Sri S.Srinivas

IN THE COURT OF V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT ANAKAPALLI

PRESENT: SRI S.SRINIVAS, B.COM., L.L.M.,

V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

TUESDAY, THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014

C.C. No. 600/2008

Between:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parawada Police Station. …Complainant And:-

1. Salapu Nagaraju, S/o Sannibabu, aged 47 Years, Kapu by caste, Salapuvanipalem, Parawada Mandal.

2. Salapu Satya Venkata Ramana s/o Sannibabu, aged 42 Years, Kapu by caste, Salapuvanipalem, Parawada Mandal.

3. Salapu Apparao s/o Sannibabu, aged 36 Years, Kapu by caste, Salapuvanipalem, Parawada Mandal.

4. Salapu Raju s/o Nagaraju, aged 23 Years, Kapu by caste, Salapuvanipalem, Parawada mandal.

5. Salapu Kondamma w/o late Sannibabu, aged 65 Years, Kapu by caste, Salapuvanipalem Village, Parawada Mandal.

…Accused

This case coming on 18-02-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri Sai Ram Prabhakar, Advocate for the accused and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police, Parawada Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.341, 323, 506 IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows;

On 2-7-2008 L.W1 S.P.Maheshbabu prepared some representation requesting the MLA to grant houses to the poor people in the village and the same was referred to MRO, Parawada. On 5-7- 2008 MRO visited Salapuvanipalem and asked to show Government lands under name Gollavanibanda as he came for enquiry. Then L.W1

Maheshbabu shown the said land to MRO. On 6-7-2008 during morning hours at about 9-00 A.M L.W1 Maheshbabu with a view to take milk from his sisters house near to NH-5 went there at that time A1 to A5 rushed to him restrained him and also abused him in vulgar language saying that what is the need to him to show the place to MRO. All they tried to asked L.W1 Maheshbabu with deadly weapons like knife, sticks 2 then L.W1 Maheshbabu ran away to his sister's house and all the accused chased him. Then L.W1 Maheshbabu entered into his sister's house anticipating danger to his life and himself compelled him to the room and rescued from the hands of the accused. A1 to A5 threatened

L.W1 Maheshbabu that they will kill him as well as the family members caused terror. L.W1 Maheshbabu remained in the room itself and informed over phone to Parawada P.S who rushed to the spot then

L.W1 Maheshbabu came out of that room. A1 locked the said room from outside. Basing on the report given by L.W1 Maheshbabu, L.W8

P.Mohanarao HC 1502 registered a case in Cr.No.90/08 and investigated into. On completion of investigation L.W9 K.Paidapunaidu laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.341, 323, 506 IPC.

3.Case is taken on file U/sec.341, 323, 506 IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused copies of case documents were furnished U/sec.207 Cr.P.C by my learned predecessor in office.

5.The accused examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. and a charge framed U/sec.240 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/sec.341, 323, 506

IPC, readover and explained the accusation in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to7 and marked Ex.P1 to P6.

7.On completion of prosecution side evidence, accused examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, readover and explained the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu. The accused denied the same and stated no defence witnesses and also stated that were were falsely implicated in this case.

8.I heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

1) Whether the accused obstructed L.W1 Maheshbabu while he was crossing NH-5 road which is punishable U/sec.341 IPC?

2) Whether the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 with hands and legs which is punishable U/sec.323 IPC?

3

3) Whether the accused threatened P.W1 with dire consequences?

2) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.341, 323, 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. During the course of arguments, the learned APP submitted that evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 as well as Investigation Officer's evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/secs.304-A, 323, 506 IPC. With these submissions she prays to punish the accused according to law.

11.The learned counsel for the accused submits that P.Ws.1 and 2 are own brother and sister interested to the prosecution case their version cannot be taken into consideration because of blood relation. Not only that both P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in contradictory manner from each other. The remaining witnesses examined who are independent persons turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. P.W7 in the cross examination clearly stated that A1 was not present at that time P.W7 not stated any over tacts against A2 to A5. P.W1 deposed in a different manner with regard to arrest of the accused. On the date of alleged incident itself accused were arrested as per

PW1's version whereas Investigation Officer deposed that on the next date of the alleged incident he arrested the accused at water tank area this is a clear contradiction. In such circumstances there is every doubt on part of the complainant and his sister with regard to alleged incident and prays to acquit the accused.

12.Points 1 to 3: Perused the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 out of them P.W1 deposed that on 6-7-08 at 9-00 A.M when his house was constructing with a view to bring milk he went to

Salapuvanipalem. At that time A2 stopped him and questioned about landed property why he encroached without any right as he shown the Government land to MRO which exists near to his house. Because of that showing Government land to MRO accused made discussion with him. All the accused came upon him with sticks and knives. On seeing them out of suspicion they may attack he rushed to his sister's house. All the accused being her sister trespassed into the house but he went inside the room and bolted both the doors of front and back side.

Accused rounded the house in high handed manner shouted 4 upon him that they will see his end. All the accused abused his sister with foul language around 50 persons local villagers gathered on hearing the galata. Accused threatened them and finally he informed him over the phone to police. The SI of

Police, Parawada rushed the scene and SI of Police opened the door he went to Police Station and presented report. Accused came to Police Station where they were arrested by the police.

In the cross examination he deposed that he found “Om Sri.

Charitable Trust” and in the habit of issuing old aged pensions to the Villagers he has acquaintance with MLA, MRO of their locality the entire villagers including Panchayat elders put requisition to the MLA. Though MRO for house sites. As MRO and other officials came to his house and enquired about the

Government lands then himself taken them to that land. He admitted that behind back of accused one Satyanarayana,

Sarpanch of Salapuvanipalem exists. Accused are related to him in the manner of brothers. Some landed property fell to share of the accused in an unclarified manner and accused themselves got registered the same at Sabbavaram Registrar Office and the said land belongs to him. No litigation pending with regard to that landed property. He denied the suggestion that he is well acquainted with SI of Police out of Dwakra units and Social worker programme. After going inside the room he bolted the room. His sister tried to bolt the grill between two rooms and entrance. Around 10-00 A.M on his phone police came to the alleged scene of offence. After arrival of police they took them to the police station. Himself L.Ws.2 and 3 Srinivasarao and

Varahalamma and others came to the police station. He denied the suggestion that no offence committed by accused and he is deposing falsely out of political rivalry between himself and accused because of two groups.

13.P.W2 sister of P.W1 deposed that she know all the accused.

About 7 years back at 8-00 a.M his brother rushed to her house in hurry manner, went inside the house and bolted the same and when she questioned he replied that accused are following him. Accused also rushed to his house sticks are present in their hands, after some time around two hours later police came to the scene and taken away the accused when he questioned the accused about their behaviour they replied that all they came 5 on landed property aspect. In the cross examination she deposed that around 10 persons present along with accused at the alleged scene. She do not know what exactly happened at the incident.

14.P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 are alleged to be eye witnesses to the incident but they have not supported the prosecution case and totally turned hostile.

15.P.W6 deposed that on 6-7-2008 at about 11-00 A.M the complainant came to Police Station and presented written report basing on that he registered the case he took up investigation in that case examined P.W1 and visited the scene of offence at the house of P.W2 prepared rough sketch and examined P.Ws.2 to 5, P.W7 recorded their detailed statements.

During the course of investigation no case made out against

S.Satyanaayana hence he deleted his name. On 7-7-2008 near water tanks Salapuvanipalem he arrested all the accused and sent them to the Hon'ble Court for custody. In the cross examination he deposed that he do not know the avocation of

P.W1 he has not attended the MLA's meeting on 2-7-2008 as well as MROs made on 5-7-2008. He enquired the then MRO,

Salapuvanipalem no statement was recorded. On phone message from P.W1 the constables went to the scene. He do not know whether P.W1 came along with their police constables to the station. He has not examined the neighbouring witnesses as mentioned in rough sketch as they were not available. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the scene, the entire investigation is table investigation.

16.P.W7 deposed that about 5 years back during morning time when he was returning in his village he found P.W1 was talking with A1 and others and suddenly he parked his vehicle and went inside the house of his sister and locked the doors, he heard hue and cry of P.W1's sister and public at the village gathered and that was the incident witnessed by him but he do not know what actually happened. In his cross examination he stated that P.W1 is resident of Sirasapalli and he know him one year prior to the alleged incident as he promised him to arrange a job. Sirasapalli situates adjacent to National High Way where as Maredupudi

Colony situates far distance to NH-5. He observed on the NH-5.

P.W1 talked with some unknown persons and A1 was not 6 present at that time. P.W1's sister house situates adjacent to

NH-5. After bolting the door by P.W1 he went away from that area and he do not know what actually happened. On the same day at about 11-00 or 11-30 A.M P.W1 came to him and taken police to the alleged scene of offence where police also present.

17.On observing the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. P.Ws.3 to 5 not supported the prosecution version they simply stated that they do not know anything relating to the case whereas P.W1 in this case crystal clearly stated about the manner of incident how this was taken place. In anticipation of attack and out of suspicion P.W1 rushed to his sister's house and went inside locked the room. This act was done by P.W1 with a view to rescue him from the hands of accused as per his version. The same aspect was deposed by P.W2 his sister in a crystal clear manner that accused also rushed to her house sticks present in their hands. If P.W2 being relative of P.W1 as contended by

Learned Counsel she might have deposed all the story in an improved version. But she simply stated what actually she saw as a genuine witness. P.W1 rushed to her house locked the room she questioned P.W1 about his behaviour who replied accused following, in continuation she observed accused came to her house with sticks. P.W7 who deposed in his chief evidence that abut 5 years back during morning time he observed P.W1 talking with A1 and others and suddenly rushed to P.W1's sister's house and later he heard hue and cry of

P.W1's sister public and the villagers gathered. This circumstantial evidence deposed by P.W7 also supports the version of P.W1 that some incident taken place at the house of

P.W2. In the chief and cross examination of P.W7 with regard to presence of A1 is concerned it was taken into the consideration

P.W7's evidence cannot be brushed out with regard to taking 7 place of incident. As several years passed away from 2008 generally one cannot exactly deposed what actually happened on the date of incident against him. Some aspects might have forgetton by the victim/complainant as a human tendency basing on memory power. In the same manner from that of

P.W6 Investigation Officer's version. This court finally come to conclusion that those contradictions as pointed out by the

Learned counsel are simple in nature which cannot weaken the link of prosecution story. ON observing the testimony of P.W1 with the supporting version of P.Ws.2 and 7 this court come to conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

U/sec.341 and 506 IPC i.e., he was wrongfully restrained from free moving on the main road and also criminally intimated him causing fear in his mind. So far as Sec.323 IPC is concerned no simple injuries alleged to be caused by the accused and nothing was deposed by P.W1 with regard to injuries are concerned even no wound certificate is available on record as well as no

Medical Officer cited as witness in this case. Hence the offence

U/sec.323 i.e., causing hurt was not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

18.In the result, the accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty and acquitted U/sec.255 (1) Cr.PC for the offence U/sec.323 IPC and

A1 to A5 are convicted U/sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence

U/sec.341, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

Transcribed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th day of FEBRUARY, 2014

S/d.S.Srinivas V Metropolitan Magistrate Anakapalle 8

19.Heard the accused with regard to quantum of sentence for which

A1 replied that he is doing coolie work and he has to perform his daughter's marriage which was recently fixed. So far as A2 is concerned he has to look after his old aged mother i.e., A5 in this case and also reports small children are depending upon him. The remaining accused also prays to show mercy on them. On hearing the A1 to A5 as all are related to complainant and of same villagers and has no injuries proved by complainant imposing fine itself is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Hence A1 to A5 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/sec.506 IPC IDSI for one month each. A1 to A5 further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each IDSI for 15 days each in case of non payment of fine amount both the default sentences shall run concurrently. Accused are informed of their right of appeal for which they stated that they have no means to engage a counsel appointed on their behalf in this case. Transcribed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th day of FEBRUARY, 2014.

S/d.S.Srinivas V Metropolitan Magistrate Anakapalle

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Accused:

PW1: S.Maheshbabu. -NONE PW2: B.Varalamma. PW3: D.Sai Lakshmi PW4: S.Atchibabu PW5: B.Chinnayya PW6: K.Pydapunaidu P.W7: A.Srinivasaraju

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Accused: N I L

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: 161 statement of P.W1 Ex.P3: 161 statement of P.W2 Ex.P4: 161 statement of P.W5 Ex.P5: FIR Ex.P6: Rough sketch

S/d.S.Srinivas VMM/ANAKAPALLI //TRUE COPY//

VMM/AKP

CALENDER & JUDGMENT.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED BY THE V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 

AT ANAKAPALLI

Date of offence 06/07/08 Report or complaint06/07/08 Apprehension of accused11/08/08 Release on bail Commencement of trial20-12-2013 Close of trial18-02-2014 Sentence of order25-02-2014 Explanation of delay & The delay is due to non markedproduction of witnesses by the prosecution.

CC.No. 600/2008

Name of the complainantState represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Parawada Police Station. Name of the accused:

1. Salapu Nagaraju, S/o Sannibabu, aged 47 Years, Kapu by caste, Salapuvanipalem, Parawada Mandal.

2. Salapu Satya Venkata Ramana s/o Sannibabu, aged 42 Years, Kapu by caste, Salapuvanipalem, Parawada Mandal.

3. Salapu Apparao s/o Sannibabu, aged 36 Years, Kapu by caste, Salapuvanipalem, Parawada Mandal.

4. Salapu Raju s/o Nagaraju, aged 23 Years, Kapu by caste, Salapuvanipalem, Parawada mandal.

5. Salapu Kondamma w/o late Sannibabu, aged 65 Years, Kapu by caste, Salapuvanipalem Village, Parawada Mandal.

Offence U/sec.341, 323, 506 IPC.

Finding: Accused found guilty

Sentence or order:

In the result, the accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty and acquitted U/sec.255 (1) Cr.PC for the offence U/sec.323 IPC and A1 to A5 are convicted U/sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/sec.341, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Hence A1 to A5 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/sec.506 IPC IDSI for one month each. A1 to A5 further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each IDSI for 15 days each in case of non payment of fine amount both the default sentences shall run concurrently. Accused are informed of their right of appeal for which they stated that they have no means to engage a counsel appointed on their behalf in this case. S/d.S.Srinivas V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle Copy Submitted to: The Chief Judicial Magistrate –cum-

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam. //True Copy//

VMM/AKP 10

IN THE COURT OF V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT ANAKAPALLI

PRESENT: SR I S.SRINI VAS, B.COM., L.L.M.,

V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

THURSDAY, THIS THE 1st DAY OF AUGUST, 2013

C.C. No. 317/2006

Between:- State represented by the Drugs Inspector, Anakapalli …Complainant And:- P.V.Muralikrishna, Partner, M/s. Sri.Venkata Seetharama Medical Agencies, Dr.No.12-1-117 (1), Main road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. …Accused

This case coming on 30-07-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri M.Jayaram and V.Venkatarao, Advocates for the accused and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a case filed by the Drugs Inspector, Anakapalli filed complaint against the accused for the offence U/sec.22 (1) (cca) punishable U/sec.22 (3), Rule 65 (18) r/w Sec.18 (a) (vi) punishable U/sec.27 (d), Sec.18A punishable U/sec.28 and Sec.18B punishable U/sec.28 A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.

2.The allegations leveled against the accused are:

On reliable information on 16-11-2004 L.W1 M.N.Achari inspected the premises of M/s.Sri.Venkata Seetharama Medical

Agencies, Main road, Anakapalli where accused is partner and competent person of the said shop running business and during the inspection complainant found certain physician sample not to be sold in the sales premises. Totally there were 49 varieties of Physicians

Samples found it in the sales premises. L.Ws.4 and 5 N.S.P.Gupta and T.Peda Kameswararao noticed the same as mediator accused failed to produce bills for the said physician samples and reply that they were given by different company Medical Representatives. On that L.W1 M.N.Achari seized the medicines under the cover of mediatorname duly signed by independent mediators. Finally on completion of seizure of the property and other procedure he drafted inspection report and after obtaining prosecution sanction orders from competent authority he laid this complaint against the accused for the offence U/sec.22 (1) (cca) punishable U/sec.22 (3), Rule 65 (18) r/w Sec.18 (a) (vi) punishable U/sec.27 (d), Sec.18A punishable 2

U/sec.28 and Sec.18B punishable U/sec.28 A of the Drugs &

Cosmetics Act, 1940.

3.Case taken on file U/sec.22 (1) (cca) punishable U/sec.22 (3), Rule 65 (18) r/w Sec.18 (a) (vi) punishable U/sec.27 (d),

Sec.18A punishable U/sec.28 and Sec.18B punishable

U/sec.28 A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the accused by my learned predecessor in office.

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

5.The accused examined U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C. and U/sec.22 (1) (cca) punishable U/sec.22 (3), Rule 65 (18) r/w Sec.18 (a)

(vi) punishable U/sec.27 (d), Sec.18A punishable U/sec.28 and

Sec.18B punishable U/sec.28 A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 against accused readover and explained the accusation in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Ex.P1 to P11.

7.On completion of prosecution side evidence, accused examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, readover and explained the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu. The accused denied the same and stated no defence witnesses on his behalf.

8.I heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences U/sec.22 (1) (cca) punishable U/sec.22 (3), Rule 65 (18) r/w Sec.18 (a) (vi) punishable U/sec.27 (d), Sec.18A punishable U/sec.28 and Sec.18B punishable U/sec.28 A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The learned A.P.P. In this case submitted her arguments that accused is one of the partner of M/s.Sri.Venkata

Seetharama Medical Agencies, Main road, Anakapalli and he possessed physician samples an failed to show the source of supply. Ex.P10 is the licence belongs to M/s.Sri.Venkata

Seetharama Medical Agencies showing the name of the accused as one of the partner. Even though P.Ws.2 and 3 turned hostile they admitted that they were called by L.W1 3

M.N.Achari and at that time he found the boxes in the premises and affixed pancha slips holding the physician samples for sale itself is violation of Rules mentioned int he

Drugs Act and accused is liable for punishment. In order to support her contention the learned APP relied upon two decisions reported in AIR 1974 469 between Sk. Amirr v. State of Maharastra wherein it was held that possessing the stock itself is sufficient. “It is not necessary that drug should be 'stored' in a place in order that it can be said to have been “stocked” for sale. If any one keeps or carries a drug on his person in contravention of the terms of the Act and it is proved that the drug is kept or carried for sale, the act must fall within the mischief of the law. She further reported a decision AIR 1974 SC 564 between Md.Shabbir appellant v.

Stat of Maharsthra Respondent. Wherein it was held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court that “Every person, not being the

manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall, if so required, disclose to the

Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic”. With the above decisions the learned APP prays to punish the accused according to law.

11.On the other hand the learned counsel for accused submitted his arguments that in the chief examination itself P.W1 stated that whether accused firm is a wholesaler or retailer the ground floor of shop situates as per the version of P.W1 but it was in the 1st floor it shows P.W1 not inspected the premises.

Ex.P3 contents were not clearly stated in chief examination of

P.W1 if very vague. Panchanama at the inspection notice were directly served to the accused without sending the same to register post or local tappal. Form-16 is not in proper and prescribed proforma. Commencing of inspection at what time is silent in Ex.P3 as well as closing time which are very important as such Ex.P3 looked into. Complainant field to reveal the information that the physician samples were seized from whose premises whether it is accused premises or welfare association premises. Actually one B.S.Santhi who holds medical camps collected the physician samples and 4 placed the same in the ground floor of the premises for distributing the same medicines to poor at different places.

Because of eye shore of local neighbouring business people they complained against the accused to the Drugs Inspector main office at Rajahamundry who in turn instructed L.W1

M.N.Achari to inspection the premises of the accused.

Complianant field to reveal in the complaint whether accused is the main partnership firm. He also failed to mention the names of remaining partners in the complaint. Complainant failed to explain why the names of other partners not mentioned in the complaint. Ex.P6 does not reflect in how many boxes was samples were seized or slip. There must be over drawn taken place with regard to physician samples not to be sold as per Rule 96 of the Drugs Act. The decisions relied on by the counsel for accused are that 1994 Crl.L.J 743 between the State of Karnataka Appellant vs. Kanika Stores,

Mysore Respondent wherein it was held that complainant failed to prove that drugs were offered for sale. Hence he is entitled for acquittal. In the same decision it was further mentioned that thee is no clinching evidence to show that he medicines were expected in manner to attract the customers so as to inference that they were offered for sale. 2. 2005 (2)

ALD Crl. Wherein it was held simply because a person is

Director of the Company it does not necessarily mean that he fulfills both requirements, so as to make him liable for an offence under the act-some times even, without being a director, a person can be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. 3. 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 956 (A.P) wherein it was held where the partnership firm was charged for the offence U/sec.18 (a) (ii) and ( c) of the

Drugs and Cosmetics ct, the partner of the firm who was in over all control of the day to day business of the firm would alone be liable to be convicted. 4. 2006 (3) ALT (Crl) 245 (A.P) as per the said decision it was held that there must be clear evidence to show that petitioner kept the stocks for sale without licence, the proving of mere possession is not sufficient to convict him for the said offence.

5

12.The main contents of the written arguments of counsel for accused is that whether accused is running business as wholesaler or retailer is silent. He signed on inspection report along with L.W1.M.N.Achari drafted by Achari. He do t know whether without charitable institution by name Bharat Vikas parishad situates in D.No.12-1-117 he has not gone through the registered or business particulars o the accused. Card board box does not contains panchanama slips. Accused firm is partnership firm as per Ex.P1. The physician samples not to be sold shall be over printed. As per Rule 96 there is no offence meet out and if the physician not be sold his version printed it is an offence. There is no over printed material of

MO1 no seizure is proved.

13.In this case prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P11 and MO1. Seizure of MO1 as physician samples by the complainant is established but the procedure for seizure was not crystal clearly established in the form of fine in fault of accused. Why because the mediators in whole presence complainant L.W1 M.N.Achari alleged to be seize3d MO1 drugs not supported the prosecution case. They simply stated that by the time of arrival MO1 drugs were kept in 3 card board boxes. Ex.P10 a licence in the name of M/s.Sri.Venkata

Seetharama Medical Agencies, Main road, Anakapalli shows

Sri.P.V.M.Krishna as incharge but there are other partners by name P.VRRao and P.Satyanarayana complainant failed to mentioned their names in the complaint as accused. Even for the same of complaint to prove his allegations as accused is the only person liable for punishment. He has not shown accused as main person and other two are the sleeping partners. In the absence of mentioning remain in partners as accused in he complaint and only showing he one person as incharge of inspected premises creates doubt as contended by the counsel for the accused. In this case as admitted by other party no report received from the public. Adultery seized drugs are not sub standard or adulterated and they are only physician samples not to be sold. L.W1 M.N.Achari who is the real person that inspected the premises of accused and launched the prosecution was not examined due to his demise.

6

P.W1 at his evidence deposed that he inspected the premises of the accused whether it was ground floor or 1st floor and not sated. The counsel for complainant contending that at ground floor in D.No.16-1-117 one charitable institution by name

Bharat Vikas Parishad locates who are collecting the physician samples in a bulk manner for distributing the same to poor people during the time of medical camps hold by the. P.W1 accompanied L.W M.N.Achari as per his version inspected the premises of accused but it was not clear whether it was ground floor or 1st floor. As per the contention of the counsel

for the accused at ground floor charitable institution was

running under name Bharat Vikas Parishad one can easily expect charitable institution can hold physician samples for the purpose of supplying the same to poor in the form of conducting medical camps. When and where required. P.W1 also failed to crystal clearly show that physician samples are kept open for sale. As per contention of P.W1 accused possessed physician samples which are not for sale in the sale premises along with salable drugs. As per Ex.p1 D.No of the accused premises is 12-1-117 (i). Coming to cross examination of P.W1 he deposed that he do not now whethe one charitable institution by name Bharat Vikas Parishad is situates in D.No.12-1-117. In further cross examination he clearly stated that he has not drafted in inventory the list by the time of their inspection. The sample version of P.W1 that accused possessed physician samples not to be sold along with salable drugs in his premises is not sufficient in the absence of corroborative evidence of independent mediators. On this aspect complainant tried well to bring before the court through the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that in their presence L.W1

M.N.Achari seized the physician samples. But P.Ws.2 and 3 not supported the prosecution case. In case L.W1 M.N.Achari examined in this case to support version of P.W1 it may fetch some strength to the complainant case but the sole testimony of P.W1 available on record is not at all sufficient in the absenc of corroborated or crystal clear evidence regarding the alleged offense against the accused. Non showing remaining partners of the accused firm as the accused by the complainant is one 7 latch on part of the complainant adding to that as per decisions of Hon'ble High Court of A.P reported in 2006 (3)

ALT CRL. 245 A.P between Alladi Krishna Murthy (A2) v. State of A.P – Mere possession of drugs not an offense U/sec.27-A

(i) (ii) r/w Sec.18 of the Act – No evidence that the petitioner stocked the drugs for sale. Prosecution failed to prove that A2 lone was responsible. Here in this case also complainant failed to crystal clearly proved that accused possessed the physician samples for sale purpose only and exhibited to attract the customers for selling the said physician samples. This is another aspect rightly contended by the counsel for accused.

So far as over printing of physician sample not to be sold is an offence to be taken into purview for filing complaint. In this case with regard to MO1 no such act was done against MO1 and hence it cannot be taken as an offence punishable under

Drugs Act. So far as the decision relied upon by the learned

APP are concerned the facts mentioned in both the decision are not applicable to the fats relating to the case on hand. On observing both oral and documentary evidence available on record and on going through the written arguments of the counsel for the accused and on hearing the submissions of learned APP in the form of arguments this court finally come to conclusion that complainant tried well to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.22 (1) (cca) punishable

U/sec.22 (3), Rule 65 (18) r/w Sec.18 (a) (vi) punishable

U/sec.27 (d), Sec.18A punishable U/sec.28 and Sec.18B punishable U/sec.28 A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 but failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the above said offences and he is entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result, accused found not guilty and acquitted

U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/sec.22 (1) (cca) punishable U/sec.22 (3), Rule 65 (18) r/w Sec.18 (a) (vi) punishable U/sec.27 (d), Sec.18A punishable U/sec.28 and

Sec.18B punishable U/sec.28 A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged. MO1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

8

Transcribed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 1st day of AUGUST, 2013.

V Metropolitan Magistrate Anakapalle

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined For Prosecution: For Accused: PW1: R.Udaya Bhaskar. -NONE PW2: N.S.Prakash Gupta PW3: Kameswararao

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: For Accused: N I L Ex.P1: Attested copy of Gazzette Ex.P2: Posting order of V.Bhaskarachari Ex.P3: Inspection Report Ex.P4: Panchanama Report Ex.P5: Form-16 notice. Ex.P6: Letter in R.C.No.352 dt.16-11-1004 Ex.P7: Letter in R.C.No.352 dt.17-11-2004 addressed to accused. Ex.P8: Memo filed on the complainant Ex.P9: Prosecution order by the director Ex.P10:Original licence belongs to Sri.Venkta Sitrama Medical Agencies. Ex.P11: Signature of List of material objects marked:

VMM/ANAKAPALLI

CALENDER & JUDGMENT.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED BY THE V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT ANAKAPALLI

Date of offence 16-11-2004 Report or complaint16-11-2004 Apprehension of accused24-07-2006 Release on bail Commencement of trial12-04-2013 Close of trial30-07-2013 Sentence of order01-08-2013 Explanation of delay & The delay is due to non markedproduction of witnesses by the prosecution.

CC.No. 317/2006

Name of the complainantState represented by the Drugs Inspector, Anakapalli.

Name of the accused: P.V.Muralikrishna, Partner, M/s. Sri.Venkata Seetharama Medical Agencies, Dr.No.12-1-117 (1), Main road, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

Offence U/sec.22(1)(cca) punishable U/sec.22 (3), Rule 65 (18) r/w Sec.18 (a) (vi) punishable U/sec.27 (d), Sec.18A punishable U/sec.28 and Sec.18B punishable U/sec.28 A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 Finding: Accused found not guilty Sentence or order:

Accused found not guilty and acquitted U/sec.255(1)

Cr.P.C. for the offence U/sec.22 (1) (cca) punishable U/sec.22 (3), Rule 65 (18) r/w Sec.18 (a) (vi) punishable U/sec.27 (d),

Sec.18A punishable U/sec.28 and Sec.18B punishable

U/sec.28 A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged. MO1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle Copy Submitted to: The Chief Judicial Magistrate –cum- 10

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

1C.C.No.102/2020 JFCM Court/CTP

Calendar and Judgment District: Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHINTHAPALLI.

CALENDAR CASE NO: 102/2020

Date of offence: 05-04-2019

Report or complaint: 05-04-2019

Apprehension: 05-04-2019

Release on bail : U/sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notice

Commencement of trial: 03-02-2023

Close of trial : 29-09-2023

Sentence or order : 03-11-2023

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses by Prosecution.

Name of the Complainant: The State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, P & E, Chinthapalli.

Name of the Accused: Korra Chilakamma, w/o Krishna, aged about 44 years, caste by ST Kodu, Kommangi village, Chinthapalli Mandal.

Offence : U/sec.34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 hence she is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of Six months from today as prescribed in Section 437-A of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property / M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

2C.C.No.102/2020 JFCM Court/CTP

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

CHINTHAPALLI

Present: Sri S. Srinivas,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam.

FAC Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chinthapalli

Friday, this is the 03rd day of November,2023

CALENDAR CASE NO: 102/2020

Between: The State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, P & E, Chinthapalli.

...Complainant

And: Korra Chilakamma, w/o Krishna, aged about 44 years, caste by ST Kodu, Kommangi village, Chinthapalli Mandal.

.....Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 20-10-2023 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Counsel for Accused having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, P & E, Chinthapalli filed charge sheet in Cr. No.54/2019 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

2)The brief facts of the prosecution case are that : On 05-04- 2019 at about 09:00 hours on receiving credible information that accused is selling illicit liquor then LW3 B. Jagadeeswararao, P & E SI,

Chinthapalli along with LW1 D. Srikanth, P & EC, Chinthapalli and LW2 K.

Lavanya, P & EC, Chinthapalli conducting patrolling duties at Kommangi village, Chinthapalli limits where they found one female person coming from opposite way with one black polythene bag containing 10 nip bottles of Officers Choice Whiskey and on seeing the police party she tried to escape but the police tried to catch her with bag and on their enquiry said person revealed her identity particulars and confessed that 3C.C.No.102/2020 JFCM Court/CTP the bag she is carrying is containing 10 nip bottles of Officers choice supreme whiskey and the said ID liquor purchased at agency area and she is selling the same at higher prices. For which the police party informed her, manufacturing, selling and transporting of illicit liquor is an offence. As no mediators were available they arrested the accused under the cover of occurrence report and seized the illicit liquor from her possession and drawn one sample of 180 ML from the seized illicit liquor for the sake of Chemical Examination, produced the accused, seized illicit liquor, drawn sample, later he handed over the accused, seized case property to LW4 S. Simhadri, P & E Inspector, P & E Station,

Chinthapalli PS for further investigation. Basing on the occurrence report he registered as case in Cr. No.54/2019 under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise

Act, 1968, took up investigation examined witnesses LW1 D. Srikanth and LW2 K. Lavanya and recorded their statements. Later he arrest the accused and issued Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and she complied the same and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and Amendment Act, 2020. The accused is resident of Kommangi village of Chinthapalli Mandal and the offence took place at Kommangi village of Chinthapalli Mandal within the limits of

Chinthapalli P & E Station which comes under the jurisdiction of this court.

3)This Court took cognizance for the offence under section under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, against the accused and issued summons.

4)On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of the case records were furnished to her as contemplated U/s 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

5)Accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Criminal Procedure 4C.C.No.102/2020 JFCM Court/CTP

Code, 1973 and the charges under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 are framed against her and the same was read over and explained to her in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

6)In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and M.O.1 and the evidence of

LW1 D. Srikanth and LW4 S. Simhadri were closed by this Court.

7)After closure of the evidence of the prosecution accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 stating the particulars of the incriminating material made against her in the evidence of the prosecution witness, for which she denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8)Heard both sides.

9)Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

10)POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution, as already noted, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and MO1 on their behalf. PW1 P & EC, Chinthapalli, PW2 is P & E SI,

Chinthapalli. Ex.P1 is occurrence report, Ex.P2 is FIR, Ex.P3 is FSL report.

MO1 is sample bottle.

11)PW1/ K. Lavanya, P & EC, Chinthapalli deposed before the

Court that, 05-04-2019 at about 9:00 AM, when herself along with P & E

Inspector, P & ES, Chinthapalli and other staff members conducting patrolling at Kommangi village, they found a woman along with polythene cover, when they try to caught hold her, she tried to escape from them, they chased her and caught hold her and interrogated, on 5C.C.No.102/2020 JFCM Court/CTP interrogating she confessed that she is carrying liquor bottles, therefore she is trying to escape, later LW1 D. Srikanth deputed for securing the presence of mediators, but none were come forward to act as mediators, therefore LW3 B. Jagadeeswararao verified the cover and found 10 liquor bottles i.e., officer choice supreme whiskey bottles, on interrogating about the liquor bottles she confessed that she purchased the liquor bottles at a nearest place for higher prices and selling the same for livelihood, on such confession, LW3 B. Jagadeeswararao arrested the accused and seized MO1 i.e., 10 liquor bottles under the cover of Ex.P1 occurrence report, later they return back to the station.

12)PW2/ B. Jagadeeswararao, P & E SI, Chinthapalli deposed

before the Court that, on 05-04-2019 at about 12 noon, he along with his

staff i.e., PW1 and LW1 D. Srikanth, P & EC on their regular patrolling duties about detection of excise offences within Chinthapalli area, on reaching Kommangi village they found accused carrying 10 nip bottles made of Officers Choice Supreme Whiskey, then he caught hold her with the assistance of his staff and he enquired her about her name and other details, accused replied that she has no license or permission to carry liquor bottles and intends to sell the same, without license or permission sale of liquor bottles not permissible hence he arrested the accused under the cover of Ex.P1 occurrence report, he tried to secure local mediators but nobody available then he proceeded with lifting MO1 one sample bottle out of 10 nip bottles and other property to station, basing on Ex.P1 occurrence report he registered as a case vide Ex.P2 FIR in Cr.

No.54/2019 under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, later accused released on bail, on that he sent sample under MO1 to FSL for analysis under the cover letter of advise, he received Ex.P3 is FSL report, on completion of entire investigation his successor LW4 S. Simhadri, P & E

Inspector, Chinthapalli for the offence under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise 6C.C.No.102/2020 JFCM Court/CTP

Act, 1968, he can identify his signature.

13)It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW2 got a credible information about selling of illicit liquor on such he proceeded to Kommangi village limits along with other staff members and caught hold the accused and enquired. On enquiry she confessed the alleged offence. On such, he arrested the accused and seized 10 liquor bottles from the possession of the accused. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish, the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 10 liquor bottles from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 who are none other than police officials, out of which PW1 alone is the raiding party and PW2 who registered the FIR, examined the witnesses and investigated into the material part of the case failed to speak about the non securing the independent witnesses to corroborated the seizure from the possession of the accused. From the evidence of PW1 and PW2 it is very much evident that the police raiding party did not make efforts to secure the presence of the mediators at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of case property. Further, no evidence was placed with regard to purchasing of illicit liquor by the accused or selling of the same. Except the contents of Ex.P1 occurrence report, the prosecution has not placed positive material to connect the accused with the alleged offence.

14)With regard to the seizure the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

Observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Section 100 (4) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated. In this case also the search was made in the absence of any independent witnesses.

Section 100(4) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 makes it clear that “Before making a search under this chapter the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the 7C.C.No.102/2020 JFCM Court/CTP locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do” The observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32

AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“ Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise offcials

from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding

on information. When they were proceeding on

information they were right in taking mediators along

with them where there is no possibility of securing any

local mediators then probably they will be justifed in

conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of

mediators brought by them from a diferent place. But

when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a

place wherein there is possibility of securing the

presence of independent mediators, the excise officials

or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local

respectable independent inhabitants. They must make

sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators,

that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but

excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in

writing asking them to act as mediators under Section

100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.,

is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the

public in general. That is genuine search has been made

and incriminating material has been really found and not

planted. The presence of independent respectable

mediators at a search is always desirable and the

persons of mediators of any other locality would not only

weakened but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

15)It is not the case of the prosecution witnesses that they examined any independent witness at the scene of offense though the scene of offence is a residential area. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1 and PW2 who are excise officials. If no independent persons were examined then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as why it could not secure independent witnesses.

Non-mentioning of the reasons for not securing independent witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further the Hon'ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in the case reported on 27-11-2001Yeduru

Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh observed that the prosecution has to bring on record while charge in the accused that they have followed the procedure contemplated U/sec. 100(4) of the code. If 8C.C.No.102/2020 JFCM Court/CTP it fails to prove that they had followed such procedure the search and seizure becomes vitiate.

16)Here, it is exactly stated as to the mandatory requirement of the police to secure independent witnesses from local inhabitants. While conducting such arrest and seizure or the seizing officer has to mention the reasons as to why section 100(4) could not be followed. But in the present case, it is seen that there has been no such thing done by PW1 to PW4. Further other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution to the reasons best known to them.

The evidence of PW1 and PW2 do not inspire the confidence of this Court to establish and come to conclusion that accused committed the offence under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under section 34(A) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt.

17)In view of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 nothing is brought out to connect the accused with the offence with which she was charged and that this court is of the opinion that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

18)In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 hence she is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of Six months from today as prescribed in Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973. The case property/ M.O.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer system, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 03rd day of November, 2023.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

9C.C.No.102/2020 JFCM Court/CTP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: None PW1K. Lavanya, P & EC, Chinthapalli PW2B. Jagadeeswara Rao, P & E SI, Chinthapalli

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nill

Ex.P1Occurrence report Ex.P2 FIR Ex.P3FSL report

Material Objects M.O.1 i.e., sample bottle of 180 ML

PJCJ/NRPM FAC JFCM/CTP

IN THE COURT OF V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT ANAKAPALLI

PRESENT: SRI S.SRINIVAS, B.COM., L.L.M.,

V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

MONDAY, THIS THE 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013

C.C. No. 346/2013

Between:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parawada Police Station. …Complainant And:- Chintakayala Krishnam Raju, S/o Mutyalu, aged 23 Years, Vadabalija by caste, r/o Dibbapalem, Mutyalammapalem Panchayat, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. …Accused

This case coming on 22-11-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and of Smt. V.Lakshmi, Legal Aid

Counsel for the accused and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police, Parawada Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.326 IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows;

The accused is the resident of Mutyalammapalem where as

L.W1 S.Madhavarao and L.W4 Demudu are wife and husband and residents of another area. But both L.W1 S.Madhavarao, and his wife came to L.W2's house Mutyalu who is none other than father of accused. On 28-9-2013 the elder son of L.W2 Ch.Mutyalu was taken away the electrical meter of the house by cutting the wires. Then L.W2

Mutyalu questioned the above noted accused for which the above noted accused got angry. On the intervening night of 29/30-9-2013 at about 2-30 A.M when L.W1 Madhavarao sleeping suddenly he felt pain on the left side of neck he woke up and found the accused running away from the house throwing a knife. L.W1 S.Madhavarao sustained cut injury on the left side neck and he informed the said incident to 2

L.Ws.2to 4 Ch.Mutyalu, Surada Nagamani, Chinthakayala Demudamma respectively. They also noticed the accused running away from the house. Immediately L.W1 S.Madhavarao was shifted to R.K.Hospital,

Gajuwaka. On MLC L.W11 G.Ramachandrarao, SI of Police visited the hospital and recorded the detailed complaint statement of

S.Madhavarao. Basing on that he registered a case in Cr.No.212/13 and investigated into. On completion of investigation and on receipt of wound certificate he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.326 IPC.

3.Case is taken on file U/sec.326 of IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused copies of case documents were furnished U/sec.207 Cr.P.C by my learned predecessor in office.

5.The accused examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. and a charge framed U/sec.240 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/sec.326 of IPC, readover and explained the accusation in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Ex.P1 to P4 and got marked MO1.

7.On completion of prosecution side evidence, accused examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, readover and explained the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu. The accused denied the same and stated no defence witnesses and also stated that he was falsely implicated in this case.

8.I heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

1) Whether the accused has voluntarily caused grievous hurt to L.W1 S.Madhavarao?

2) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.326 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

10.During the course of arguments, the learned APP submitted her arguments that the evidence on record through P.Ws.1 to 3 crystal clearly proved the guilt of the accused U/sec.326 IPC.

MO1 also supports the prosecution version. In view of corroborative evidence produced by prosecution she prays to punish the accused according to law

11.The learned Legal Aid counsel for the accused submitted his arguments that accused is handicapped person he has not committed any offence. Complainant himself being son in law residing in the house ofL.W2 Ch.Mutyalu along with his wife. Out of family disputes to accused was falsely implicated in this case.

At the time of complaint statement he stated in one version with regard to incident caused against both his brother in laws.

Whereas coming to evidence he deposed in a different manner only against the accused. This contradictory version of P.W1 itself shows he created the story for implicating the accused in this case. P.W2 being the wife of P.W1 automatically deposed in the same manner as that of her husband. As such she corrborated the version ofP.W1 her evidence cannot be taken into consideration as on the point of interested one. With these submissions she prays to acquit the accused.

12.Points 1 and 2:Perused the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6. Out of them P.W1 is the complainant, P.W2 is the wife of P.W1, P.W3 is the auto driver in whose auto P.W2 was shifted to R.K.Hospital,

P.W4 was mediator, P.W5 is the Investigation Officer, P.W6 is the Medical Officer who treated the injured person.

13.P.W1 deposed clearly that on 29-9-2013 after Vinayaka

Nimajjanam he went to his in laws house and slept at the 4 terrace. At about 2-00 A.M suddenly he felt heavy burning sensation immediately he woke up and found heavy bleeding present and then he tried to come down from terrace and found the accused running from the compound of the house by throwing a knife. He informed all this incident to the inmates who immediately shifted him to R.K.Hospital. P.W1 at the time of receiving injury he was sleeping and he has not directly witnessed who caused the injury to him but as per his version it was crystal clearly proved that immediately after receiving injury due to heavy pain he woke up and observed bleeding present and while getting down from the terrace he further found accused running from the compound by throwing knife.

Observing the accused in running mode from the compound by throwing knife definitely a circumstantial evidence deposed by

P.W1 in a clear manner. Even though he has not witnessed directly that accused himself causing injury to him. Sequence of running the accused from the compound by throwing the knife aside strengthens the version of P.W1 that accused himself caused the grievous injury to him further strengthens his version P.W1 deposed that he questioned his father in law about missing of Tata Ace keys on which his father in law admonished the accused. In that manner accused developed grudge against

P.W1, P.W2 on one side she is wife to P.W1 whereas on other side younger sister to accused she also deposed in the same manner as that of P.W1 that her husband sustained bleeding injury at his neck. In the cross examination P.W1 deposed that he denied the suggestion that he is having suspicion against the accused that accused developed grudge. P.W3 also corroborated with regard to injury sustained by P.W1 during mid 5 night and shifting him to R.K.Hospital, Gajuwaka. With regard to injury it was grievous nature as per Medical Officer information under Ex.P4. In the cross examination Medical Officer crystal clearly stated that such a type of large injury cannot be taken into consideration if the injured himself fell on a sharp edged item. For receiving such a large injury that to grievous in nature one has to receive intentional hurt from others. Here observing the persons of accused near to the scene of offence in a suspicious manner i.e., running away from the compound throwing knife supports all the witnesses version. The another point raised by the Legal Aid Counsel to defend the accused is that he is handicapped person. The same question was put to

Investigation Officer by the Legal Aid Counsel who admitted that accused is handicapped person in slight manner he sustained injury to his right hand in a quarrel with others on previous occasion. On such answer given by Investigation Officer doubt arisen in the mind of court and called the accused and suggested him to took a case bundle readily available on the desk. With his right hand he lifted the same with out any hurdle.

Then this court come to opinion that he is managing the things easily with his right hand. Even though his right hand seems to be slightly changed from its original mode. On observing the said lifting the bundle by the accused easily it is of the opinion that the accused also can easily lift the knife for making any attack on others. P.W3 who is the auto driver also clearly stated that in his auto at the mid night shifted P.W1 to R.K.Hospital and he observed injury on the neck of P.W1 covered with a towel. It is also another circumstantial evidence crystal clearly corroborated the version of P.W1 with regard to his injury at the 6 neck area sustained during early hours around 2-30 A.M or 3-00

A.M the weapon produced by the prosecution under MO1 is a knife which was identified by the mediator proving that the same was seized from the scene of offence by the Investigation

Officer during the course of investigation. P.W5 who is the

Investigation Officer also clearly stated the weapon was seized from the scene in the presence of P.W4 and Material Objects produced before this court this court come to conclusion that

P.W1 along with his wife residing in the house of L.W2

Ch.Mutyalu who is the father of the accused and out of their family disputes accused attacked on P.W1 on 30-9-2013 and caused grievous injury at his neck with MO1. Prosecution proved he guilt of the accused U/sec.326 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Points answered accordingly.

14.In the result, the accused is found guilty and convicted

U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/sec.326 IPC.

Transcribed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th day of NOVEMBER, 2013

S/d.S.Srinivas V Metropolitan Magistrate Anakapalle 7

15.Heard the accused with regard to quantum of sentence for which he pleaded that he is Diplomo holder and no offence committed by him and he stated that he is suffering from handicap problem and prays to show mercy on him. As the accused is aged above 21 years and caused grievous hurt to his own brother in law. He is not entitled for any benefits under POA or 360 Cr.PC. On observing the handicap problem to the accused to his right hand and he is going to get a private job to him imposing minimum sentence of imprisonment itself is sufficient to meet the ends of justice with fine. Hence accused is sentenced to under go SI for 3 months and to pay fine of

Rs.200/- in case of default in payment of fine he shall under go

SI for 15 days. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be set off U/sec.428 Cr.PC. MO1 i.e., knife shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Accused is informed of his right of appeal for which he stated that he has no means to engage a counsel already Legal Aid Counsel appointed on his behalf in this case.

Transcribed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th day of NOVEMBER, 2013.

S/d.S.Srinivas V Metropolitan Magistrate Anakapalle

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined For Prosecution: For Accused:

PW1: S.Madhavarao. -NONE PW2: Surada. PW3: Ch.Tatarao PW4: B.Nookaraju P.W5: G.Ramachandrarao P.W6: Dr.N.Kameswararao

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Accused: N I L

Ex.P1: Report. Ex.P2: Scene observation report Ex.P3: FIR Ex.P4: Wound certificate

List of material objects marked: MO1: Knife S/d.S.Srinivas VMM/ANAKAPALLI //TRUE COPY//

V MM/AKP

CALENDER & JUDGMENT.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED BY THE V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

ANAKAPALLI

Date of offence 28-09-2013 Report or complaint30-09-2013 Apprehension of accused07-11-2013 Release on bailIn jail Commencement of trial12-11-2013 Close of trial22-11-2013 Sentence of order25-11-2013 Explanation of delay & The delay is due to non markedproduction of witnesses by the prosecution.

CC.No. 346/2013

Name of the complainantState represented by the Inspector of Police, Parawada Police Station. Name of the accused: Chintakayala Krishnam Raju, S/o Mutyalu, aged 23 Years, Vadabalija by caste, r/o Dibbapalem, Mutyalammapalem Panchayat, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Offence U/sec.326 IPC. Finding: Accused found guilty Sentence or order: Accused is found guilty and convicted U/sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence U/sec.326 IPCaccused is sentenced to under go SI for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in case of default in payment of fine he shall under go SI for 15 days. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be set off U/sec.428 Cr.PC. MO1 i.e., knife shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Accused is informed of his right of appeal for which he stated that he has no means to engage a counsel already Legal Aid Counsel appointed on his behalf in this case.

S/d.S.Srinivas V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle Copy Submitted to: The Chief Judicial Magistrate –cum-

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

//TRUE COPY//

V MM/AKP

1C.C.No.64/2021 JFCM/CTP

Calendar and Judgment District: Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CHINTAPALLI.

CALENDAR CASE NO: 64/2021

Date of offence: from 2018 onwards. Report or complaint: 10-11-2019 Apprehension: 25-08-2023 Release on bail : 41(A) Cr.P.C Notice Commencement of trial: 03-11-2023 Close of trial : 03-11-2023 Sentence or order : 03-11-2023 Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution. Name of the Complainant: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,Chintapalli Police Station. Name of the Accused: A) Gopinaik Prasanth S/o late Ammanna, aged about 25 years, Valmiki, Driver, Kadasilpi village,Chinthapalli Mandal.

Nature of Offence : Married woman subjected to cruelty and harassment for additional dowry. Section of Law: U/sec.498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act Finding : Found not guilty Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, hence he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of Six months from today as prescribed in Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973. No property order is passed as no property was seized and produced.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

2C.C.No.64/2021 JFCM/CTP

I N THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CHINTAPALLI.

Present: Sri S. Srinivas,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam.

FAC Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chinthapalli.

Thursday, this the 3 rd day of November, 2022

CALENDAR CASE NO: 64/2021

Between: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chintapalli Police Station.

...Complainant

And: A) Gopinaik Prasanth S/o late Ammanna, aged about 25 years, Valmiki, Driver, Kadasilpi village,Chinthapalli Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 03-11-2023 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri V.Govinda Rao Learned Counsel for the accused having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Chintapalli PS filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.51/2019 against the accused for the offence under section 498-A, of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

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

In the year 2018, LW1 Gopinaik Aruna married accused as per their caste customs and rites. At the time of marriage it was arranged out of love between both the parties. Prior to their marriage accused married another person by name Janaki and blessed with two children.

As such LW1 Aruna taken consent from his first wife and also mother of accused. Later, she joined accused for conjugal life within few days in 3C.C.No.64/2021 JFCM/CTP their marriage accused started harassing her with demand of dowry. Her parents presented Rs.80,000/- on one occasion and Rs.10,000/- on another occasion. She also arranged the amount by selling away ¼ Tula gold ear studs. At the time of 8th month pregnancy to LW1 Aruna she was beaten by Janaki leading to death of baby in the womb. For second time pregnancy also accused forcibly got aborted by beating her. Finally, due to unbearable harassment LW1 Aruna went to her parents house and reported the matter to police in the year 2019. Basing on the report given by her, LW14 B.Bhuloka Rao, HC-1110 registered the case in

Cr.No.51/2019 U/sec.498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act. After completion of investigation LW 16 Md Ali Sharif SI of Police filed the charge sheet.

3) This case was taken on file for the offence under section 498-A , of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and on appearance of accused, copies of the case records were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4) Later the accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and the charges has been framed for the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the same were read over to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 is defacto complainant and got marked Ex. P1 and

Ex.P2. Ex P1 is the signature of PW1 on report and Ex. P2 is the 161

Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 .

4C.C.No.64/2021 JFCM/CTP

7) P.W.1 who is wife of accused deposed that she is residing with accused even on today as their marriage taken place out of love between them with presence of elders. She has not faced any harassment in the hands of her husband. Out of petty dispute at the advise of elders she signed on a drafted report. Presently she do not recollect the contents of said report. Presently they are living together happily. Ex.P1 is the signature belongs to me. Police examined her and recorded her statement.

On cross examination she deposed that she entered into compromise with the accused during the course of trial out side the

Court. Except some petty disputes there is no harassment from the side of accused towards PW1. She do not know anything relating to this case.

Police never examined her. On Cross Examination by the learned APP she deposed that they entered into compromise with the accused during the course of trial out side the Court.

8)Heard arguments from both sides.

The learned submitted her arguments in this matter report given by complainant clearly shows about the offence committed by accused towards PW1. Even the PW1 not supported prosecution case, but the investigated done by Investigation Officer reveals the offence committed by accused hence prays to punish the accused according to law.

The learned counsel for the accused submitted his arguments in this matter both PW1 and accused residing together happily as they settled the matter out side the court and prays to acquit the accused.

9)Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 5C.C.No.64/2021 JFCM/CTP 1961 beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

10)From the prosecution evidence, P.W.1 who is wife of accused deposed that, she do not know anything about the case, police neither examined her nor recorded her statement, signature on the complainant

dated 10-11-2019 is belongs to her. Police neither examined her nor

recorded her statement. Though the Learned APP cross examined P.W.1 on permission declaring them as hostile nothing was elicited against the accused for the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

11) A careful reading of evidence of P.W.1 nothing evident to show that accused committed the offence on P.W.1. Further the evidence of

P.W.1 do not inspire the confidence of this Court to establish and come to conclusion that accused committed the offence under section 498-A, of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 beyond all reasonable doubt.

12) In view of the evidence of P.W.1 nothing is brought out to connect the accused with the offence which he is charged and this court is of opinion that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, hence he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of Six months from today as prescribed in Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

6C.C.No.64/2021 JFCM/CTP

No property order is passed as no property was seized and produced.

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

pronounced by me in open court on this the 3 rd day of November, 2022.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

FAC JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: None

PW1Gopinaik Aruna

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on the Complaint Report. Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

Material Objects Nill

PJCJ/NRPM

FAC JFCM/CTP`