Smt S Sree Devi

CC.No. 439 of 20231 Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SMT. S. SREE DEVI,

SPL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES, HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

CC. No. 439 OF 2023

Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bahadurpura, Police Station.

.... Complainant.

A N D

A-1: K. Krishna, S/o. Ushaiah, Age. 43 years, Occ. GHMC Sweeper, R/o. Q.No. 146, Vambay Colony, Laxmiguda, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.

A-2: V. N. Harinath, S/o. Late V. Narsing Rao, Age. 40 years, Occ. Sanitation Field Assistant in GHMC, R/o. H.No. 18-1-103/6, Narsing Nagar, Uppuguda, Charminar, Hyderabad.

A-3: Vikas Bidla, S/o. Om Prakash, Age. 43 years, Occ. GHMC Supervisor, R/o.H.No. 23-4-678, Sulthan Shahi, Shalibanda, Hyderabad. …. Accused No.1 to 3.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Anitha Deshmukh, Learned A.P.P, for the State and of Sri. A. S. Bhaskar Giri, Advocate Counsel for Accused No.1 to 3 and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following :

CC.No. 439 of 20232 Judgment

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

1.The then Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Bahadurpura, has filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences

U/Sec. 419, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that :

i)On 31-08-2023 at 13.00 hours, received a complaint from LW1/

A. Srinivas, Sanitary Inspector/complainant stating that, he has been working in the GHMC Department for the past 19 years as a Sanitary

Inspector. For the last eight years he has been assigned to the

Bahadurpura and Doodh Bowli areas, responsible for checking and monitoring the staff to maintain sanitation in the said areas.

Additionally under his supervision, A2 and A3 are the outsourcing

employees of GHMC working as SFAs. They assist in monitoring the outsourcing labourers/sweepers. On 31-08-2023 at 12.00 hours, during his regular field inspection at the Bahadurpura area, complainant conducted a sudden check and was surprised to find no outsourcing labourers available in the filed. He tried to contact A2 and

A3 but they did not respond to his calls, which raised his suspicion.

Immediately he proceeded to the Kishanbagh area, where he found A1 who is working as Sweeper in GHMC present at Gowtham Model school, during his enquiry he discovers that A1 was in possession of a biometric machine. Investigation revealed that A2 and A3 in collusion had given the biometric machine to A1. They manipulated the

CC.No. 439 of 20233 Judgment

biometric data of other outsourcing labourers using M-Seal, to make them as present and collected Rs.500/- from each outsourcing labouers. Therefore, he earnestly request to initiate legal action against the accused who are fraudulently manipulating the biometric data of other outsourcing labourers and deceiving GHMC in accordance with the law.

ii)Basing on the above complaint PW4 registered a case in

Cr.No.226/2023 for offences U/Sec. 419, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation.

iii) During the course of investigation, PW4 examined and recorded the statement of PW1. He visited the scene of offence and secure the presence of two mediators PW2 & LW18/Mohd Ali and drafted observation panchanama and rough sketch. He secured the presence of LW2/Smt. K. Devamma, LW3/Smt. S. Padma, LW4/Smt. N.

Moglamma, LW5/Smt. D. Sakkubai, LW6/Smt. A. Devamma, LW7/

Smt. D. Swaroopa, LW8/Smt. D. Susheela, LW9/Smt. G. Nagamani,

LW10/V. Sai Kumar, LW11/Smt. K. Eshwaramma, LW12/Smt.

Yerramala Suhasini, LW13/Smt. A. Chandi, LW14/Smt. A. Yellamma,

LW15/Smt. B. Laxmi, LW16/Smt. S. Laxmi recorded their statements.

iv)On 31-08-2023 at evening hours A1 to A3 voluntarily came to police station and surrendered before PW4 and he took the custody of accused persons and on interrogation the accused voluntarily revealed

CC.No. 439 of 20234 Judgment

their identity and confessed the guilt of the offence and on that he secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW19/ and LW20 to act as panchas to record the confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to

A3, in their presence accused confessed their guilt of offence and as per the confession of the accused persons, he seized 22 manipulated fingerprints & two biometric machines from the possession of A1 in the presence of mediators i.e., PW5 and PW3. He served the Notice U/sec.

41-A Cr.P.C. to A1 to A3. As per the confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A3 and he adds the section of law U/sec. 34 IPC, section adding memo. On completion of investigation he file charge- sheet against the accused.

3.This court took the cognizance of the offences U/Sec. 419, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC against the accused No.1 to 3.

4.Copies were furnished to the Accused as laid under Section 207

Cr.P.C. Further, the Accused were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for which they denied the offence and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.The prosecution have cited (21) witnesses and got examined

PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 & Ex.P4 and MO-1 to MO-24.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating

CC.No. 439 of 20235 Judgment

evidence adduced by the prosecution against the Accused, for which the Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offences U/Sec. 419, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

9.PW1 stated that on 30.08.2023, at 12.30 Pm he went to

Kishanbagh in the course of his regular inspection. He found that no work was going on by the out-sourcing employees at Kishanbagh even though they are supposed to do work at that area. He enquired with

A1 who is also an out-sourcing employee who was present at Gautam

Model School about the absence of other out-sourcing employees. A2 and A3 are the supervisors and A1 was the labour. A1 informed that one of the accused was availing weekly off and another accused was absent on that day to attend the duty. He entertained a doubt against accused and lodged a complaint with police. As the labour were not working at Kishanbagh area even though their attendance was recorded through biometric system, he entertained a doubt and lodged

Ex.P1.

CC.No. 439 of 20236 Judgment

10.In the cross examination done on behalf of prosecution he admitted that A2 and A3 are supervisors and they will work under their supervision. It was elicited that he came to know through A1 that outsourcing labours manipulated the data which was stored in

Biometric machine by using “M-seal” to mark their attendance as “present” and collected Rs.500/- from each such employee. He also admitted that he lodged Ex.P1 by complaining that the biometric machine was manipulated.

11.In the cross examination done on behalf of accused, it was elicited that A1 was on duty on the day of his inspection and informed that A2 was availing weekly off and A3 was absent. He admitted that he did not mentioned the names of the out-sourcing employees in

ExP1. He volunteered as there are 300 out-sourcing workers, he could not remember their names. It was suggested to him that he lodged a complaint against the workers who absented from the work but not against A1 to A3, for which he denied. He admitted that in the status of sanitary inspector initially he has to take action against the labour who were absent on that day. It was also elicited that he did not filed any documents to show that he was discharging his duty on the above said date. Likewise, it was also elicited that he did not filed any document to show that he inspected other areas on that day before inspecting Kishanbagh area. It was also elicited that he did not filed the extract of the attendance register of the relevant day before this

CC.No. 439 of 20237 Judgment

court. It was also elicited that he did not give a written complaint to

Deputy Commissioner about the offence.

12.PW2 turned hostile to prosecution.

13.PW3 stated that on 31.08.2023 at 4.00 PM police called him and

LW19/Syed Shakeer Hashvi to Bahadurpura police station and they were present in front of the police station. A1 was present in the custody of police. They took him aside and asked him the reason for his presence in the custody of police. On that accused confessed that he used to collect Rs.500/- at Gautam Model School, Kishanbagh branch from the employees of that school who do not come to that school on time by helping them in obtaining biometric fingerprint even after the designated time with the help of two others. He saw A2 and

A3 also at that time and they too confessed about the offence and also confessed that they are helping A1 in obtaining the biometric fingerprint at Gautam model school, Kishanbagh. In his presence police seized 22 manipulated finger prints and 2 biometric machines under the cover of confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P3 is the said panchanama. MO-1 to MO-22 are the manipulated biometric fingerprints. MO-23 and MO-24 are the 2 biometric machines. As PW3 did not face his cross examination, despite so many chances given to him, his chief examination was eschewed from the record.

CC.No. 439 of 20238 Judgment

14.PW4 stated that on 31.08.2023 he received Ex.P1 from PW1 and registered a case in Cr.No.226/2023 U/sec. 419, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR to all concerned. He examined and recorded the statements of PW1, LW2/K. Devamma, LW3/Padma, LW4/Moglamma,

LW5/Sakkubai, LW6/Devamma, LW7/Swaroopa, LW8/Susheela,

LW9/Nagamani, LW10/Sai Kumar, LW11/Eshwaramma, LW12/Y.

Suhasini, LW13/Chandi, LW14/Yellamma, LW15/B. Laxmi and

LW16/S. Laxmi. He proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted

Ex.P5 in the presence of PW2 and LW18/Mohd Ali. On 31.08.2023 accused came to the police station voluntarily basing on the notice which was issued by him under the provisions of 41-A Cr.P.C.

He summoned PW3 and LW19/Shakeeb Hasvi and in their presence he conducted Ex.P3 and seized MO-1 to MO-24 under its cover. He issued notice under the provisions of 41-A Cr.P.C. to accused and laid charge-sheet on completion of investigation.

15.In the cross examination it was suggested to him that accused did not appeared before him in view of notice issued to them under the provisions of 41-A Cr.P.C but they were lifted from their respective houses by task force personnel, for which he denied. It was suggested to him that he registered the case three days after task force personnel handing over the accused to him and he summoned PW1 and obtained

Ex.P1 from him, subsequently and registered the same, for which he denied. It was suggested to him that accused were detained since

CC.No. 439 of 20239 Judgment

morning to evening, when they were brought by Task Force Police, and because of his acts accused lost their jobs, for which he denied. It was elicited that he did not issued any notice to officials of GHMC. It was suggested to him that there are no eye witnesses to the incident, for which he denied. He volunteered that PW1 is the eye witness to the incident.

16.PW5 stated that on 03-08-2023 at 4.30 PM Bahadurpura police called him and PW3 in front of Bahadurpura police station. Three persons of accused were present at police station. Accused confessed that even though accused were giving their finger prints through biometric machine but accused are not attending the duty in person.

He cannot specially identify whether accused are the same persons who confessed before him. Police prepared confession cum seizure panchanama and seized one biometric machine under its cover which bears his signature along with the signature of PW3. MO-1 to MO-22 are the manipulated biometric fingerprints. MO-23 and MO-24 are the 2 biometric machines.

17.In the cross examination he stated that he is not sure whether accused are the same persons who confessed about the offence. He also stated that he do not have any prior acquaintance with the accused before conducting Ex.P6.

CC.No. 439 of 202310 Judgment

18.It is the version of prosecution that PW1 conducted a surprise check to find out about the absentees of out-sourcing employees in the status of Sanitary Inspector, as he is responsible for checking, monitoring and maintenance of sanitary workers at Doodbowli area.

A2 and A3 are also out-sourcing employees and they assisted him in monitoring work of out-sourcing employees at GHMC. On 30-08-2023 at about 21.00 hours, PW1 inspected that area and found that no outsourcing labour were available on the field. He tried to contact A2 and A3 but they did not responded to him. He went to Kishanbagh and found A1 who is supervisor at Goutham Model School. He found that A1 is in possession of biometric machines and in collusion A2 and

A3 gave that machine to A1 they manipulated the biometric machine data by using “M-Seal” to mark them as “present” and collected

Rs.500/- from each outsourcing labourer. Hence the present complaint.

19.To substantiate the above said version prosecution examined five witnesses. Admittedly, PW1 is the crucial witness, he stated that A2 and A3 are supervisors and A1 was labourer. He entertained a doubt with regard to the workers who were appointed on outsourcing basis.

PW1 came to know about the offence only through A1. No register was filed by PW1 to show that the number of employees and names of the employees who were appointed by way of outsourcing. Likewise, he did not filed any document to show that he was discharging official duty on that day of incident. Likewise, he did not complained about

CC.No. 439 of 202311 Judgment

the offence to the Deputy Commissioner who is his superior officer.

The evidence of PW3 is very much material to the prosecution as he is one of the panchas for the confession of the accused and seizure of the case property, But for the reasons best known to him he did not choose to face cross examination despite a long rope given to him.

Hence, his chief examination was eschewed from the record, as PW3 evidence eschewed from the record Ex.P3, MO-1 to MO-22 lost their sanctity, because of they will be treated as “NON-EST” in that regard.

The evidence of PW4 is not much helpful to the case of prosecution as he is only an investigating officer. He too stated that he did not addressed any letter to Municipal Authorities. It is the bounden duty of PW4 to inform about the offence to GHMC officials when it come to his notice. Even though PW5 stated about the confession of the accused but in the cross examination he stated that he is not sure whether accused are the same persons who confessed about the offence or not. Hence the evidence of PW1, the chief examination of

PW5 was vitiated by his statement made in the cross examination. He is not sure whether accused are the same persons who confessed about the offence or not. Hence, even though he examined two witnesses for the confession of the accused. According to prosecution the biometric machines were manipulated by A2 and A3 who gave that machine to A1 and even though employees were not present, but they used to mark their presence with the help of “M-seal”. That fact can be proved if PW3 and PW5 supports the version of prosecution by

CC.No. 439 of 202312 Judgment

speaking about the confession made by the accused in their presence.

But as mentioned earlier, the evidence of PW3 was vanished from record and the evidence of PW5 is not helpful to the case of prosecution because he is unable to identify the accused as the persons who confessed about the offence. The evidence of PW1 and

PW4 are not much helpful to the case of prosecution, as PW1 is the

Defacto Complainant and PW4 is the Investigating Officer. Hence by considering all the above said aspects, it was felt that prosecution could not succeed in bringing home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence accused were acquitted.

20. In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 were found NOT GUILTY for the offence U/sec. 419, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC. Hence Accused No.1 to 3 were acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stood cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the lapse of appeal time. The MO-1 to MO-22 are the Manipulated

Biometric fingerprints shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

The MO-23 to MO-24 are the 2 Biometric Machines which were seized in this case may be returned to GHMC on proper acknowledgment and it will become absolute after the lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected, signed

and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 28th day of April, 2026.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD.

CC.No. 439 of 202313 Judgment

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR :

PROSECUTION :

PW1: A. Srinivas, Complainant. PW2: Mohd. Jameel, Panch for Observation Panchanama and Rough Sketch. PW3: Mohammed Kareem Khan, Panch for Confession cum Seizure Panchanama of accused persons. PW4: G. Biksham, SI of Police and Investigating Officer PW5: Syed Shakeep Hashmi, Panch for Confession cum Seizure Panchanama of accused persons.

DEFENCE :

- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED :

Ex.P1: is the Complaint. Ex.P2: is the Signature of PW2 on some written papers. Ex.P3: is the Confession cum Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P4: is the FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

MO-1 to MO-22: are the Manipulated Biometric Fingerprints. MO-23 and MO-24: are the Two Biometric Machines.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD.

CC.No. 439 of 202314 Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO : 439 OF 2023

DATE OF :

Offence: 31-08-2023 Report: 31-08-2023 Apprehension of accused: Issued Notice U/Sec. 41 (A) Cr.P.C Released on bail: -- Filing of Charge sheet : 02-12-2022 Taking Cognizance: 13-12-2022 Furnishing of copies to accused : 21-03-2024 Plea of Accused: 14-06-2024 Commencement of trial : 20-05-2025 Closure of trial: 25-03-2026 Examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C.: 05-03-2026 Judgment or Order : 28-04-2026 Name of the complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Bahadurpura PS, Hyderabad. Name of the Accused: A-1: K. Krishna, S/o. Ushaiah, Age. 43 years. A-2: V. N. Harinath, S/o. Late V. Narsing Rao, Age. 40 years. A-3: Vikas Bidla, S/o. Om Prakash, Age. 43 years.

Reasons for delay: -–

Offences under Section: 419, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC Finding : Found not guilty.

Result: In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 were found NOT GUILTY for the offence U/sec. 419, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC. Hence Accused No.1 to 3 were acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stood cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the lapse of appeal time. The MO-1 to MO-22 are the Manipulated Biometric fingerprints shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time. The MO-23 to MO-24 are the 2 Biometric Machines which were seized in this case may be returned to GHMC on proper acknowledgment and it will become absolute after the lapse of appeal time.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD. To: The Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Remarks::

Calendar Case No.: 439 of 2023

Date of Judgment: 28-04-2026

CC.No. 439 of 202315 Judgment

Dis No. /SPL.JFCM/HYD/2026, Date:

CC.No. 66 of 20241 Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SMT. S. SREE DEVI,

SPL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES, HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

CC. No. 66 OF 2024

Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Falaknuma, Police Station.

.... Complainant.

A N D

Mohd Mubeen, S/o. Fareeduddin, Age. 55 years, Occ. Contesting Candidate of AIMIM, Bahadurpura, R/o. H.No. 19-4-279/D/301, Deccan Bakery, Teegalkunta, Jahanuma, Hyderabad. …. Accused.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Anitha Deshmukh, Learned A.P.P, for the State and of Sri. M.A Azeem, Advocate Counsel for Accused and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following :

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

1.The then Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Falaknuma, has filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offences U/Sec. 188, 171

F IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that :

i)On 21-11-2023 at 11.30 PM, received a complaint from LW1/

Smt. P. Arunakumari, Incharge of FST 3B Bahadurpura A/C 69, /complainant stating that, she along with her team were conducting

CC.No. 66 of 20242 Judgment

patrolling in the areas of Parda Gate, Bibika Chasma, Madina Colony, under Bahadurpura Assembly Constituency on 21-11-2023 at 12.40

PM, they found accused who is is contesting candidate of AIMIM was campaigning in the Education Institution at St. Faiz Memorial School, at Fathima Nagar along with his Karyakarthas by violating the Model

Code of Conduct of Election Commission of India. With reference to the proceedings above cited, accused was not permitted to campaign in the area of Fathima Nagar. But he was moving fin the locality of Fathima

Nagar and campaigning along with his karyakarthas and also entered into the Education Institution of St. Faiz Memorial School and conducted election campaign.

ii)Basing on the above complaint LW9/Smt. P. Aruna Kumari,

Incharge of FST 3 B registered a case in Cr.No.322/2023 for offences

U/Sec.188, 171 F IPC and further investigation took up by LW10/

Kum. Md. Haseena, WSI.

iii) During the course of investigation, she examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and LW2/M.A. Hameed and she collected the pen drive from LW2/M.A. Hameed who converted the CC footage of the entire incident into the pen drive and also collected 65-B copy from the complainant. She visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of PW2 and LW4/Abubakar Shareef and secure the presence of two mediators i.e., LW7/Bhanu Chander, LW8/M.

Gangaram and in their presence she drew the rough sketch in Crime

Detailed Form. Further she examined and recorded the statements of

CC.No. 66 of 20243 Judgment

PW3 and PW4. He served the notice U/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and on receipt of the same accused voluntarily came to Police Station and surrender before her and voluntarily confessed guilt of the offence.

On completion of investigation she file charge-sheet against the accused.

3.This court took the cognizance of the offences U/Sec. 188, 171 F

IPC against the accused.

4.Copies were furnished to the Accused as laid under Section 207

Cr.P.C. Further, the Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for which he denied the offence and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.The prosecution have cited (11) witnesses and got examined

PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 & Ex.P6.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution against the Accused, for which the Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offences U/Sec. 188, 171 F IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

CC.No. 66 of 20244 Judgment

POINT:

9.PW1 stated that she was posted as an in-charge of flying squad team Bahadurpura A/C 69 with regard to the General Elections during the year 2024. Along with her one constable and 4 Jawans were also the members of the said team. On 21.10.2023 she was discharging her official duty at Bahadurpura. They were roaming in Bahadurpura area.

When they came near a school at 1.00 PM they noticed one crowd consisting of 10-15 people passing far away from their place. She thought that they were campaigning with regard to the elections. As the incident occurred near the school, she lodged a complaint with police.

10.In the cross examination it was elicited that permission was issued by Election Commissioner to do campaigning on the road. She stated that she did not observed any campaigning in the premises of the school, basing on the information given by the neighbours of the school she lodged Ex.P1 with police. It was elicited that Ex.P1 was not prepared by her, but she signed the same after going through its contents and also prepared Ex.P1 basing on the information given by the neighbours of the school.

11.PW2 turned hostile to prosecution.

CC.No. 66 of 20245 Judgment

12.PW3 stated that on 21.11.2023 when he was present at police station at 12.45 PM, he received a phone call from PW1 who informed that accused along with his associates was doing election campaigning near Faiz school by violating the Model Code of Conduct. Immediately he along with PW4 went to that school but by that time itself the campaigning was completed and there was nobody at that place. He enquired with PW1 with regard to such campaigning and she informed that she will lodge a complaint against accused. Accordingly, PW1 lodged a complaint.

13.In the cross examination it was suggested to him that he neither received any information about the offence nor he visited Faiz School as alleged by him, for which he denied.

14.PW4 stated that on 21.11.2023 he himself and PW3 were present at police station at 12.45 PM. PW3 received a phone call from PW1 who informed that accused along with his associates is doing election campaigning near Faiz school by violating the Model Code of Conduct.

Immediately, he himself and PW3 went to that school but by that time itself the campaigning was completed and there was nobody at that place. PW3 enquired with PW1 with regard to such campaigning and she informed that she will lodge a complaint against accused.

Accordingly, PW1 lodged a complaint.

CC.No. 66 of 20246 Judgment

15.In the cross examination it was suggested to him that he neither received any information about the offence nor he visited Faiz School as alleged by him, for which he denied.

16.PW5 stated that on 21-11-2023 LW10/Kum. Md. Haseena, the then SI of Police, Falaknuma Police Station received Ex.P1 from PW1 and registered a case in Cr.No. 322/2023 U/sec.188, 171 F IPC and issued FIR to all concerned. Later the case file was transferred to him.

He examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW4, LW2/M.A.

Hameed, LW4/Abu Baker. PW2 stated to him as in Ex.P2. He proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted Crime Details Form in the presence of LW7/Bala Chandar, LW8/Gangaram. PW1 also handed over pen drive containing the video recording of the offence. He also obtained certificate which was issued under the provision of 65-B of Indian Evidence Act from PW1. He issued notice under the provisions of 41-A Cr.P.C to accused and laid charge sheet on completion of investigation.

17.In the cross examination it was suggested to him that PW1 is not an eye witness to the incident, but she came to know about the incident through others and basing on the same she lodged Ex.P1. It was suggested to him that Ex.P6 was not issued by PW1, for which he denied. He admitted that details of the computer nor any other device through which Ex.P5 was obtained was not mentioned in Ex.P6. It was suggested to him that Ex.P5 was planted by him and he neither

CC.No. 66 of 20247 Judgment

examined any witnesses nor gone to the scene of offence, but filed a false charge-sheet by doing table investigation, for which he denied.

18.It was argued on behalf of accused that PW1 stated that she found 10 to 15 persons near Faiz School, but those persons were not found inside the school and she did not identified the accused. PW3 and PW4 who are police personnel and their evidence is only a hear- say evidence. Moreover, the campaigning was going on near school, but not inside the school. It was further argued that conditions required for the issuance of the certificate under the provisions 65-B of

Indian Evidence Act were not complied. Moreover, there is a bar

U/sec. 190 Cr.P.C for registering the case U/sec. 188 IPC and finally contended that no offence was made out against the accused.

19.It is the version of prosecution that accused was doing election campaigning in the Educational Institute namely Faiz Memorial School located at Fathima Nagar by violating the Model Code of Conduct issued by Election Commission of India in connection with the General

Elections. It is also the contention of prosecution that on 21-11-2023

PW1 along with her team were conducted patrolling duty and found accused who is the contesting candidate of AIMIM party campaigning at Faiz Memorial School. But as per the Model Code of Conduct he is not permitted to campaign at that school.

CC.No. 66 of 20248 Judgment

20.To prove the above said allegations prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. Even though there is a mention in the charge-sheet that PW1 along with her team found accused campaigning in the educational institute by violating the rules of Model

Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India. In Ex.P1,

PW1 clearly mentioned that she along with her team found about such campaigning but in her chief examination she stated that she along with her crew found a group consisting of 10 to 15 persons who were passing far away from their place and she thought they were campaigning with regard to the elections and hence she lodged a complaint. The evidence of PW1 is appearing to be was meaning less, because mere passing of 10 to 15 persons far away from their place is not an offence, but and she thought that they are campaigning with regard to the Elections and lodged a complaint only basing on presumption. PW1 categorically admitted that Election Commission permitted to do campaigning on the road.

21. She also stated that she did not observed any campaigning in the premises of the school but lodged Ex.P1 basing on the information given by the neighbours of the school. She did not mention the essence of such information which she received from the neighbours of the school. If she really came to know about the offence from the neighbours of the school, Investigating Officer is responsible to examine the said neighbours to prove the offence which was alleged

CC.No. 66 of 20249 Judgment

against the accused. In the status of Incharge of Fly Squad Team

Bahadurpura PW1 is not supposed to depose before the court as a lay person. She stated that Ex.P1 was not prepared by her but she signed the same, when it was prepared basing on the information given by neighbours of the Faiz School. A perusal of Ex.P1 shows that she categorically mentioned that she along with her team found accused campaigning along with his “Karyakarthas” by entering into Faiz

School and conducted Election campaigning. The evidence given by

PW1 is totally contrary to the contentions raised by her in Ex.P1. Even though PW3 stated that she went to Faiz School as he got information from PW1 that accused violated the Model Code of Conduct, but according to him the campaigning was completed by the time he reached the scene of offence and nobody were present at that time.

Hence his evidence is of no use. PW2 turned hostile to prosecution and did not supported the version of prosecution.

22.PW3 & PW4 categorically stated that they received a phone call from PW1 who informed that accused along with his associates was doing Election campaigning near Faiz school by violating the Model

Code of Conduct, on that they went to that school but by that time itself the campaigning was completed and no body was present at that place. They enquired with PW1 about such campaigning and PW1 lodged a complaint against the accused. Hence their evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution. PW5 stated that PW1 handed

CC.No. 66 of 202410 Judgment

over Ex.P5 to him but the said fact was not spoken by PW1, PW3 and

PW4. PW1 did not stated about her giving pen drive to PW5. Ex.P5 was played in the open court but it is not showing any image. Hence even though Ex.P5 was exhibited it is of no use. Hence when Ex.P5 is empty there is no validity for Ex.P6, moreover, PW1 who is responsible person herself did not speak anything against the accused and about the details of the offence committed by him and also in view of appreciating the evidence available on record, it was felt that prosecution could not succeed in bringing home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence accused was acquitted.

23. In the result, Accused was found NOT GUILTY for the offences

U/sec. 188, 171 (F) IPC. Hence Accused was acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stood cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the lapse of appeal time. The Ex.P5 i.e., Pen Drive shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected, signed

and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD.

CC.No. 66 of 202411 Judgment

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR :

PROSECUTION :

PW1: Smt. P. Aruna Kumari, FST 3B, Complainant. PW2: Kaleemsha, Eye Witness. PW3: B. Krishna Reddy, Circumstantial Witness. PW4: E. Ravinder PC 9543, Circumstantial Witness. PW5: B. Ravi Kumar, SI of Police and Investigating Officer.

DEFENCE :

- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED :

Ex.P1: is the Complaint. Ex.P2: is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P3: is the FIR. Ex.P4: is the Crime Details Form. Ex.P5: is the Pen Drive. Ex.P6: is the Certificate U/sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

- NIL -

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD.

CC.No. 66 of 202412 Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO : 66 OF 2024

DATE OF :

Offence: 21-11-2023 Report: 21-11-2023 Apprehension of accused: Issued Notice U/Sec. 41 (A) Cr.P.C Released on bail: -- Filing of Charge sheet : 30-01-2024 Taking Cognizance: 30-01-2024 Furnishing of copies to accused : -- Plea of Accused: 28-06-2025 Commencement of trial : 25-09-2025 Closure of trial: 12-02-2026 Examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C.: 28-02-2026 Judgment or Order : 29-04-2026 Name of the complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Falaknuma PS, Hyderabad.

Name of the Accused: Mohd Mubeen, S/o. Fareeduddin, Age. 55 years.

Reasons for delay: -–

Offences under Section: 188, 171 (F) IPC Finding : Found not guilty.

Result: In the result, Accused was found NOT GUILTY for the offences U/sec. 188, 171 (F) IPC. Hence Accused was acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stood cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the lapse of appeal time. The Ex.P5 i.e., Pen Drive shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD. To: The Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Remarks::

Calendar Case No.: 66 of 2024

Date of Judgment: 29-04-2026

Dis No. /SPL.JFCM/HYD/2026, Date:

CC.No. 274 of 20201 Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SMT. S. SREE DEVI,

SPL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES, HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

CC. No. 274 OF 2020

Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bahadurpura, Police Station.

.... Complainant.

A N D

A-1: Syed Zakaria Ahmed @ Shawez, S/o. Syed Imtiyaz Ahmed, Age. 19 years, Occ. Student, R/o. H.No. 4-12-59/5, MM Pahadi, Rajendra Nagar, R.R. District,

A-2: Mohd Maqdoom @ Yafie S/o. Mohd Abdul Azeez, Age. 21 years, Occ. AC Technician, R/o. Suleman Nagar, MM Pahadi Rajendra Nagar, R.R. District. (The case against A2 Split Up)

A-3: Mohd Habeed Uddin @ Adnan, S/o. Mohd Arif Uddin, Age. 19 years, Occ. Student (Gokul Jr. College, Santosh Nagar), R/o. H.No. 18-7-425/58, Aman Nagar, A Talabkatta, Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad.

A-4: Mohd Ibrahim @ Pattan, S/o. Mohd Jaffar, Age.19 years, Occ. Tailoring Shop, R/o. H.No. SRT Colony, Rein Bazar, Chaman, Hyderabad. …. Accused No.1, 3 & 4.

CC.No. 274 of 20202 Judgment

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Anitha Deshmukh, Learned A.P.P, for the State and of Sri. M.A. Azeem., Advocate Counsel for Accused No.3 and of Sri. Zubair Ahmed & Ikram Hussain., Advocate Counsel for Accused No.4 and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following :

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

1.The then Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Bahadurpura, has filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence

U/Sec. 382 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that :

i)On 17-05-2020 at 17.30 hours, received a complaint from LW1/

Sakeemuddin Miya, Electricity Contract worker/complainant stating that, on 17-05-2020 at 02.00 hours, he along with his co-workers were performing their work near Baba Kanta, he went to near to his vehicle to drink water at 2.30 hours, in the meantime two accused persons came on white Activa vehicle asked him to give one Beedi, when he told him he do not have Beedi at the same time one of them forcefully taken away his cellphone VIVO V15 Pro from his hand and accused persons fled away from the spot. His mobile VIVO 1818 model, blue colour mobile number 9593492015 and IMEI No. 862824049958895, 862824049958887, due to late night he returned back to home and came to police station. Hence he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

CC.No. 274 of 20203 Judgment

ii)Basing on the above complaint PW2 registered a case in Cr.No.

148/2020 for offence U/Sec.382 IPC and took up the investigation.

iii) During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1/Sakeemuddin Miya & LW2/Saleem Miya. He visited the scene of offence and he drafted rough sketch and crime detail form in the presence of LW3/SK Mahamood and PW1.

iv)On 21-05-2020, he received relevant documents from LW7/A.

Satish, Addl. Inspector of Police stating that A1 to A4 confessed about their guilt of offence, on that he recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A4 in the presence of LW5/Mohd Shakeel &

LW6/Mohd Arif and recovered VIVO 1818 model under the cover of confession panchanama. He arrested the accused persons on 21-05- 2020 in Cr.No. 114/2020, U/Sec. 382 IPC of Mirchowk and produced

before the Hon’ble VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Nampally, Hyderabad. Later on 09-06-2020 PW2 filed PT warrant requisition before the court to issue PT warrant against the A1 to A4, upon which Hon’ble Magistrate issued PT Warrant, accordingly A1 to

A4 were produced before the Hon’ble Magistrate through video conference from Chanchalguda prison on 12-06-2020 and regularized their arrest in this case. Seized case property was deposited before the court along with Form 66. On completion of investigation he file charge-sheet against the accused.

CC.No. 274 of 20204 Judgment

3.This court took the cognizance of the offences U/Sec. 382 r/w 34

IPC against accused No.1 to 4.

4.Copies were furnished to the Accused as laid under Section 207

Cr.P.C. Further, the Accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C for which they denied the offence and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.The prosecution have cited (8) witnesses and got examined PW1 & PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 & Ex.P4.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution against the Accused, for which the Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. During the course of trial the case against A2 was split up.

7.Heard. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence U/Sec.382 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

CC.No. 274 of 20205 Judgment

POINT:

9.PW1 stated that on 17-05-2020, police called him near Baba

Khaanta, at Shastripuram at 6.30 PM and they informed that one cell phone was committed theft off at that place and they conducted scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. He attested the same after knowing its contents. The counsel for accused No.1 and 2 did not preferred to cross examine this witness.

10.PW2 stated that on 17-05-2020 he received complaint from LW1/

Sakeem Uddin Miya and registered a case in Cr.No.148/2020 U/sec.

382 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR to all concerned. He examined and recorded the statements of LW1/Sakeeumuddin Miya, LW2/Saleem

Miya. He proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted Ex.P1 which is scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW1 and LW3/

Mohammed. On 21-05-2020 accused was apprehended by LW7/

Sateesh of Mirchowk police station in their crime. He summoned

LW5/Shakeel, LW6/Arif and in their presence accused confessed about the offence pertaining to the present offence also along with other offences. He seized one Cellphone pertaining to this case under the cover of confession cum seizure panchanama. He obtained production warrant and regularized the crime. He also received the copy of confession cum seizure panchanama. He produced accused

before the court and filed charge-sheet on completion of investigation

and after depositing the case property. The counsel for accused No.1 and 2 did not preferred to cross examine this witness.

CC.No. 274 of 20206 Judgment

11.It is the contention of prosecution that accused No.1. 3 and 4 persons along with other person came to Shastripuram X Road and snatched away the Vivo Cellphone and fled away on the two wheeler of one Mohammed Maqdoom/A2. It is also the contention of prosecution that defacto complainant Sakeemuddin Miya along with his co-workers were performing his electrical work at Baba Kanta. At that time A1 and Mohammed Maqdoom came there and asked him for Beedi.

Defacto complainant replied that he do not have the Beedi, on that A1 snatched the cellphone from the hand of defacto complainant and fled away. A3 and A4 were also standing at that place, on their Honda

Shine two wheeler. Accused even confessed about the offence when they were apprehended in Cr.No. 114/2020 which was registered

U/sec. 392 IPC of Mirchowk Police Station.

12.To prove the above said contention prosecution examined only two witnesses. PW1 is the panch for conducting Crime Detail Form and PW2 is the Investigating Officer. None of them are an eye witness to the incident and their evidence will not be much helpful to the case of the prosecution to unfold its story. Even though their evidence was remained on record intact but their evidence no way points out the guilt of the accused. The evidence of LW1/Sakeemuddin Miya is very much crucial to the case of prosecution, because he is the defacto complainant, victim as well as eye witness to the incident. Mere marking of the complaint through PW2 will not have much impact in the absence of the evidence of LW1/Sakeemuddin Miya. Likewise,

CC.No. 274 of 20207 Judgment

LW2/Saleem Miya in the status of eye witness to the incident will be much helpful to the case of prosecution, but he was also not examined by prosecution even though a long rope was given to it. No property was marked before this court and confession of the accused was also not proved before this court. In the absence of evidence of LW5/Mohd

Shakeel and LW6/ Mohd Arif who were shown as panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama of accused along with Mohd

Maqdoom the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is of no use. Hence by considering all the above said aspects, it was felt that prosecution could not succeed in bringing home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence accused were acquitted.

13. In the result, Accused No.1, 3 & 4 were found NOT GUILTY for the offence U/sec.382 IPC. Hence Accused No.1, 3 & 4 were acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stood cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the lapse of appeal time. No property order could be passed as the case against A2 was split up and it is still pending. The unmarked Cellphone which was recovered by Mirchowk police station in Cr.No. 114/2020 VIVO V 15

Pro may be returned to its original owner under proper acknowledgment and it will become absolute after the lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected, signed

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

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD.

CC.No. 274 of 20208 Judgment

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR :

PROSECUTION :

PW1: Habeen Salam, Panch for Scene of offence panchanama. PW2: T. Madhu, SI of Police & Investigating Officer.

DEFENCE :

- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED :

Ex.P1: is the Scene of Offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch. Ex.P2: is the Complaint. Ex.P3: is the FIR. Ex.P4: is the Confession cum Seizure Panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

- Nil -

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD.

CC.No. 274 of 20209 Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO : 274 OF 2020

DATE OF :

Offence: 17-05-2020 Report: 17-05-2020 Apprehension of accused: Issued Notice U/Sec. 41 (A) Cr.P.C Released on bail: -- Filing of Charge sheet : 14-10-2020 Taking Cognizance: 19-10-2020 Furnishing of copies to accused : 16-02-2024 Plea of Accused: 12-03-2024 Commencement of trial : 23-02-2026 Closure of trial: 10-03-2026 Examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C.: 28-04-2026 Judgment or Order : 30-04-2026 Name of the complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Bahadurpura Police Station.

Name of the Accused: A-1: Syed Zakaria Ahmed @ Shawez, S/o. Syed Imtiyaz, Age. 19 years. A-3: Mohd Habeed Uddin, S/o. Mohd Arif Uddin, Age. 19 years. A-4: Mohd Ibrahim @ Pattan, S/o. Mohd Jaffar, Age. 19 years.

Reasons for delay: -–

Offence under Section: 382 IPC

Finding : Found not guilty.

Result: In the result, Accused No.1, 3 & 4 were found NOT GUILTY for the offence U/sec.382 IPC. Hence Accused No.1, 3 & 4 were acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stood cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the lapse of appeal time. No property order could be passed as the case against A2 was split up and it is still pending. The unmarked Cellphone which was recovered by Mirchowk police station in Cr.No. 114/2020 VIVO V 15 Pro may be returned to its original owner under proper acknowledgment and it will become absolute after the lapse of appeal time.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD. To: The Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Remarks::

Calendar Case No.: 274 of 2020

Date of Judgment: 30-04-2026

Dis No. /SPL.JFCM/HYD/2026, Date:

CC.No. 84 of 20241 Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SMT. S. SREE DEVI,

SPL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES, HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

CC. No. 84 OF 2024

Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda, Police Station.

.... Complainant.

A N D A-1: Bandi Sanjay, BJP Party Telangana State President,

A-2: Amaravathi Saidulu, S/o. Late Ramulu, Age. 45 years, Occ. TRS Mandal Party President, R/o. Thadakamalla Village.

A-3: Mattapally Saidulu, S/o. Late Balaiah, Age. 50 years, Occ. TRS Mandal President, R/o. Alagadapa Village.

A-4: Duli Jagadeesh, S/o. Chandra Shekar, Age. 47 years, Occ. Market Director, R/o. Laxmipuram Village

A-5: Gadagoju Edukondalu, S/o. Bixmaiah, Age. 45 years, R/o. Venkatadripalem Village.

A-6: Bogalla Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Saidi Reddy, Age. 40 years, Occ. Vice President, R/o. Kistapuram Village.

A-7: Chougani Bixam Goud, S/o. Yellaiah, Age. 37 years, Occ. Sarpanch, R/o. Thakkelapadu Village. …. Accused No.1 to 7.

CC.No. 84 of 20242 Judgment

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Anitha Deshmukh, Learned A.P.P, for the State and of Sri. K. Karuna Sagar, Advocate Counsel for Accused and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following :

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

1.The then Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Miryalaguda Rural, has filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 7 for the offences U/Sec.

341, 143, 147, 188 r/w 149 IPC and Section 51 (B) of DM Act.

ii)As per the contents of the above complaint LW4/P. Shekar, ASI of

Police, Miryalaguda Rural Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.

398/2021, U/sec. 341, 143, 147, 188 r/w 149 IPC and Section 51 (B) of DM

Act and he handed over the case file to LW5/ B. Sudheer Kumar, SIP and he took up investigation into.

3. This court took cognizance of the offences U/sec. 341, 143, 147, 188 r/w 149 IPC against the accused. The copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused were examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C for which they pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried.

4.During the trial, prosecution did not examined any witness and did not got marked any exhibit.

5. Since there is no incriminating material evidence found against the accused, the examination of the accused U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

CC.No. 84 of 20243 Judgment

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offences punishable U/sec.341, 143, 147, 188 r/w 149 IPC

beyond reasonable doubts?

POINT:-

8. It is the version of prosecution that on 15-11-2021 at 17.30 hours accused No.1 with his convey at about 40 vehicles was proceeded from

Miryalaguda side to Suryapeta side without permission from returning officer, and when he reached at Yadagarpally center, and in the meantime

A2 to A7 without wearing masks, without following the Covid-19 rules and without following MLC Election rules, without permission formed as unlawful assembly and tried to criminally intercepted the A1 convey, due to which A2 to A7 have attacked with eggs and behaving to create law and order problems and interrupted public transport and disturbed public peace.

Police registered a case against the accused for the offences U/sec. 341, 143, 147, 188 r/w 149 IPC. LW1/Garlapati Jyothi Laxmi, FAC, MPDO,

Miryalaguda Mandal who is complainant and proper person to speak about the same but she did not appear before the court to give her evidence. Even though a fair chance was given to prosecution to examine the witnesses who are arrayed in the charge sheet but prosecution did not evinced any interest to examine any of them. Moreover prosecution did not took any pains to procure any witnesses to unfold its story. Hence no evidence is available on record to connect the accused with the offence. Hence by considering all the above said aspects it was felt that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused were acquitted.

CC.No. 84 of 20244 Judgment

9. In the result, Accused No.1 to 7 were found NOT GUILTY for the offences U/sec. 341, 143, 147, 188 r/w 149 IPC. Hence Accused No.1 to 7 were acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stood cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the lapse of appeal time. As there is no property involved in this case no separate property order was passed.

Typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD.

A PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: -NIL-

For Accused:

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: -NIL-

For Accused:

-NIL-

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD.

CC.No. 84 of 20245 Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO : 84 OF 2024

DATE OF :

Offence: 16-11-2021 Report: 16-11-2021 Apprehension of accused: Issued Notice U/Sec. 41 (A) Cr.P.C Released on bail: -- Filing of Charge sheet : 30-06-2023 Taking Cognizance: 20-01-2024 Furnishing of copies to accused : 01-10-2024 Plea of Accused: 20-11-2025 Commencement of trial : -- Closure of trial: -- Examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C.: -- Judgment or Order : 29-04-2026 Name of the complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, of Miryalaguda Police Station. Name of the Accused: A-1: Bandi Sanjay, BJP Party Telangana State President. A-2: Amaravathi Saidulu, S/o. Late Ramulu, Age. 45 years. A-3: Mattaplally Saidulu, S/o. Late Balaiah, Age. 50 years. A-4: Duli Jagadeesh, S/o. Chandra Shekar, Age. 47 years. A-5: Gadagoji Edukondalu, S/o. Bixmaiah, Age. 45 years. A-6: Bogalla Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Saidi Reddy, Age. 40 years. A-7: Chougani Bixam Goud, S/o. Yellaiah, Age. 37 years.

Reasons for delay: -–

Offences under Section: 341, 143, 147, 188 r/w 149 IPC

Finding : Found not guilty.

Result: In the result, Accused No.1 to 7 were found NOT GUILTY for the offences U/sec. 341, 143, 147, 188 r/w 149 IPC. Hence Accused No.1 to 7 were acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stood cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the lapse of appeal time. As there is no property involved in this case no separate property order was passed.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD. To: The Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Remarks::

Calendar Case No.: 84 of 2024

Date of Judgment: 29-04-2026

Dis No. /SPL.JFCM/HYD/2026, Date:

CC. No. 460 of 20231Judgment

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE FOR

EXCISE CASES: AT HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt. S. Sree Devi Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, For Excise Cases, Hyderabad.

Dated, this on 30 th day of April, 2026.

CC. No. 460 OF 2023

Between:

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Peddavoora. …… Complainant

AND Madhavaneni Raghunandan Rao, S/o. Bhagawantha Rao, Age. 44 years, Occ. MLA of Dubbaka Constituency, R/o. MLA Camp Office, Dubbaka. … Accused.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Anitha Deshmuk, Learned A.P.P, for the State and of Sri. Boddupelli Srinivas, Advocate, Counsel for Accused after having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following :

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddavoora Police Station has filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 269, 188 IPC &

Section 57 Disaster Management Act against the accused.

2.The case of the prosecution is that :

i)That on 10-04-2021 at 20.30 hours, the complainant Dubba Syam,

MPDO Peddavoora, MCC Team-2 Incharge of Peddavoora Mandal lodged a complaint stating that on 10-04-2021 at 19.30 hours, BJP MLA who is accused herein and some others have gathered and were conducting campaign at

Utlapally Village in view of by-elections 2021 without having masks and not

CC. No. 460 of 20232Judgment

maintain distance and they violated the Government Orders in view of Covid- 19 virus. Accused persons may be cause to spread the corona virus. Hence he requested to take necessary action.

ii)As per the contents of the above complaint LW4/D. Saida Babu, SI of

Police, Peddavoora PS registered a case in Cr.No. 126/2021 U/sec. 269, 188

IPC and Section 57 of Disaster Management Act and took up investigation.

3. This court took cognizance of the offence U/sec.269, 188 IPC and Section 57 of Disaster Management Act against the accused. The copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C for which he pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried.

4.During the trial, prosecution did not examined any witness and did not got marked any exhibit.

5. Since there is no incriminating material evidence found against the accused, the examination of the accused U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offences punishable U/sec. 269, 188 IPC and Section 57 of Disaster

Management Act beyond reasonable doubts?

POINT:-

8. It is the version of prosecution that accused along with others were conducted meeting at Utlapally Village in view of by-election- 2021 by not wearing masks on his face and not maintain distance and not maintaining

CC. No. 460 of 20233Judgment

Covid rules and he also disobeyed the orders duly promulgated by the

Telangana State Government and acted negligently to spread the COVID virus and contravenes the orders of Govt. of TS vide G.O.MS.No.68. Police registered a case in against the accused for the offence U/sec. 269, 188 IPC and Section 57 of Disaster Management Act. LW1/Dubba Syam MPDO Peddavoora, who is complainant and proper person to speak about the same but he did not appear

before the court to give his evidence. Even though a fair chance was given to

prosecution to examine the witnesses who are arrayed in the charge sheet but prosecution did not evinced any interest to examine any of them. Moreover prosecution did not took any pains to procure any witnesses to unfold its story.

Hence no evidence is available on record to connect the accused with the offence. Hence by considering all the above said aspects it was felt that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused was acquitted.

9. In the result, Accused was found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable

U/sec. 269, 188 IPC and Section 57 of Disaster Management Act. Hence

Accused was acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stood cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the lapse of appeal time. As there is no property involved in this case no separate property order was passed.

Typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD.

CC. No. 460 of 20234Judgment

A PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: -NIL-

For Accused:

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: -NIL-

For Accused:

-NIL-

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD.

CC. No. 460 of 20235Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CC. NO : 460 OF 2023

DATE OF :

Offence: 10-04-2021 Report: 10-04-2021 Apprehension of accused: Issued Notice U/sec. 41 (A) Cr.P.C. Release of accused: -- Filing of Charge sheet : 02-02-2022 Taking Cognizance: 02-02-2022 Furnishing of copies to accused : -- Plea of Accused: 17-07-2024 Commencement of trial : -- Closure of trial: -- Examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C.: -- Judgment or Order : 30-04-2026 Name of the complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police, of Police Station Peddavoora. Name of the Accused : Madhavaneni Raghunandan Rao, S/o. Bhagawantha Rao, Age. 44 years.

Reasons for delay: --

Offence under Section: 269, 188 IPC and Section 57 of Disaster Management Act.

Finding : Found not guilty.

Result : In the result, Accused was found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable U/sec. 269, 188 IPC and Section 57 of Disaster Management Act. Hence Accused was acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stood cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the lapse of appeal time. As there is no property involved in this case no separate property order was passed.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD. To: The Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Remarks :

Calendar Case No.: 460 OF 2023

Date of Judgment: 30-04-2026

Dis No. /SPL. JFCM/HYD/2026, Dated :