C.C.No.50 of 20181Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES
RELATING TO ELECTED M.Ps. AND M.L.As OF ANDHRA PRADESH,
VIJAYAWADA.
Present: Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi,
Judge, Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases
relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada.
Thursday, this the 13th day of March, 2025.
C.C.No. 50 of 2018
Between:
State S.H.O. D.Hirehal Police Station. … COMPLAINANT.
And
1) Nagam Janardhana Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged 63 years, M.L.A., Nagar Kurnool, Mahaboob Nagar District.
2) Yerraballi Dayakar Rao, S/o. Jagannath Rao, Aged 52 years, M.L.A. Palakurthy, Warangal District, Vardhannapeta, Warangal District.
3) Pamisetty Ranganayakulu, S/o. Late Surappa, Aged 55 years, Mudireddypalli, Ex. M.L.A., Hindupur (Abated).
4) B.C. Govindappa, S/o. B.C. Thippaiah, Aged 56 years, Ex. M.L.A., Kalyandurg.
5) Mettu Govinda Reddy, S/o. Thimmappa, Aged 46 years, Ex. M.L.A., Rayadurg.
C.C.No.50 of 20182Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
6) Devineni Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o. Sreemannarayana, Aged 48 years, M.L.A., Mylavaram, Krishna District.
7) Vema Narendra Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged 65 years, Ex. M.L.A., Mahaboobabad, Warangal District.
8) Koppula Hareeswara Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged 50 years, M.L.A., Parigi, Ranga Reddy District (Abated).
9) Chinnam Babu Ramesh, S/o. Joga Rao, Aged 48 years, Ex. M.L.A., Rampa Chodavaram, East Godavari District.
10) Padala Aruna, W/o. Ramu Naidu, Aged 40 years, Ex. M.L.A., Gajapathinagaram, Vijayanagaram District.
11) Lalitha Kumari, W/o. Thomas, Aged 35 years, Ex. M.L.A., Palamaneru, Chittoor District.
12) Bommidi Narayana Rao, S/o. Narayana Raju, Aged 55 years, M.L.C., Bheemavaram, West Godavari District.
13) Y. Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Seetha Ramaiah, Aged 45 years, Ex. M.L.C., East Godavari, Vuyyur Town, Vijayawada City.
14) Masala Padmaja, W/o. Masala Gopi, Aged 32 years, M.L.C., Kurnool District.
C.C.No.50 of 20183Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
15) Nimmakayala Chinna Rajappa, S/o. Rajappa, Aged 50 years, M.L.C., Amalapuram, East Godavari District.
16) N. Amarnatha Reddy, S/o. Rama Krishna Reddy, Aged 40 years, M.L.A., Palamaneru, Chittoor District.
17) Kolakarla Ramanna, S/o. Giddappa, Aged 50 years, Ex. Z.P.T.C., Kalyandurg Taluk, Anantapur District (Abated).
18) Poola Nagaraju, S/o. Lingappa, Aged 48 years, Ex. Z.P.T.C., Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District.
19) Mullangi Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged 45 years, District Secretary, Krishna District.
20) Gurumurthy, S/o. Narayana Murthy, Aged 48 years, (B.C. Cell President), Hyderabad Town.
21) Kinjarapu Acham Naidu, S/o. Dayal Naidu, Aged 40 years, Ex. M.L.A., Tekkali, N/o. Nimmada Village, Kota Bommali Mandal, Sreekakulam District, M.L.A. … ACCUSED.
This Case coming on 07.03.2025, for arguments before me, in the presence of Sri Tallapragada Subba Rao, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri Gudapati Lakshmi Narayana,learned counsel for the Accused Nos.1, 6 and 21, and of Smt. D. Gouthami, learned counsel for the Accused No.4, and of Sri Chinnapureddy Ravi, learned counsel for the Accused Nos.5 and 18, and of Sri G.V. Rama Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the Accused Nos.2, 7, 9 to 16, 19 and 20; while the case against Accused Nos.3, 8
C.C.No.50 of 20184Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
and 17 having been Abated; and upon hearing both sides in the open Court; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
1.The Inspector J.P. Yerikalaiah/LW.29 of Rayadurg filed charge sheet against Nagam Janardhana Reddy/A1 and 20 others for the offence under Sections 143, 188, 447, 186 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC in
Crime No.34/2007 of D.Hirehal Police Station and the brief case of the prosecution is as follows:-
(i)The members of Telugu Desam Party, Hyderabad announced through media that around 40 MLAs belonging to Telugu
Desam Party along with their 300 associates intended to go to O.M.C.
Mines at Obulapuram, Malapanagudi Village in D.Hirehal Mandal.
Consequently, the Mines Manager B. Siva Kumara Swamy/PW.1 of
O.M.C. Mines had given an application to the Station House Officer,
D.Hirehal Police Station while marking copies to all the Senior Police
Officers and Revenue Officials concerned requesting the Station House
Officer, D.Hirehal Police Station to arrange protection at the Mining area.
Based on the instructions given by the higher authorities, the Sub
Inspector of Police of D.Hirehal Police Station obtained prohibitory orders under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., and the same were duly promulgated.
Security was provided at O.M.C. Mines area by the Superintendent of
Police, Anantapur being incharge of Additional Superintendent of Police,
Anantapur.
(ii)On 21.07.2007 while the Police personnel, the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, the Tahsildar and other officials
C.C.No.50 of 20185Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
including Forest officials were present at the premises of O.M.C. Mines, at about 04.00 P.M., around 1000 sympathizers of Telugu Desam Party under the leadership of Nagam Janardhan Reddy, MLA/A1 and 20 other
MLAs and MLCs (A1 to A21) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and reached Obulapuram Mines. The Police officials while on bandobust duty prevented the Accused and then the Accused scolded the
Police personnel by using un-parliamentary language, pushed them and trespassed into the Mines area. The Police officials informed them that the orders under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., were duly promulgated in the entire Hirehal Mandal for the period commencing from 20.07.2007 to 25.07.2007 and tried to convince them but the Accused violated the prohibitory orders by trespassing into O.M.C. premises covered by
Survey No.52 by pushing the Police officials with an intention to destruct the O.M.C. Mines and to cause life risk to the officials and the staff of
Mines for not allowing them to enter into the Mines. They threatened the
Police personnel who were on bandobust duty with dire consequences.
(iii)On the special report given by S. Mahaboob Vali/LW.1, the then ASI P. Peddanna of D.Hirehal Police Station (PW.9) registered the same as case in Crime No.34/2007 under Sections 143, 188, 447, 186 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC of D.Hirehal Police Station and submitted the copies of FIR to the concerned. The Accused had absconded. After completion of investigation, LW.29/J.P. Yerikalaiah, Inspector of Police,
Reyadurg filed charge sheet.
2.The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayadurg, took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections143, 188, 447, 186 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC and registered the same as C.C.No.119 of 2009
C.C.No.50 of 20186Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
and issued warrants against A1 to A21.
(i). Thereafter, this court being the designated court for Trial of
Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As of Andhra Pradesh, received the record from the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Rayadurg, Anantapuram District as per the proceedings of Hon’ble High
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in ROC No.105/E1/2018, dated 12.04.2018 and re-numbered the same as C.C.No.50 of 2018.
3. On appearance of the Accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
(i) On 25.03.2021 - A1, A5, A6, A8, A18 and A21 ; on 23.12.2021 - A7, A9 to A16, A19 and A20 ; on 28.06.2022 - A2 ; and on 05.01.2023 - A4 were examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., by the learned predecessor in office regarding the accusation made against them for the offence under Sections 143, 188, 447, 186 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(ii)The case against A3, A8 and A17 was abated on 01.02.2023., 19.12.2023 and 29.11.2019 respectively.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 09 witnesses on its behalf as PW.1 to PW.9 and exhibited Ex.P1 to
Ex.P4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had given up the evidence of LW.3/G. Hyder Vali, HC-213, LW.5/G. Adinarayana, PC- 1994, LW.9/Gorantla Madhav, S.I of Police, LW.11/M. Diwakar Reddy, S.I of Police, LW.12/Y. Ravikrishna Kumar, S.I. of Police, LW.13/D.
Nagaraju, Inspector of Police, LW.14/G. Ramakrishnaiah, C.I. of Police,
LW.16/P. Srinivasulu, Inspector of Police, LW.17/Kolar Krishna, C.I. of
Police, LW.18/Ganganna, S.I. of Police, LW.19/Sri Venkatesam, R.D.O.,
C.C.No.50 of 20187Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
LW.21/Sri Thirupal Reddy, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, LW.22/V. Ranga
Reddy, Forest Beat Officer, LW.24/Kotturappa Siddesh, LW.25/Peerige
Subba Rayudu and LW.26/Bhajanthri Nagaraju. The evidence of LW.1/S.
Mahaboob Vali, Retired S.I. of Police, LW.8/Sriramulu, Retired S.I. of
Police, LW.28/M. Padmakar Reddy, Inspector of Police and LW.29/J.P.
Yerikalaiah, Inspector of Police was closed as they died.
5. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the prosecution filed memo stating that except A4 who is unable to attend the court due to ill- health and old age ailments 313 Cr.P.C., examination may be conducted for other Accused and accordingly based on the memo, on 24.12.2024
A1, A2, A5 to A7, A9 to A16 and A18 to A21 and on20.01.2025 A4 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., regarding the incriminating material placed against them for which they denied while reporting no defence evidence and Ex.D1 was exhibited on behalf of the Accused.
6.Now the point for determination is :
Whether the prosecution proved the accusation made against
A1 and other Accused for the offence under Sections 143, 188, 447,
186 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the counsel for A1, A6, A21 ; the counsel for A5 and
A18; the counsel for A2, A7, A9 to A16, A19 and A20. It is treated as no argument for A4.
POINT:-
8.The case of the prosecution is that the members of Telugu
Desam Party announced through media that 40 MLAs belonging to
Telugu Desam Party along with 300 of their associates were going to
C.C.No.50 of 20188Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
O.M.C. Mines at Obulapuram and based on the announcement, PW.1 made an application to the Police officials to provide protection at Mining area and accordingly the Sub Inspector of Police of D.Hirehal Police
Station obtained prohibitory orders under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., and they were duly promulgated. It is the further case of prosecution that on 21.07.2007 while the Police personnel, Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmavaram, Tahsildar and other officials including the Forest officials were present at the premises of O.M.C. Mines at about 04.00 P.M., around 1000 sympathizers belonging to Telugu Desam Party under the leadership of A1 to A21, trespassed into Obulapuram Mining Company with an intention to destruct O.M.C. Mines by forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and violated the prohibitory orders though they were informed that the prohibitory orders were inforce and they also threatened the Police officials.
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that A1 and other Accused by forming themselves into an unlawful assembly who belonged to Telugu Desam Party, trespassed into Obulapuram Mining
Company illegally and raised slogans and though the Police tried to prevent them by informing them that the proceedings issued under
Section 144 of Cr.P.C., were inforce, they did not listen and they trespassed into the premises to cause damage to the properties of
Obulapuram Mining Company. He further argued that all the witnesses who are public servants supported the case of prosecution and the
Tahsildar concerned who issued proceedings under Section 144 of
Cr.P.C., also proved the issuance of proceedings by him under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., through whom Ex.P2 true copy of proceedings was
C.C.No.50 of 20189Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
exhibited by the prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that PWs.2 to 6 are the eye witnesses to the incident as they were on bandobust duty on the date of incident and their evidence is corroborating the contents of Ex.P3 report given by LW.1.
10.By way of reply, the counsels argued in one voice that the prosecution failed to examine the independent witnesses to prove its case and except PW.1 all the witnesses are public servants whose presence on that day at the place of incident is highly doubtful. The learned counsel for A2, A7, A9 to A16, A19 and A20 further argued that the complainant who gave Ex.P3/report is no more and the investigating officer i.e.,
M. Padmakar Reddy/LW.28 who investigated the case is also no more.
The counsel further argued that the crucial witness relating to O.M.C.
turned hostile to the case of prosecution and the evidence of Police personnel must be scrutinized with care and caution as their presence itself is doubtful for want of G.D. entry showing their presence on the date of incident. The counsel further argued that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and this case was filed against the Accused at the instance of ruling party and so the evidence of Police personnel cannot be given much weight in the absence of evidence of independent witnesses. The counsel also argued that PW.7 did not identify the
Accused and moreover the Police did not examine him. He further argued that the authorized person concerned of O.M.C. Mines has to give complaint but only with an oblique motive and to harass the Accused, the
Police filed this case against the Accused as they belonged to opposition by acting to the tunes of ruling party. The learned counsel for A1, A6 and
A21 argued that the Police failed to follow the relevant provisions under
C.C.No.50 of 201810Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
A.P. Police Manual by referring to the relevant provisions under A.P.
Police Manual. The learned counsel for A5 and A18 reaffirmed the arguments advanced by the counsel for A1 and others.
11.To fasten the liability against the Accused for the offence under Sections 143, 188, 447, 186 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that A1 and other Accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of committing criminal trespass and voluntarily obstructed the Police personnel while they were discharging their functions by committing criminal trespass by entering into the premises of O.M.C. of Obulapuram with an intention to annoy the persons in possession of such property and disobeyed the orders promulgated by a public servant having sufficient knowledge that the
Tahsildar concerned got promulgated the orders under Section 144 of
Cr.P.C., by entering the premises of Obulapuram Mining Company.
12.The alleged offence under Sections 186 and 188 of IPC fall under the Contempts of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the Accused obstructed the Police while they were on bandobust duty in the premises of
Obulapuram Mining Company and violated the orders issued under
Section 144 of Cr.P.C., by PW.7.
13.The evidence of the then ASI P.Peddanna/PW.9 of D.Hirehal
Police Station shows that on 21.07.2007 while he was present as S.H.O.
at D.Hirehal Police Station, LW.1 came to Police Station and presented
Ex.P3/report and that he registered the same as a case in Crime
No.34/2007 under Sections 143, 188, 447, 186 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC and through him Ex.P4/FIR was exhibited. He identified the signature of
C.C.No.50 of 201811Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
the informant S. Mahaboob Vali/LW.1 on Ex.P3/report. He further identified the signature of the then Inspector J.P. Yerikalaih/LW.29 of
Rayadurg who filed charge sheet and PW.9 also stated that LW.28 (no more) examined the witnesses and conducted investigation in this case.
14.The contents of Ex.P3/report said to have been given by the informant i.e., the then S.I S. Mahaboob Vali/LW.1 of D.Hirehal Police
Station show that on 21.07.2007 at 10.00 A.M., while LW.1, his staff and the Police officials of special party who came on bandobust duty were present in the premises of Obulapuram Mining Company including the
Tahsildar B. Rajendra Prasad/PW.7 and his men on the information that
MLAs and MLCs of Telugu Desam Party were coming to the premises of
Obulapuram Mining Company at about 04.30 P.M., A1 to A21 and some others, trespassed into O.M.C. premises by forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and violated the orders issued by PW.7 by shouting.
The contents of Ex.P3 further show that when LW.1 and others restrained the Accused, they pushed them and abused them in filthy language and when LW.1 and others informed them that it was not proper on their part, they threatened them with dire consequences and thereby prevented them from discharging their duties. The contents further show that A1 and others violated the orders issued by PW.7 by trespassing into the premises of O.M.C. So, the contents of Ex.P3 show that though PW.7 issued orders under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., preventing A1 and others in forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and though they were promulgated, the Accused violated the orders issued by PW.7.
15.Coming to the evidence of the then Constables
M. Madhusudhan/PW.2, B. Srinivasulu/PW.3, Y. Devaraju/PW.4 of
C.C.No.50 of 201812Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
D.Hirehal Police Station it shows that on 21.07.2007 they rushed to
Obulapuram Mining Company along with other staff based on the instructions given by their S.I. and were there on bandobust duty from 10.00 A.M., onwards. PW.2 further stated that at about 04.30 P.M., A1,
A2, A4, A5, A18 and some other T.D.P. leaders came to Obulapuram
Mining Company by which time the Revenue Officials and other Police officials were present and A1 and others tried to trespass into
Obulapuram Mining Company and then the Inspectors, Sub Inspectors and Deputy Superintendent of Police who were present there stopped them and informed them that the orders issued under Section 144 of
Cr.P.C., were promulgated and that they were inforce by then. Similar is the evidence of PW.3 who furnished the names of A2 to A5 and A17 as participants of the incident while PW.4 stated the names of A1 to A6 as the participants of the incident while deposing that other MLAs came over there and raised slogans against the Government. The evidence of PW.2 further shows that the Accused did not stop and they pushed them aside and entered entered into Obulapuram Mining Company by abusing them in filthy language. Similar is the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4. PW.3 further stated that A1 and others were informed about the issuance of orders under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., and that they were inforce. In the cross examination of PW.2, he stated that they follow A.P. Police Manual.
He admitted that the details showing the allotment of duty to them will be entered in G.D. He further stated that he did not give any report showing the details of his duty as per the standing order 681 of Police Manual. He also stated that in the duty roaster, the details of entrustment of bandobust duty to them were mentioned on that day by S.H.O. concerned
C.C.No.50 of 201813Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
of their station while denying the suggestion that the Accused never destroyed the properties of Obulapuram Mining Company, never threatened any public servant, never raised any slogans against the
Government and never abused them in filthy language.
16.Similarly PW.3 denied the suggestion that the Accused never trespassed into Obulapuram Mining Company and none of the Accused participated in the incident. He further denied the suggestion that the names of Accused were shown in the charge sheet at the instance of leaders of the then ruling party.
17.PW.4 stated in the cross examination that he does not know whether the details of incident were entered in G.D., while admitting that he did not furnish the timings of their bandobust duty to the I.O. He denied the suggestion that the Accused did not participate in any illegal activity and never violated the orders issued by the authority concerned.
He also denied the suggestion that the Accused never trespassed into the
Obulapuram Mining Company.
18.The evidence of the then S.I. V. Harinath/PW.5 of
Madakasira Police Station shows that on 21.07.2008 he rushed to
Obulapuram Mining Company as per the instructions given by their
Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram District along with other Police officials and while they were on bandobust duty at about 04.30 P.M., A1,
A2, A4 to A6, A10, A11, A15, A18, A21, Babu Rao and some other
Accused trespassed into Obulapuram Mining Company by forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and raised slogans and then the
Additional Superintendent of Police informed them that it was not proper
to enter into Obulapuram Mining Company as the orders issued under
C.C.No.50 of 201814Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
Section 144 of Cr.P.C., were inforce. His evidence shows that the
Accused threatened the Police with dire consequences and tried to damage the properties of Obulapuram Mining Company by litting fire and that they abused the management of Obulapuram Mining Company and also abused him and others in filthy language by raising slogans as if they are corrupt officials.
19.On perusal of Rule 627(2)(F) of A.P. Police Manual, it speaks that “persons dispatched for beat/patrol/process duties and they return subsequently shall be entered in the General Diary”. Similarly Rule 627(2) (4) speaks that “a copy of the General Diary, after it has been closed, shall be dispatched daily at the earliest opportunity along with all required enclosures to the SDPO concerned in Form 93, with an abstract of the duties done by the staff during the date...”.
20.PW.5 further stated that he had not shown the G.D. entry to the I.O. while denying the suggestion that he did not state before I.O. that he made G.D. entry. He further stated that he had not shown the entry made in duty roaster to I.O. while denying the suggestion that he ought to have made an entry in Form-II(A). He also stated that he had not shown his passport to the I.O. He denied the suggestion that the Accused never formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and never raised slogans.
He further denied the suggestion that the Accused never violated the orders of promulgation issued by the authority concerned. He further admitted that by the time of incident, the ruling party was Congress Party and all the Accused belonged to Telugu Desam Party. He denied the suggestion that at the instance of MLAs of the then ruling party, he is not deposing true version and that Accused never participated in the alleged
C.C.No.50 of 201815Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
incident. At this stage, this court feels it proper to refer the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court regarding G.D entry.
21.In Bir Singh And Ors. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 1 wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:
“Another ground relied upon by the Sessions Judge is that there is over-writing in the original general diary wherever the word "Ram Dularey Singh" had occurred. This is undoubtedly a very serious matter”.
Their lordships further held as follows:
“The High Court thus seems to have brushed aside this manifest defect in the general diary by ascribing it to a mere clerical mistake and has not given any good reason to reverse the finding of the Sessions
Judge who on a careful perusal of the general diary had come to the
definite opinion that the possibility of Narain having been converted to Dularey Cannot be completely excluded. If the prosecution could go to the extent of substituting the name of Ram Dularey Singh for Ram Narain Singh then no reliance can be placed on the evidence of witnesses who support such a false case and the Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in insisting on corroboration of the eye-witnesses by independent sources which as found by us were available with the prosecution in the shape of the statement of Shambhu Bhujwa and Bhikari before accepting the evidence of the said witnesses”.
22.In the instant case also PW.5 stated that he does not know whether the details of the incident were entered in G.D. Similarly PW.5 admitted that they have to make G.D. entry when they leave the Police
Station and to go on certain duty as per the 627(F) of Police Manual and that he had not shown the G.D. entry to the I.O. He further stated that he made an entry in duty roaster and that he had not shown the entry made in duty roaster to I.O. So, in the absence of furnishing G.D. entry by the witnesses concerned to the I.O., it creates any amount of doubt regarding 1AIR 1978 SC 59
C.C.No.50 of 201816Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
the presence of PWs.2 to 5 at the place of alleged incident as PW.1 stated that he does not know anything about this case who worked as a
Mines Manager in Obulapuram Mines Company on the relevant date of incident. He had gone to the extent of denying the entire case of prosecution i.e., about the alleged trespass said to have been made by the Accused and causing obstruction to Police personnel and others while they were discharging their duties.
23.Similarly the evidence of the then Inspector U.
Narasingappa/PW.6 of Guntakal Urban Circle is on similar lines to the evidence of PW.5 regarding the alleged trespass said to have been made by the Accused. He also admitted in the cross examination that by the time of alleged incident, the ruling party was Congress and A1 and others belonged to Telugu Desam Party. He admitted that weekly reports and monthly reports will be submitted to District Police Officer. He also stated that he has not shown the weekly report to the I.O. concerned. He further stated that O.S.D. did not record his presence before him. He further stated that he did not state before the I.O. that he reported before O.S.D.
Ananthapuram on 21.07.2009 as shown to him in the portion of 161 of
Cr.P.C., statement/Ex.D1. He denied the suggestion that he was not discharging the duties at Obulapuram Mining Company. He denied the suggestion that he stated about the presence of A2 and others specifically by the time of alleged incident at the instance of the then ruling party and that they never participated in the alleged incident.
24.The evidence of PWs.2 to 6 shows that the Accused violated the orders issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., by PW.7. Whereas the then Mines Manager of Obulapuram Mining Company stated in his
C.C.No.50 of 201817Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
evidence that he does not know anything about this case who worked as a Mines Manager in Obulapuram Mining Company of Obulapuram Village by the time of incident.
25.When the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross examined PW.1, he denied the suggestion that as per the instructions given by their management, he addressed a letter to S.H.O. D.Hirehal
Police Station and other Police officials including the Tahsildar, D.Hirehal
Mandal and to Revenue Higher Officials by requesting to provide security under the apprehension that their lives were at stake. He further denied the suggestion that he stated before the S.I. that when the staff members and the Police men of other Police Stations came to Obulapuram Mines
Company and when they were engaged in bandobust duty on 21.07.2007 at Obulapuram Mining Company, at 04.30 P.M., A1, A3, A4, A5 and other
MLAs tried to trespass into Obulapuram Mining Company though the orders issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., were inforce and that when the officials tried to stop them, they threatened to kill them and pushed the staff members who were on bandobust duty and trespassed into
Mining company etc. He further denied the suggestion that they damaged the office furniture and threatened to lit fire and left the premises by raising slogans as shown to him in Ex.P1/161 Cr.P.C., statement.
26.It shows that PW.1 is the only witness who was examined on behalf of Obulapuram Mining Company and his evidence shows that nothing had happened in the premises of Obulapuram Mining Company.
27.The learned counsel for A1, A6 and A21 while referring to the evidence of PW.1 argued that PW.1 is an important witness to the case of prosecution as it contends that at his instance Police bandobust was
C.C.No.50 of 201818Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
provided at O.M.C. premises and had really the incident been happened, certainly PW.1 could have stated about the alleged trespass said to have been caused by the Accused and about violation of orders issued under
Section 144 of Cr.P.C., by PW.7. He further argued that when the
Accused belonged to opposition, the prosecution ought to have examined an independent witness to support its case when the strong contention of
Accused is that the case was filed against them at the instance of ruling party.
28.Admittedly PWs.2 to 6 are Police personnel and they deposed in one voice that the Accused trespassed into Obulapuram
Mining Company by forming themselves into an unlawful assembly though the orders issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., by PW.7 were inforce. The contents of Ex.P2/true copy of proceedings show that on 20.07.2007 B. Rajendra Prasad/PW.7 the then Tahsildar of D.Hirehal
Mandal issued proceedings under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., based on the report given by the Sub Inspector of D.Hirehal as the Sub Inspector submitted a requisition stating that some State leaders belonged to
Telugu Desam Party were going to visit O.M.C. Mines situated near
Obulapuram Village and more than 400 men belonging to Telugu Desam
Party and their State leaders would gather to visit O.M.C. Mines and likely to design a plan to make galata and to create law and order problem at
O.M.C. Mines and consequently PW.7 issued orders under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., having satisfied with the report given by the S.I., by prohibiting unlawful assembly consisting 4 or 5 persons and also prohibiting of carrying lethal weapons, fire arms, procession and public meeting including peace march in the Villages concerned.
C.C.No.50 of 201819Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
29.The evidence of PW.7 is in consonance with Ex.P2 orders.
He stated that he informed A1 and his men at the surrounding area of
O.M.C. that he issued proceedings under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., and directed them not to cause hindrance to public peace and that A1 and others did not listen to him and trespassed into O.M.C. premises. He further stated that he can identify A1, A2 and other important persons if they are shown to him, who could not identify the two persons who were present in the court hall on that day. In the cross examination, he admitted that it is not possible for him to remember all the incidents that happened during his service. He further stated that Police did not examine him.
30.Similarly the then Home Guard A. Ravi of Rayadurg Police
Station/PW.8 stated in his evidence that on 21.07.2007 he discharged his duties as a Driver under the Inspector of Rayadurg Circle i.e., M.
Padmakar Reddy/LW.28. His evidence further shows that he announced in the Mike about the issuance of proceedings under Section 144 of
Cr.P.C., at the instance of their Inspector and he further stated that he cannot identify them.
31.The evidence of PW.7 and PW.8 proved the promulgation of orders issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., by PW.7. Preventing formation of unlawful assembly of 4 or 5 persons or more. At this stage, this court feels it proper to refer Section 195 (1) of Cr.P.C which speaks that : No Court shall take cognizance—
1. (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence,
C.C.No.50 of 201820Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
Section 195 – 199 are exceptions provided under Cr.P.C to the
General Rule that anybody having the knowledge of commission of crime can set the law into motion by way of complaint.
32.In Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab. (1962 AIR 1206),2 their
Lordships of the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring to Section 195 of
Cr.P.C held as follows :
“The words of the section, namely, that the complaint has to be in writing by the public servant concerned and that no court shall take cognizance except on such a complaint clearly show that in every instance the court must be moved by the appropriate public servant”.
33.Similarly in Kottu Satyanarayana Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor in Criminal Petition
No.10768 of 2014, his Lordship of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh while referring to Section 195 of Cr.P.C held as follows :
“In the instant case, LW1 who is the public servant and who is empowered to set the criminal law in motion did not lodge the complaint with jurisdictional Magistrate but filed report before the Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Tadepalligudem in violation of Section 195 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the investigation which culminated in charge sheet and consequent taking of cognizance by learned Magistrate are vitiated and hence liable to be quashed”.
34.In the instant case, the contention of the prosecution as seen from the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 is that A1 to A21 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into Obulapuram Mining Company 2 Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab. (1962 AIR 1206)
C.C.No.50 of 201821Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
though the orders issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., by PW.7 that were promulgated were inforce and that the Accused violated the orders.
35.At this stage, this court feels it proper to refer Section 186 and 188 of IPC, which speak as follows :
Section 186: Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either discription for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both”.
“Section 188: Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
36. Therefore, the prosecution has to prove that the Accused voluntarily obstructed the public servants while they were discharging public functions i.e., when they were attending bandobust duty. Similarly the prosecution has to prove that the Accused with sufficient knowledge that the public servant concerned, promulgated by an order that they (accused) have to be abstained from forming themselves into an unlawful
C.C.No.50 of 201822Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
assembly, trespassed into the premises and tried to cause damage to the property etc.
37. Coming to the evidence of PW.1 he stated that he does not know anything about this case while denying the entire case of prosecution. As rightly argued by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, the evidence of Police personnel cannot be discarded when there is corroboration in their evidence. However, there is a specific bar provided under section 195 of Cr.P.C., to take cognizance of the offences specified therein. The very taking of cognizance itself is not valid as written complaint has to be given by the public servant concerned as held by their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court in Daulat Ram’s case, in the absence of which, the accusation made against A1 and others fails.
Similarly there is no evidence from the person concerned of Obulapuram
Mining Company to show that A1 and others trespassed into the premises and tried to cause damage to the property.
38.Though the prosecution contends that PW.2 to PW.6 including PW.7 witnessed the incident as already discussed above, PW.2 to PW.6 are Police personnel and PW.1 is declared as hostile witness to the case of prosecution as he resiled from his earlier version and his 161 of Cr.P.C., statement was exhibited as Ex.P1. Though the prosecution contends that PW.1 filed an application to the Police officials to provide escort on the ground that he received information that A1 and others were planning to come to Obulapuram Mining Company etc. PW.1 did not support the case of prosecution. PW.8 also stated that he did not observe who came to the premises. He admitted in the cross examination that he
C.C.No.50 of 201823Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
maintained Log Book while working as a Driver under their Inspector. He also admitted that Congress party was ruling party by then.
39.Except the evidence of PWs.2 to 6, there is no independent evidence to support the case of prosecution. When the prosecution specifically contends that A1 and others trespassed into the premises so as to cause damage to the property in Obulapuram Mining Company the evidence must be convincing. The evidence of PW.1 does not show that the Accused entered into the Obulapuram Mining Company with an intention to damage the property of the company or with an intention to annoy any person in possession of such property. None of the persons relating to Obulapuram Mining Company were examined except PW.1 by the prosecution and PW.1 did not support its case. Though PW.4 stated that A1 and others threatened to kill them and pushed them, there is no consistency in the evidence of witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 stated that they were pushed by the Accused and the evidence of PW.5 show that A1 and others pushed the Additional Superintendent of Police and he did not speak that A1 and others pushed them. Similarly the prosecution failed to mark the alleged G.D. entry said to have been made in D.Hirehal Police
Station. When the Accused persons strongly contend that at the instance of ruling party, this case was foisted against them the prosecution ought to have examined the independent witnesses in the absence of which the
Accused must be given benefit of doubt. So in the absence of written complaint from the public servant concerned showing the violation of orders issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., and about the alleged obstruction said to have been caused to PWs.2 to 6 and in the absence of convincing evidence to show that A1 and others trespassed into the
C.C.No.50 of 201824Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
premises of O.M.C., Obulapuram and in the absence of independent evidence showing the alleged threat said to have been caused by the
Accused to PWs.2 to 6, the Accused shall be given benefit of doubt.
Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.
40. In the result, A1, A2, A4 to A7, A9 to A16 and A18 to A21 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 188, 447, 186 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC and thereby, they are acquitted for the said offence under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of A1, A2, A4 to
A7, A9 to A16 and A18 to A21 shall remain in force for a period of six months from this day, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
The case against A3, A8 and A17 was already abated.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, after her transcription, corrected
and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 13th day of March, 2025.
Sd/- Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi,
Judge, Special Court for Trial of
Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
PW-1 : P.M. Siva Kumar Swamy.
PW-2 : M. Madhusudhan.
PW-3 : B. Srinivasulu.
PW-4 : Y. Devaraju.
PW-5 : V. Harinath.
PW-6 : U. Narasingappa.
C.C.No.50 of 201825Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.
PW-7 : B. Rajendra Prasad.
PW-8 : A. Ravi.
PW-9 : P. Peddanna.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.
Ex.P2 : True copy of proceedings issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., by
PW.7, dated 20.07.2007.
Ex.P3 : Report given by LW.1/S. Mahaboob Vali.
Ex.P4 : FIR in Crime No.34/2007.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
None.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE
Ex.D1 : Portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.6.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
NIL.
Sd/- Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi,
Judge, Special Court for Trial of
Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As., Vijayawada.