana Rao

P.W.4 : Molleti Naga Muni

P.W.5 : K.Padmarao

P.W.6 : U.Rajendra, Asst., Sub- Inspector of Police

P.W.7 : R. Mallikharjuna Reddy, SI of Police 9

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1/08.03.2022 : Report

Ex.P-2/ --- : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4

Ex.P-3/ --- : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5

Ex.P-4/08.03.2022 : Original FIR

Ex.P-5/ --- : Rough Sketch

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

10

APWG100002462022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

cum-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NARSAPUR.

CALENDAR CASE No.154/2022

1. Date of offence :07.03.2022

2. Date of complaint or report:08.03.2022

3. Date of apprehension of Accused:41-A Cr.P.C

4. Date of release on bail of Accused:41-A Cr.P.C.

5. Date of commencement of trial:07.08.2023

6. Date of close of trial:29.04.2026

7. Date of sentence or Order:30.04.2026

8. Explanation of delay if any:--- COMPLAINANT:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogalthur Police Station In Cr.No.167/2022.

ACCUSED: Veeravalli Satyanarayana, S/o late Sitharamayya, Aged 50 years, R/o Komatithppa Village, Mogalthur Mandal.

Section of Law : U/S. 506, 509 Indian Penal Code Finding of the Court :Not found guilty Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 506, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. No property is produced in this case.

Seal: Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.

APWG100006372021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION)-cum-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NARSAPUR.

PRESENT:- Smt. S. Rajyalakshmi,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class,

Narsapur.

Monday, the 13th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.294/2021

Between :

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogalthur Police Station in Cr.No.61/2021 ……. Complainant

And

Podapati Sarath Kumar alias Sarath,S/o Jyothi Arun Kumar, Aged 38 years, R/o Venkatarao thota, H/o Sitharampuram South Village, Narasapur Mandal.

……. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 06-04-2026 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri

G.P.Sudarsana Rao, Advocate for Accused and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The state represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogalthur Police

Station filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.61/2021 for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:

2

On 4-2-2021 at 10-01 pm L.W.1-Desabathula Santhi received phone call from a person through Ph.No. 9866040402 to her mobile introduced himself as

PA to MLA, Narsapur and she is making job trials, there is new hospital is going to be started and her name is in the first list of that requirement and thereby got her in his belief informing her to come over to MLA Office by next morning so that he would provide her job. Believing him she went to MLA

Office on 5-2-2021 morning and when enquired it is learnt that it is a fake call and the accused impersonated as PA to MLA. She learnt the name of the accused as Podapati Sarath Kumar @ Sarath, S/o Jyothi Arun Kumar. The

L.W.1 went to police station and lodged a report. Basing on the report of

L.W.1, L.W.6-K. Nageswara Rao, Asst., Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case in Cr.No.61/2021 under section 419, 420 IPC.

3. During the course of investigation, L.W.7-Asst., Sub-inspector of Police visited the scene of offences, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Later, L.W.7-S.Priya Kumar took up investigation and found it correct lines, later he issued section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4. The Court took cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420 IPC against the accused.

5. On appearance of accused copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

6. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., Charges has been framed against accused for the offences under sections 419 r/w section 511 IPC, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

7. To substantiate its case, Prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 documents. The Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.4-Desabathula Sree Ramulu.

8. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on his behalf.

9. Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned defence counsel.

10. Perused the entire material available on record.

11. Now the point that arise for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of Accused for the offence punishable under section 419 r/w section 511 IPC ?

12.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.6 out of seven witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. PW1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the parents of P.W.1, P.W.4 is independent witness, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the investigating officers. Ex.P1 is the Report, Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 are the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.2 to P.W.4.

Ex.P5 is the FIR in Cr.No. 61/2021, Ex.P6 is the Rough Sketch.

13. The Stand of Accused is of total denial.

14. 13. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, 5 and 6 clinchingly establishes that on 4-2-2021 at 10-01 pm made a phone call to P.W.1 made believed her that he is P.A to MLA,

Narsapur and informing new hospital is going to be started and her name is in the first list of that requirement, informing her to come to next day morning to 4

MLA Office. On 5-2-2021 morning when she went to MLA Office learnt that accused impersonated himself as P.A to MLA, Narsapur. That the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly proves about the acts committed by the accused against P.W.1 and 5, 6 thus he is liable to be convicted under the leveled offence punishable under Sections 419 rw 511 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

15. Au contraire, the learned counsel for accused vehemently contended that the versions spoken by P.W.1 and her contradictory version makes the case of prosecution as highly improbable. He further submitted that due to the disputes between P.W.1 and her family, P.W.1 foisted false case against the accused. The accused is standing for MPTC Sarpanch and MPP Elections as he reserved SC community, for avoiding they foisted a false case against the accused, the entire case of prosecution has to be looked with suspicion and all the accused are entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.

16. In view of rival contentions, entire evidence is perused and this court has given thoughtful consideration to the contention of both sides.

17. POINT :

In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under sections 419 rw 511 Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:

(i) The accused impersonated a public servant (P.A. to MLA) to deceive the victim (P.W.1).

(ii) The accused had the intention to commit the offence of cheating by personation

18. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 419 rw 511 Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to 6. Out of which PW.1 is the defacto complainant, who set the criminal 5 law into motion by giving the statement to the Police. Her evidence goes to show that on 04.02.2021 at 10.00 pm, she received a phone call from 9866040402 to her mobile number i.e. 7330963367, who introduced himself as a P.A to MLA Narsapuram and asked her about her job trials. In Narsapuram

Government Hospital was newly constructing and informed that her name was in first in job list and he said the will provide her job and asked her to come to

Narsapuram MLA office at 11.00 am. Believing that on 05.02.2021, she went to the office of P.A of MLA and enquired with P.A that he received a phone call that she a job in Government Hospital and he replied that it is a fake phone call. On her enquiry, she came to know that the person who called to her is not a P.A of MLA. By impersonating as P.A of MLA, the accused of you made a phone call to her. The MLA of P.A enquired about the accused and he came to know that he is Podapati Sarath Kumar and resident of

Seetarampuram village, Narasapuram Mandal. On that she gave report to the police.

19. During the cross examination of P.W1 stated that she is educated upto

B.Sc D.Ed and resides at Ramanapalem Bandarupeta has no medical background, did not apply for any government hospital post and is unaware fo any list or post mention therein as well as the accused’s constituency or details of any hospital or village where her name was allegedly included; she affirmed that no one demanded or received money from her. But on 04.2.2021 at about 10.00 P.M., she received a phone call from specific number and though she did not earlier tell police that it was from an MLA’s PA from Narasapr, she went to the MLA office where one Sharath Kumar reprimanded her for responding to a fake call and she admitted giving a CD to police, while maintaining that she does not know the accused or his occupation and has no relationship with him.

P.W.1 denied the suggestions that the originated from her father using the accused’s number despite acknowledging that her father and the accused are 6 colleagues, admitted strained relations with her father and that her father and grandfather are witnesses in the case. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that due to such grudges she falsely implicated the accused or is deposing falsely with no reexamination conducted.

20. P.W.2 to 4 did not support the prosecution case, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor has declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court. In the cross examination P.W.3 and 4 denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 i.e. statements of P.W.2 to 4 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

21. P.W.5-S.Priya Kumar, SI of Police deposed that on 14.2.2021 he received CD file from L.W.6 and verified the investigation and found it on correct lines and on 8.3.2021, he issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to you. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. During the cross examination of P.W.5 admitted that he did not conduct any further examination in this case and did not examined P.W.1 about her education qualifications.

P.W.5 did not enquire that where the P.w.1 was staying at the time of investigation. P.W.5 did not mentioned the name of PA, it is mentioned as

MLA and MLA PA. P.W.5 denied the suggestion that due to the disputes between the P.W.1 and her family, P.W.1 foisted false case against the accused.

22. P.W.6-Nageswara Rao, SI of Police deposed that on 11.2.2020 at about 06.30 P.M., P.W.1 came to the police station and lodged a report. Basing on that he registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 61/2021 under section 419, 420 IPC. He examined P.W.1 is the police station and recorded her statement.

On 12.2.2020 he went to the scene of offence at outskirts of

Bandaruvaripalem, Rmanapalem village i.e., house of the complainant and there he prepared rough sketch and examined L.W.2 to L.W.5 and recorded 7 their statements. During the cross examination of P.W.6 admitted that there is a delay in registering the FIR in this case. P.W.6 admitted that investigation does not disclose the name of the MLA and name of the PA of MLA. P.W.6 did not mention the education qualification of the P.W.1. P.W.6 denied the suggestion that due to the disputes between P.W.1 and her family, P.W.1 foisted false case against the accused. P.W.6 further denied the suggestion that the accused is standing for MPTC Sarpanch and MPP Elctions as he reserved SC community, for avoiding they foisted a false case against the accused. P.W.6 further denied the suggestion that he did not went to the scene of offene and did not prepare rough sketch of the scene of offence and made table investigation in the police station.

23. P.W.1 being the defacto complainant is the witness of the prosecution.

According to her, she received a phone call from an unknown person who introduced himself as P.A. to MLA and induced her to come to the MLA office on the pretext of providing a job. P.W.1 in her cross-examination admitted that she did not apply for any job in the said hospital, did not know the nature of the post and no money was demanded or paid by her to any person. Further,

P.W.1 admitted that she did not state before the police that the caller specifically represented himself as P.A. to MLA, which constitutes a material omission affecting the core of the prosecution case.

24. P.W.2 to P.W.4 who are cited as material witnesses did not support the prosecution case and were declared resile by the prosecution. Their evidence does not corroborate the version of P.W.1 in any material particulars. It is a settled principle that when material witnesses turn hostile, the prosecution case becomes doubtful unless supported by other reliable evidence.

25. P.W.5 and P.W.6 being the investigating Officers. They admitted that no enquiry was made to ascertain the ownership of the alleged phone number, no 8 call data records were collected, and no independent evidence was secured to establish that the accused made the alleged call. Further, the investigation does not disclose the name of the MLA or the alleged P.A., which creates doubt about the very basic facts of the prosecution case. The alleged CD said to have been produced was also not proved in accordance with law. It is pertinent to note that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, which further casts doubt on the prosecution version. Moreover, there is no evidence to establish that the accused had any dishonest intention or that he attempted to cheat the complainant. Mere allegation of a phone call, in the absence of corroborative evidence, is insufficient for criminal liability. Thus, the evidence on record suffers from material contradictions, lack of corroboration, a improper investigation done by the investigation officers. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not reliable to convict the accused in a criminal case, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt.

26. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 419 r/w section 511 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the

Cr.P.C. No property is produced in this case.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III on computer, pronounced and corrected by me in open Court, on this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : Desabathula Santhi - None -

P.W.2 : Desabathula Mani

P.W.3 : Desabathula Narasimha Rao

P.W.4 : Metti Peddiraju

P.W.5 : S.Priya Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police

P.W.6 : Nageswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1/ --- : Report Ex.P-2/ --- : 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P-3/ --- : 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P-4/ --- : 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P-5/ --- : FIR in Cr.No.61/2021 Ex.P-6/ --- : Rough Sketch

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- N I L -.

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

10

APWG100006372021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

cum-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NARSAPUR.

CALENDAR CASE NO.294/2021

1. Date of offence : 04.02.2021

2. Date of complaint or report : 05.02.2021

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 41-A Cr.P.C

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : 41-A Cr.P.C.

5. Date of commencement of trial : 08.12.2023

6. Date of close of trial : 06.04.2026

7. Date of sentence or Order : 13.04.2026

8. Explanation of delay if any : --- COMPLAINANT: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogalthur Police Station in Cr.No.61/2021 ACCUSED: Podapati Sarath Kumar alias Sarath,S/o Jyothi Arun Kumar, Aged 38 years, R/o Venkatarao thota, H/o Sitharampuram South Village, Narasapur Mandal.

Section of Law : U/S. 419 r/w section 511 Indian Penal Code Finding of the Court : Not found guilty Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 419 r/w section 511 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. No property is produced in this case.

Seal: Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.

APWG100008552022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

cum-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NARSAPUR.

PRESENT:- Smt. S. Rajyalakshmi,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Narsapur.

Wednesday, this the 8th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No.460/2022

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogalthur Police Station In Cr.No.311/2022. ……. Complainant

And

Veeravalli Satyanarayana, S/o Mutyalu, Aged 42 years, Chinna gollagudem H/o Mogalthur Mandal. ……. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 01-04-2026 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Smt K.Ch.Padmaja, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogalthur Police

Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.311/2022 for the offence under Sections 506, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2

2. The factual matrix of the present case as reflected out from the charge sheet is as follows:

The L.W.1. Soma Sri Lakshmi is resident of Chinna Gollagudem Village.

There was a 4 feet walking for the L.W.1 and towards the east there was the accused house and her father showed courtesy on them and gave the walking way to them and now her father was ill and they has taken lenious and gave the drain route towards the house of the L.W.1 and the L.W.1 has objected that they were not having any authority on that way and they both went to courts and finally the court has verified all documents and said that the accused was not having any land and sent the notices to accused by the court and due to that the accused was using filthy language towards the L.W.1. On 24-05-2022 L.W.1 lodged report before Mogalthur Police station. Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.7-R. Mallikharjuna Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case in Cr.No.311/2022 for the offence under Sections 506, 509

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. During the course of investigation, L.W.7-Sub-Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, prepared rough sketch. Later, he issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused.

After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

4. The Cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 506 and 509

Indian Penal Code against the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

6. The accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C charges has been framed under sections 352, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 marked. The Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.3-Sanganti Narasimha Rao. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence was closed.

8. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence and no documents was marked.

9. Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned defence counsel.

10. Perused the entire material available on record.

11. Now the points that arises for determination are as follows:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused

for the offence punishable under sections 352, 509 Indian Penal

Code, 1860 beyond reasonable doubt?

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. PW.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 to

P.W.5 are the independent witnesses. P.W.6 is the investigation Officer. Ex.P1 is the Police Report. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 and P.W.3, Ex.P4 is the FIR, Ex.P5 is the Rough Sketch.

12. The Stand of accused is of total denial. No oral evidence was adduced on his behalf.

13. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of

P.W.1, 2, 5 and 6 clinchingly establishes that the accused criminal force into the house site of P.W.1 and that accused by walking and gave drain route and abused the P.W.1 in filthy language and insulted her. That the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly proves about the acts committed by the accused against P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 thus he is liable to be convicted under the 4 leveled offence punishable under Sections 352, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

14. Au contraire, the learned counsel for accused vehemently contended that the versions spoken by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 and this contradictory versions makes the case of prosecution as highly improbable. He further submitted that P.W.1 filed civil suit in O.S.No. 116/2023 against the accused and filed the present false case against the accused, the entire case of prosecution has to be looked with suspicion and all the accused are entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.

15. In view of rival contentions, entire evidence is perused and this court has given thoughtful consideration to the contention of both sides.

16. POINT :

In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under sections 352, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:

i) The accused used assault or criminal force against the P.W.1.

ii) The accused uttered words, made gestures, or committed an act.

17. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 352, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to 6. Out of which PW.1 is the defacto complainant, who set the criminal law into motion by giving the statement to the Police. Her evidence goes to show that she is resident of Mogaltur in her house door bearing No. 8-10/3 in

Chinnagollagudem village of Mogaltur Mandal. She has 4 feet road to her house and the accused has no right to use the said road. Her father granted right to use the said road to the accused of you on humanitarian ground.

When her father got paralysis, taking advantage of that, the accused tried to dig a drainage in the said road. On that she approached to the court. On that the Honourable court issued notice to the accused. On boring grudge against her, the accused parking his vehicles and drinking alcohol and threatened to 5 kill her and her daughter. On that she gave complaint to the police. During the cross examination of P.W.1 admitted that there is a dispute with the accused regarding a 4-feet pathway and that he has filed a civil suit in O.S. No.

116/2023 before the court and also stated that he filed an Advocate

Commissioner petition in the said suit, pursuant to which a report noted the presence of CCTV cameras. P.W.1 denied the defence suggestions that the accused obstructed his use of the pathway or consumed alcohol there, denied that LWs 2 to 6 are not his relatives and further denied that he filed the present case to harass the accused due to the civil dispute, that he would have produced CCTV footage if any act outraging modesty had occurred, that he is deposing falsely, that the accused is innocent and the case was filed to evict him, that the complaint lacks date and time due to civil disputes, and that no such incident took place and the case was falsely filed with the help of LWs 2 to 6.

18. P.W.2-Pattapu Yesu babu deposed that there is a lane between the house of P.W.1. and the accused of you and disputes are between them with regard to the said lane. The accused of you used to abuse the P.W.1 in filthy language. On one day 25.05.2022, the accused of you abused the P.W.1 in filthy language on that P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a complaint against the accused. During the cross examination of P.W.2 stated that his house is situated about 20 meters from PW.1’s house and that he works as a lorry driver, leaving at 7:00 AM and returning by 5:00 PM. P.W.2 acknowledged the existence of a lane dispute between PW.1 and the accused and that he is aware of a civil suit filed by PW.1, though he is not a witness in that case. P.W.2 denied the defence suggestions that the accused never abused PW.1 in filthy language, that no dispute existed, that he is deposing falsely to support PW.1. P.W.2 never witnessed any disputes, maintaining instead that he has seen disputes between PW.1 and the accused.

6

19. P.W.3 and 4 did not support the prosecution case, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor has declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court. In the cross examination P.W.3 and 4 denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 i.e. statements of P.W.3 and 4 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

20. P.W.5-K.Subbalakshmi deposed that there is a pathway dispute between the P.W.1 and the accused. With grudge the accused of you used to scold the P.W.1 and threatened kill the P.W.1 in drunken state. About three years back, on one day, the accused of you made galata with P.W.1 with regard to pathway dispute. On that P.W.1 went to police station and lodged a report. During the cross examination of P.W.5 stated that she did not before police that the accused came in drunken state by holding liquor bottle. She do not know whether P.W.1 filed a civil suit against the accused for the pathway.

At the request of P.W.1, she came to the court to depose her evidence and she bare her travelling expenses. P.W.5 denied the suggestion that she do not know anything about the facts of the case.

21. P.W.6- R. Mallikharjuna Reddy, SI of Police deposed that on 24.5.2022 at about 8.45 P.M., he received a written complaint from P.W.1. Basing on that he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.311/2022 under section 506, 509

IPC. On the same day, he examined L.W.1 and recorded her statement. On 25.5.2022, he visited the scene of offence i.e., house of the complainant at

Chinnagollapalem, Mogalthur and prepared rough sketch. He examined L.W.2 to L.W.6 and recorded their statements. On 26.5.2022 he issued 41-A Cr.P.C.

to the accused. On 27.5.2022, after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused. During the cross examination of P.W.6 stated that she received complaint on 24.5.2022, but the report does not contain the date. P.W.6 admitted that he did not enquire the complainant about the date and time of offence. P.W.6 further admitted that the he did not mention the time and date in his case diary. There is no CCTV camera at the 7 scene of offence. P.W.6 canot say the boundaries of the scene of offence i.e., towards East: CC road, West: Road, North: house of Veeravalli

Satyanarayana, house of complainant and Saidu Begum house, south; one

BC hostel and vacant land. P.W.6 denied the suggestion that due to the pending of the civil suit, to harass the accused, they filed false case against the accused.

22. Upon careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that the dispute between the P.W.1 and the accused is in civil in nature relating to the pathway of 4 feet. P.W.1 admitted herself in cross examination, she has filed civil suit in O.S.No.116/2023 against the accused that the existence of such civil disputes creates strong possibility of exaggeration of false implication. Though P.W.1 alleged that the accused abused her in filthy language and threatened her testimony does not clearly specify the exact date and time of the alleged incident. P.W.1 admitted that the FIR, complaint and case diary does not contain the date and time of occurrence. The evidence of

P.W.2 and P.W.5, though the supporting the version of P.W.1 does not speak about the specific incident. P.W.5 admitted that she deposed at the request of

P.W.1.

23. Another important aspect is that although there is mention of availability of CCTV cameras, no such footage has been collected or produced before this court. Non production of crucial evidence creates a reasonable doubt. In the present case, inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses and the occurrence and the existence of prior civil disputes create a serious doubt about the prosecution version. Therefore, this Court is of the consideration opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable under section 352, 509 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

24. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 352, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is acquitted under Section 8 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. No property is produced in this case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 8th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : Soma Srilakshmi

P.W.2 : Pattapu Yesubabu

P.W.3 : Pasim Srinivasu

P.W.4 : Pattapu Nagaraju

P.W.5 : K.Subbalakshmi

P.W.6 : R.Mallikharjuna Reddy, Sub- Inspector of Police

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1/24.05.2022 : Report

Ex.P-2/ --- : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

Ex.P-3/ --- : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4

Ex.P-4/24.05.2022 : Original FIR

Ex.P-5/ --- : Rough Sketch

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

9

APWG100008552022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

cum-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NARSAPUR.

CALENDAR CASE NO.460/2022

1. Date of offence :Prior to 24.5.2022

2. Date of complaint or report:24.05.2022

3. Date of apprehension of Accused:41-A Cr.P.C

4. Date of release on bail of Accused:41-A Cr.P.C.

5. Date of commencement of trial:05.11.2024

6. Date of close of trial:01.04.2026

7. Date of sentence or Order:08.04.2026

8. Explanation of delay if any:---

COMPLAINANT:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogalthur Police Station In Cr.No.311/2022.

ACCUSED:

Veeravalli Satyanarayana, S/o Mutyalu, Aged 42 years, Chinna gollagudem H/o Mogalthur Mandal. …Accused

Section of Law : U/S. 352, 509 Indian Penal Code

Finding of the Court :Not found guilty

Sentence/Order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 352, 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six 10 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. No property is produced in this case.

Seal: Sd/-S.Rajyalakshmi/-

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -

cum-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.