Smt. S.Varalakshmi

Page 1 of 19

CALENDAR and FINAL ORDER

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD :: VISAKHAPATNAM,

JUVENILE CALENDAR CASE NO.39 OF 2025

Date of Date of ApprehReleaCommenClose of Sentence Explanation offencecomplaintension sed on cement of trialor orderfor delay of CCLbailtrial 07.03.2008.03.202141-A On 02.12.2007.04.20221.04.Due to non 21cr.p.cbail2562026.production of witnesses in time. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final order in JCC No.39/2025 on the file of Juvenile Justice Board :

Vishakhapatnam.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Malkapuram PS, in

Crime No.46/2021of Dumbriguda P.S.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name of the CCL :- xxxxxx/CCL -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : under Section 457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

Finding : found not conflict with law for the offence punishable under sections 457, 380 of IPC. CCL 1 and CCL-2 are found conflict with law for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC.

Sentence: In the result, The CCL-1 and CCL-2 are found not conflict with law for the offence punishable under sections 457, 380 of IPC accordingly they are set at liberty under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C r/w 17 of JJ Act 2015. CCL 1 and CCL- 2 are found conflict with law for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC and Accordingly CCL 1 and CCL-2 are required for orders as per section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C r/w section 18 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015. Hence, CCL-1 and CCL- 2 are admonished Under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C r/w section 18(a) of

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 2 of 19

Juvenile Justice Act 2015. CCL-1 and CCL-2 are informed about their right of appeal before the Honorable Appellate court as per section 101 of Juvenile

Justice Act 2015 and also informed about right to free legal aid. Copy of the final order given to the CCL1 and CCL-2.Office is directed to give Copy of Final order to CCL-1 and CCL-2 on free of cost. Mo.1 to Mo.7 were return to P.W.1 for interim custody such custody holds good after appeal time is over.

The above said finding is not any disqualification against the CCL-1 and CCl-2 as per Section 24 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

VISHAKHAPATNAM

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 3 of 19

APVS030045132025

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD :: VISHAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT : Smt. Samala. Varalakshmi,

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CUM

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD

: VISHAKHAPATNAM

P. SURYA BHASKAR, BOARD MEMBER (As per memo no.2608466/2024/JJ & Gen/A1, dt.21. 08.2025) vide ENDT: GOHB/VSP/08/2025-242 DT:22/08/2025 And Vide receive No: 1188 Dated 26-08-2025). Tuesday, this the 21st day of April, 2026.

J.C.C. No.39/2025

BETWEEN:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Dumbriguda Police Station.

... Complainant.

AND xx xx xx xx/CCL-1 xx xx xx xx /CCL-2 … Child in Conflict with Law/CCL-1 & 2.

This case has come before this board for on this date for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the state and Smt. I. Sree Devi, Counsel for CCL and upon hearing the matter and on perusal of the record and

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 4 of 19 having stood over for consideration, this Board has delivered the following:

F I N A L O R D E R

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

Station has filed a Final Report in Crime No.46/2021 of Dumbriguda

Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 457, 380 or 411 of

Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code herein after refer to as IPC).

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 07-03-2021, LW.1 handed over his shop to his worker Penumala

Vasanthakumar while going to Visakhapatnam. He closed the shop by about 8 PM and went home. On 08-03-2021 at about 9 AM, when said

Vasanthakumar opened the shop, he found some unknown thieves entered into the shop by opening the roof sheets and also broken the ceiling and stolen away 20 cell phones available in his shop. Immediately, he went to his shop and found all the 20 cell phones were stolen away.

Hence, he requested to take necessary action. The details of the cell phones stolen are [1] Redmi android phones 04 Nos each Rs.10,000 =

Rs.40,000/-, (2) Real me android phones - 03 each Rs. 10,000/- =

Rs.30,000/-, (3) Samsung Android phones 03 each Rs.11,000 =

Rs.33,000/-, (4) OPPO android. 01 each Rs.11,000/- Rs. 11,000/- (5) Vivo android 01 each Rs.11,000 = Rs.11,000/- (6) Basic phones 08, each

Rs.1,600/- = Rs.12,800/-. Total: Rs. 1,37,800/-. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

L.W.7 registered the above report as a case in Cr.No.46/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 IPC of Dumbriguda Police

Station on 08-03-2021 at 17:00 hrs and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, L.W.07, visited Araku (v),

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 5 of 19 examined the scene of offence at 17:30 hrs and prepared rough sketch.

L.W.07 also examined L.Ws. 1 & LW.2 and recorded their statements.

L.W.08 took up further investigation. During the course of investigation, L.W.08 apprehended both CCL-1 and CCL-2 on 27-07-2021 at 10:00 hrs. at Araku (v) Santhabayalu and prepared their confessional statements in the presence of two mediators (L.Ws. 5 & LW.6) and seized 5 stolen cell phones in this case. In which both the CCL-1 and CCL-2 have admitted about the commission of offence. In pursuance of their confessional statement, L.W.08 recovered one cell phone from L.W.3 on 27-07-2021 and seized it at 12:00 hrs, in the presence of same mediators (L.Ws. 5 & LW.6) under the cover of a separate mediators report at

Marrivalasa (v). L.W.8 has examined the receiver as L.W.03 and recorded his statement.

On the same day, L.W.08 also recovered another cell phone from

L.W.08 at Pappuduvalasa (v) under the cover of a separate Mediators

Report on 27-07-2021 at 1300 hrs in the presence of same mediators (L.Ws.5 & LW.6). L.W.08 also examined the receiver as L.W.4 and recorded his statement. L.W.01 later disclosed that only 7 cell phones were stolen from his shop instead of 20 cell phones.

Later L.W.08 released CCL-1 and CCL-2 and handed over them to their parents. After completion of investigation, L.W.08 filed the Final

Report.

3.The case has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sections 457, 380 or 411 of IPC.

4.On appearance, copies of this case were furnished to CCL-1 and CCL-2 as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure herein after refer to as Cr.P.C).

5.CCL-1 and CCL-2 had examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of the accusation for the offence punishable Under Section

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 6 of 19 457, 380 or 411 of IPC. CCL-1 and CCL-2 had denied accusation and claimed to be inquiry.

6.To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and MO.1 to MO.7. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.5.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, CCL-1 and CCL-2 had examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C on incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution and same has explained and read over to them in Telugu language for which they had denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defence.

8.Heard both side arguments submitted by the Learned APP and Counsel for the CCL-1 and CCL-2. This board has perused the record and has gone through the record.

9.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution able to prove the accusation under sections 457, 380 or 411 of IPC against the CCL-1 and CCL-2 beyond reasonable doubt?”.

POINT:

10.In order to prove this case, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.1 to PW.7 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.9 and MO.1 to MO.7. As per Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 prosecution proved that CCL-1 ans CCL-2 are minors as on the date of offence.

11.The learned A.P.P has argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to PW.7 and coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and MO.1 to MO.7 has supported the prosecution case and has proved the guilt of the CCL-1 and CCL-2 beyond reasonable doubt and punish the CCL-1 and CCL-2 according to

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 7 of 19

Law.

12.On the other hand the learned counsel for the CCL-1 and CCL-2 had argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to PW.7 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and MO.1 to MO.7 are not at all sufficient to prove accusations against the

CCL-1 and CCL-2 and the prosecution has failed to establish that the

CCL-1 and CCL-2 had committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution.

13.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution firstly examined

P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant and he has deposed that on 07-03- 2021, he went to Visakhapatnam kept the LW.2 in the shop and he is running cell phone shop and LW2 close the shop at about 8.00 pm and on the next day he, LW.2 came to his shop on found top of the Asbestos sheets of the shop broken and committed theft of cell phones in the shop and seven mobiles committed theft that is two Redmi cell phones, two

Samsung, one Realme, one Oppo and one Vivo cell phones committed theft and he lodged a report to the police that theft of 20 cell phones and after verification they have found 13 cell phones and only 7 cell phones are subjected to theft and he has given report to the police and police examined him.

14.Further the prosecution has examined PW.2 who deposed that he is working in GMR Cell point and PW1 is the owner of the shop and on 07- 03-2021 at about 8.00 am and he, PW1 went to shop and found that ceiling of the shop opened and committed theft of cell phones and after verification they came to know that 20 cell phones committed theft later found only 07 cell phones committed theft and on 06-03-2021, he has closed the shop at about 08-00 pm and after 04 months police informed that cell phones were recovered and police examined him..

15.Further the prosecution has examined PW.3 who deposed that on 27-07- 2021 Oppo cell phone was sold by CCL 1 and 2 for Rs.5500/- and he does

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 8 of 19 not know the cell phone was theft property and police has seized his cell phone and he identified CCL 1 and 2 and police examined him.

16.Further the prosecution has examined PW.4 who deposed that he knows

CCL 1 & 2 who are his villagers and he has purchased mobile from CCL 1 & 2 in the year July, 2021 and cell company is a Vivo company and CCL 1 & 2 offered him for selling of mobile and he has purchased cell phone for

Rs.6000/- and he asked for the bill and there stated that they will give later and he has purchased the cell phone as the cell phone is a theft property and on 27-07-2021 police came to him and asked his cell phone at that time and he came to know that his cell phone was theft property and he has given the cell phone to police.

17.Further the prosecution has examined PW.5 who is the Panchayathi

Secretary and he has deposed that on 20-07-2021 at about 10.00 am he,

LW.5 were present in their office at Araku Grama Panchayathi and police are conducting checking including human-being also and police caught hold two boys and on oral enquiry, two boys confessed the offence and they also confessed that they have sold out the cell phones and mediator report got drafted he has signed on it and he does not remember how many cell phones seized by police and police taken him to Pappuduvalasa at the house of PW.4 and police seized one cell phone from PW.4 and mediators got drafted. He has signed on it and there after they have proceeded to Marrivalasa at PW.3 house and PW.3 brought one cell phone and police seized cell phone from PW.3 and to that effect mediator got drafted he has signed on it and he confronted his signatures on each mediator reports and he identified CCL 1 & 2.

18.Further the prosecution has examined PW.6 who is the Investigation

Officer and he has deposed that he has received report from PW.1 on 08.03.2021 and he has registered crime vide FIR No.46 of 2021 under

Section 457, 380 of IPC and he has issued FIR and submitted FIR to all

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 9 of 19 concerned authorities and he has examined PW.1 and recorded his statement and he has proceeded to scene of offence and at scene of offence, he has prepared rough sketch and he has secured the presence of two mediators i.e., Guggudu Sarada, Adakatla Krishna Rao and in their presence, he has examined the same and drafted scene observation report and he has examined PW.2 and recorded his statement and later, he has handed over case file to LW.8/SI of Police..

19.Further the prosecution has examined PW.7 who is the Investigation

Officer and he has deposed that he has received case file from PW6 and on 27-07-2021 at about 10.00 hrs in the presence of mediators PW5, LW5 he has seized 05 mobiles from CCL1 and CCL2 and Mediator report got drafted and basing on the confession of CCL 1 & 2, he along with mediators went to Marrivalsa village and at that village in the house of

PW3, he has seized one mobile phone and mediator report got drafted to that effect and at about 01.00 pm, he along with mediator went to

Pappulavalsa village and he has seized one cell phone from PW4 and mediator report got drafted to that effect and he has issued 41A Cr.pc notice to CCL 1 & 2 and he has obtained age proof certificate of CCL 1 & 2 and filed final report.

20.P.W.1 to P.W.7 ware cross examined by defence counsel. In Cross

Examination, PW.1 deposed that he is running shop, his shop having

CCTV surveillance. He has given CCTV Footage to police. He denied the suggestions that no theft committed in his shop due to said reason, he has given report that 20 cell phones committed theft. He further denied that

Ex.P1 report is false and he is deposing false evidence. In Cross

Examination, PW.2 deposed that since 2017, he has been working in cell shop and He denied the suggestion that no crime was happened on 06- 03-2021 at night and he is deposing false evidence. In Cross Examination,

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 10 of 19

PW.3 deposed that at the time of purchasing of cell phone his age is 19 years. At present, his age is 20 years. He admitted that at the time of purchasing of cell phone his age is 16 years. At that time, he is not major.

He has no idea about selling and purchasing of cell phones. He is deposing evidence as dictated to him today. He denied the suggestion that

CCL not committed any act of selling of cell phones to him. In Cross

Examination, PW.4 deposed that he has not going to college due to his ill health. He does not remember the exact date when he has purchased cell phone from CCL1 and 2. CCL 1 and 2 are his villagers. CCL 1 and 2 are innocent people and they are not educated. He does not know the facts of the case and today he came to Court at request of police. He adds that he came to know the theft after came to police and seized his cell phone. He denied the suggestion that he has not purchased property from CCL 1 & 2.

He further denied that he has not purchased cell phone from CCL 1 & 2 and he is deposing false that he has purchased cell phone from CCL 1 and 2 at the request of police. He further denied that CCL 1 and CCL 2 not sold the cell phone to him and he is deposing false evidence.In cross examination P.W.5 deposed that he was not present at Araku Panchayathi

Junction at the time of seizure. He denied the suggestion that he does not know about the seizure of the property and request of police, he is deposing false evidence and he is deposing in favour of the police at the request. In Cross

Examination, PW.6 deposed that initially report was lodged for theft of 20 cell phones. According to his investigation, 7 phones committed theft. At the time of examination, PW.1 stated to him that he lost 7 phones. He denied the suggestion that no theft was committed and false report foisted against the CCL and CCL is no way concerned in this case. He further denied that basing on the false report, he has registered a false report. He further denied that CCL 1 and CCL 2 are no way concerned in this case.

In Cross Examination, PW.7 deposed that as per the FIR, 20 cell phones committed theft. After investigation, it comes to conclusion of theft of 08

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 11 of 19 cell phones. He denied the suggestion that false case foisted against CCL 1 & 2 and they are not committed any offence and no property was seized.

He further denied that he conducted table investigation and he is deposing false evidence.

21.It is proper at this stage to mention the provisions of Sections 457, 380 of

IPC which reads as follows:The section 457 of IPC speaks that Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; And, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

22.The Section 380 of I.P.C speaks that “whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".

23.To prove the offence under Sections 457, 380 of IPC, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, P.W.6 and PW.7. In that P.W6 and PW. 7 are Investigation Officers. PW.2 is the witnesses. PW.1 is the defacto complainant. PW.1, PW.2, P.W.6 and PW.7 are not the eye witnesses. They are not seen the offence while committing. PW.1 and

P.W.2 were not present at the time of alleged incident and they has not identified the CCL-1 and CCL-2 and they has not deposed that they has seen the CCL-1 and CCL- while committing the offence or they was not present at the time of incident. In cross examination, PW.1, PW.2, P.W.6

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 12 of 19 and PW.7 deposed that initially 20 cell phones committed theft, later found 7 after investigation. This board considered that whether the cell phones were 20 or 7 which does not create doubt. Whether theft committed or not is the point. Prosecution proved that after investigation, 7 cellphones were committed theft. P.W.1 admitted his shop having CCTV surveillance and he has given CCTV Footage to police. But police failed to file the same. It is fatal to the prosecution that who committed the offence. . Therefore, there is no evidence that the theft of MO.1 to M.O.7 were committed by the CCL-1 and CCL-2. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, P.W.6 and PW.7, this board has come to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 457, 380 of IPC with cogent, corrabarative evidence. Hence, CCL-1 and CCL-2 are entitled for set at liberty for the offence under Sections 457, 380 of IPC.

24.The Offence punishable under section 411 of IPC, Prosecution has to prove the following ingredients: i.e

i) Some person must be in possession of the property.

ii) Such Property must be stolen.

iii) The Accused has dishonestly received or retained the stolen property.

vi) The Accused Knew or had reasons to believe that the property was stolen property.

25.It is proper at this stage to mention the provisions of Section 114(a) of

Indian Evidence Act, which reads as follows: Section 114 (a) The Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. As per Section 114 (a) of

Indian Evidence Act, the court can presume a fact that when the accused is in possession of stolen property soon after the theft is either the thief or

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 13 of 19 has received the property knowing them to be stolen unless he accounted for them. Further the said presumption is discretion given on the board which cannot be exercised by the board against the CCL-1 and CCL-2 unless the cogent evidence is adduced by the prosecution for establishing that the case property recovered from the possession of the CCL-1 and

CCL-2 soon after the commission of theft. On the other hand, if the presumption can be that the CCL-1 and CCL-2 has the receiver or retainer of the stolen property, It would be open to the CCL-1 and CCL-2 to explain that the stolen properties were there for some purpose, but in the absence of such explanation, the presumption will be that CCL-1 and CCL-2 had taken part in the offence. When the prosecution produces evidence to the effect that the CCL-1 and CCL-2 had found in possession of the stolen properties, the presumption at once arises under section 114(a) that the possessor is either a thief or the receiver or retainer of the stolen properties and this presumption when unexplained or disproved shall be regarded as conclusive proof. To prove the seizure of MO.1 to M.O.7 , the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.3 to P.W.7 who are the witnesses , Mediator and PW.6 and PW.7 are the Investigation Officers.

26. From the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.7 coupled with Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 prosecution has established that property that is M.O.1 to M.O.7 under

EX.P2 to Ex.P4 had recovered from the possession of the CCL-1 and

CCL-2. From the evidence of P.W.1, PW.2 Coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, prosecution established that M.O.1 to M.O.7 had committed theft in the shop of P.W.1 and from the evidence of P.W.3 to PW.5 Coupled with Ex.P2 to Ex.P4, prosecution established that M.O.1 to M.O.7 had seized from the possession of the CCL-1 and CCL-2 in the presence of PW.3 to P.W.5 and by PW.7. The counsel for the CCL-1 and CCL-2 has cross- examination P.W.1 to PW.7 but he has failed to elicit evidence in fovour of the CCL-1 and CCL-2 and also that M.O.1 to M.O.7 has not seized from

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 14 of 19 the possession of the CCL-1 and CCL-2 . The CCL-1 and CCL-2 has failed to disprove either by cross-examination or produced the cogent evidence, that M.O.1 to M.O.7 not seized from their possession. Further it is the case of the defence that the falsely implicated in this case against the CCL 1 and 2, but there is no supporting evidence adduced by the defence to prove the said suggestions. However it is settled law that a suggestions without positive proof cannot be accepted and also cannot be relied upon. She has failed to discredit prosecution evidence on the above material facts. Therefore there is sufficient corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 3 to P.W.4 by P.W.7, to believe the version of the prosecution to that M.O.1 to M.O.7 were seized ant they were theft property.

27.If see the facts of this case, the presumption under section 114 (a) of

Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn and it can be presumed in the present case that the CCL-1 and CCL-2 are either the stolen M.O.1 to

M.O.7 or received this M.O.1 to M.O.7 knowing it to be stolen property.

CCL-1 and CCL-2 has failed to rebut the presumption under section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act.

28.In view of the above said discussion and above said circumstances, this board has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC against CCL-1 and CCL-2 beyond reasonable doubt and the CCL-1 and CCL-2 are liable for punishment for the offence punishable under section 411 r/w 34 of IPC.

Accordingly this point is answered.

29. In the result, The CCL-1 and CCL-2 are found not conflict with law for the offence punishable under sections 457, 380 of IPC accordingly they are set at liberty under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C r/w 17 of JJ Act 2015. CCL 1

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 15 of 19 and CCL-2 are found conflict with law for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC and Accordingly CCL 1 and CCL-2 are required for orders as per section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C r/w section 18 of Juvenile Justice

Act 2015.

Typed to dictation to the Personal Assistant (Contract Basis) on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in Juvenile Justice Board on the 21 st day of April, 2026.

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

30.Hearing on question of sentence:-

Heard Police, CCL-1 and CCL-2 and Ld APP not present. Police submitted the there is no cases against CCL-1 and CCL-2 and this is the first case.

The CCL-1 submitted that he doing coolie work at present, his family defends on his earing and prays the Board to take a lenient view. The

CCL-2 submitted that he also doing coolie work at present, his family depends his earnings and prays the Board to take a lenient view.

31.The punishment prescribed for the offence under section 411 of the IPC , is imprisonment for three years, a fine, or both.

But Section 18 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 speaks as follows:-

Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law.

(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a child irrespective of age has committed a petty offence, or a serious offence, or a child below the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence,[or a child above the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence and the Board has, after preliminary assessment under Section 15, disposed of the matter] then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 16 of 19 for the time being in force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, the Board may, if it so thinks fit,-

(a) allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following appropriate inquiry and counselling to such child and to his parents or the guardian;

(b) direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities;

(c) order the child to perform community service under the supervision of an organisation or institution, or a specified person, persons or group of persons identified by the Board;

(d) order the child or parents or the guardian of the child to pay fine:

Provided that, in case the child is working, it may be ensured that the provisions of any labour law for the time being in force are not violated;

(e) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or fit person, on such parent, guardian or fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the

Board may require, for the good behaviour and child’s well-being for any period not exceeding three years;

(f) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care and supervision of any fit facility for ensuring the good behaviour and child’s well-being for any period not exceeding three years;

(g) direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding three years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill development, counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home:

Provided that if the conduct and behaviour of the child has been

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 17 of 19 such that, it would not be in the child’s interest, or in the interest of other children housed in a special home, the Board may send such child to the place of safety.

(2) If an order is passed under clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1), the

Board may, in addition pass orders to

(i) attend school; or (ii) attend a vocational training centre; or

(iii) attend a therapeutic centre; or

(iv) prohibit the child from visiting, frequenting or appearing at a specified place; or (v) undergo a de-addiction programme.

(3) Where the Board after preliminary assessment under section 15 pass an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, then the

Board may order transfer of the trial of the case to the Children's Court having jurisdiction to try such offences.

32.Considering the nature of the offence proved against the CCL-1 and CCL- 2 and its gravity, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and having considered condition, and other circumstances, keeping in view of the plea made by the CCL-1 and CCL-2, this board is of the opinion that lenient view can be taken. The circumstances do justify considering lenientlythis board is of the opinion that admonition is suitable to CCL-1 and CCL-2 as per Section 18(a) of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 because they were below 14 years as on the date of offence.

33.Hence, CCL-1 and CCL- 2 are admonished Under section 255 (2) of

Cr.P.C r/w section 18(a) of Juvenile Justice Act 2015. CCL-1 and CCL-2 are informed about their right of appeal before the Honorable Appellate court as per section 101 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 and also informed about right to free legal aid. Copy of the final order given to the CCL1 and

CCL-2.Office is directed to give Copy of Final order to CCL-1 and CCL-2

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 18 of 19 on free of cost. Mo.1 to Mo.7 were return to P.W.1 for interim custody such custody holds good after appeal time is over.

The above said finding is not any disqualification against the

CCL-1 and CCl-2 as per Section 24 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Typed to dictation to the Personal Assistant (Contract Basis) on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in Juvenile Justice Board on the 21 st day of April, 2026.

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defense:

PW.1 : Grandhi Jagadesh Kumar. - None -

PW.2 : Penumala Vasanth Kumar.

PW.3 : Poojari Simhadri.

PW.4: Sagarajanni Surya Prakash.

PW.5: Makkireddy Babu Rao.

PW.6: G. Gopala Rao.

P.W.7: K. Santhosh Kumar.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defense:

Ex.P1: The original report.- None -

Ex.P2: The mediator report, dated 27.07.2021 at about 10:00 AM.

Ex.P3: The mediator report, dated 27.07.2021 at about 13:00 hrs.

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

Page 19 of 19

Ex.P4: The mediator report, dated 27.07.2021 at about 12 noon.

Ex.P5: The FIR.

Ex.P6: The rough sketch.

Ex.P7: The scene observation report.

Ex.P8: The age proof of CCL-1.

Ex.P9: The age proof of CCL-2.

Material Objects:

MO.1: The Vivo cell phone.

MO.2: The Realme cell phone.

MO.3: The Redmi cell phone.

MO.4: The Samsung cell phone.

MO.5: The Redmi cell phone.

MO.6: The Samsung cell phone.

MO.7: The Oppo cell phone.

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

BOARD MEMBER

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

JCC.No.39 of 2025. // Fair Copy // JJB/VSP.

APVS030061362025

Page 1 of 17

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

CALENDAR CASE NO.3397 of 2025

Date of offence24.01.2025.

Date of report or complaint28.01.2025.

Date of apprehension of the 05.03.2025.

accused.

Date of commencement of trial07.01.2026.

Date of close of trial15.04.2026.

Date of sentence on order24.04.2026.

Accused in Jail/ on Bail In jail.

Name of the ComplainantState Represented by the Sub Inspector of

Police, Gopalapatnam (Crime) Police Station,

Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the accusedPothulamudi Sattibabu, S/o Narasayya, Age 36 years, R/o 13-2-23, near Sivalayam

Kotilingalapeta, Rajamundry.

OffencesUnder Section 331 (4), 305 BNS.

Finding Found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 331(3), 305(a) of BNS. Found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) of BNS.

Sentence: In the result, The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 331(3), 305(a) of BNS accordingly he is acquitted under section 271(1) of BNSS. The Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) of BNS accordingly he is convicted Under

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 2 of 17 section 271(2) of BNSS. Hence accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Fourteen months. The remand period from 05-03-2025 to 24- 04-2026 has given set off as per section 468 of BNSS. M.O.1 had already returned to P.W.1 towards interim custody and such custody hold good after expiry of appeal period. Accused is informed about his right of appeal before

Honorable Sessions Court and also informed about right to free legal aid. Copy

of the Judgment given to the accused and copy of Judgment to Hon’ble DLSA,

Visakhapatnam.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 3 of 17

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt.S. Varalakshmi,

II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,Visakhapatnam.

Friday, this the 24 th day of April, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE NO.3397 of 2025

BETWEEN :

State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Gopalapatnam (Crime) Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

… Complainant

AND

Pothulamudi Sattibabu, S/o Narasayya, Age 36 years,

R/o 13-2-23, near Sivalayam Kotilingalapeta,

Rajamoundary.

….Accused

This case has come before this Court for final hearing in the presence of Kum. B. Prameela, learned APP for prosecution and Sri.

Ch. Harikanth, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused and upon the hearing the matter and on perusal of the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made as follows:

J U D G E M E N T

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

Gopalapatnam (Crime) Police Station, Visakhapatnam City had filed

Charge Sheet in Crime No.247/2024 of Gopalapatnam PS for the offence punishable under Section 331 (4), 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita herein after refer to as BNS).

2.The brief averments of the prosecution is as follows:

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 4 of 17

On 04-11-2024 at 14:00 hours, the LW.1 approached

Gopalapatnam police station and presented a report stating that he serves as the Executive of Paradesamma Temple, located at

Chandra Nagar, Kottapalem, alongside 15 other committee members who also work for the temple. One Gowripattapu Nani

Babu has been working as a Sevaka at the temple for 20 years. On 03-11-2024, night at around 19:30 hours, Mettala Apparao and Nani

Babu locked the temple’s iron grill gates and left the temple. On the next morning, at around 05:10 hours, the temple’s servant (Sevaka) came to the temple and entered the temple through the main entrance door. Upon entering the temple, he noticed that the offering box’s (Hundi) were open and empty. Additionally, the south side iron grill gate was also broke. He further added that the Hundi collection amounts to approximately, nearly 20,000/-. So, he is suspecting that during night time some unknown persons gained entry into the temple by breaking the iron grill gate and stole the Hundi amount.

Hence, he requested the police to take necessary action.

Basing on the above report, on 08-02-2024 at 19:30 hours, the

LW.13 registered a case in Cr.No.247/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 331 (4), 305 BNS of Gopalapatnam Police

Station, Visakhapatnam city and endorsed the same to LW.14 for investigation.

Accordingly, the LW.14 secured the complainant and other witnesses, examined them as LW.1 to LW.5 and recorded their detailed statement in CD Part-II. On examination, all witnesses substantiated the claims of the complainant. Later, LW.14 along with two mediators (LW.6 and LW.10) and clues team visited the crime spot and inspected the same keenly. During scene visit, the clues

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 5 of 17 team has collected the available prints from the Hundi (offering box) and compared the same in their data base. Upon, verification, they noticed that the finger prints of the accused are matched with previous offender Pothulamudi Sattibabu @ Kappala Sattibabu, S/o

Narasayya.

While the efforts were in force to apprehend the accused, on 30.01.2025, the IO (LW.14) came to know that the Tadepalligudem

Town Police arrested the accused in Cr.No.36/2025 U/Sec.331 (4), 305 BNS of Tadepalligudem Town Police, and sent him for judicial custody at Tanuku Sub-jail. Later, the accused was shifted to

Rajamahendravaram Central Jail. So, the IO obtained PT Warrant from the Hon’ble Court and connected the accused in this case.

As the stolen property in this case is not recovered from the accused, the IO (LW.14) filed a petition and obtained permission from the Hon’ble Court for police custody of the accused.

Accordingly, on 19-03-2025 at 10:30 hours, the LW.14 brought the accused to the police station, explained case facts and questioned him about his involvement in this case, to which he admitted guilt in this case. Later, the LW.14 recorded the confession statement of the accused, in presence of mediators (LW.10 and LW.11).

During confession, the accused disclosed that after committing offence, he used the entire stolen amount for his needs and concealed the stolen coins by burying them near the Railway

Foot over Bridge and decided to use them later.

As the accused agreed to show the spot, where he concealed the stolen coins, the LW.14 along with mediators and accused went to the spot and recovered an amount of Rs.494/- from the possession of the accused.

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 6 of 17

Further, the IO (LW.14) questioned the accused that whether he committed any other offences other than the above, to which he disclosed his involvement in the following cases i.e., 1)

Cr.No.520/2024 U/Sec.331 (4), 305 BNS of Pendurthy Crime PS, 2)

Cr.No.521/2024 U/Sec.331 (4), 305 BNS of Pendurthy Crime PS.

Accordingly, LW.14 informed the same to the Pendurthy

Crime SHO and also furnished the confession statement of the accused for the purpose of investigation. After completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

3. The case has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 331 (4), 305 of BNS.

4.On appearance of Accused, copies of documents had furnished to him as per under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita herein after refer to as

BNSS).

5.Accused had examined under Section 262 of B.N.S.S. The charges for the offence punishable under Section 331 (3) of BNS, 305 (a) of

BNS alternatively 317 (2) of BNS had framed read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and claimed to be trial.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.4 and got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and M.O.1. The learned

APP has given up the evidence of LW.3 to LW.6, LW.11, LW.12 and

LW.13. This Court has closed the evidence of LW.7 to LW.9 as memo filed by the prosecution.

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused had examined under Section 351 of B.N.S.S on the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 7 of 17 and the same has read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he had denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the Accused.

9.Heard both sides. Perused the record and this Court has gone through the entire material on record.

10.Now the point for determination is:- “ Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 331 (3) of BNS, 305 (a) of

BNS alternatively 317 (2) of BNS beyond reasonable doubt ” ?

POINT :

11.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and MO.1.

12.The learned APP submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused by producing the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and MO.1 and all the witnesses are supported the prosecution case and punished the accused according to the Law.

13.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the evidence of prosecution witnesses had suffered with several contradictions, omissions and prays the Court to acquit the accused.

14.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution firstly examined PW.1 who is the defacto complainant and he has deposed that on 04.11.2024, he has a lodged a report to police and he is the president of Sree Paradesamma Temple and he lodged a report to police that amount in Hundi of the temple committed theft and LW.2 informed the theft committed in the temple to him and on 03.11.2024 at about 7:30 P.M, they used to lock the temple and on 04.11.2024

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 8 of 17 at about 5:00 to 5:10 AM, LW.2 went to temple and found theft was committed by opening the main gate and he has informed the same to committee members and went to temple and he has found theft was committed in the temple Hundi and some of the cash was broken Hundi and then, he lodge a report to police and he has also found southern side of gate of temple was break open and police examined him and recorded his statements and approximately

Rs.20,000/- committed theft and after one month police informed him that they recovered some of the stolen property.

15.Further the prosecution has examine PW.2 who has deposed that he is working in Paradesamma Temple at Chandranagar,

Gopalapatnam since 20 years and he know PW.1 and he attends duty in ever day at about early morning 5:00 A.M after collecting keys of temple from PW.1 and at about 7:30 P.M, the temple will be closed and on 04.11.2024 at about 5:00 to 5:10 AM, he went to temple with keys and he opened the main gate and enter into the temple and found rupee coins were fell around the Hundi and he also observed southern side of door of temple was broken and opened and he immediately made a phone call to President of

Temple i.e., PW.1 and PW.1 came to temple and immediately made a phone call to committee members and all the committee members came to temple and later lodge a report to police and approximately

Rs.20,000/- was committed theft and police examined him.

16.Further, the prosecution has examined PW.3 who is the Mediator and he has deposed that on 04.11.2024 at about 2:30 PM, police came to temple of Paradesamma along with another mediator and police observed the scene in his presence and hundi of the temple was broken and southern side of the gate of the temple lock was

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 9 of 17 broken and clues team came and abstracted finger prints and some change of coins also found on the floor of the temple at Hundi and police got drafted scene observation report and he has signed on it and on 19.03.2025, police called him to act as mediator and at about 10:30 AM, he went to police station accused was present at police station and accused confessed the offence and mediator report got drafted and he, another mediator, accused and police went to

Railway Track at temple at about 12:30 PM and they have found amount of Rs.494/- i.e., MO.1 and same has shown by the accused and police has seized MO.1 and mediator got drafted to that effect and he Identified the accused.

17.Further, the prosecution has examined PW.4 who is the Investigation

Officer and he has deposed that on 04.11.2024, LW.13 received written report from PW.1 and he registered crime vide FIR

No.247/2024 U/Sec.331 (4) 305 BNS and he endorsed FIR to him for investigation and he has examined PW.1, PW.2, LW.3 to LW.5 and recorded their statements and he has visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and scene observation report got drafted in the presence of mediators i.e., LW.6 and PW.3 and clues team came and collected the clues from scene of offence and clues team given the report and he has received the same and as per the report of clues team, accused is the offender who had previous cases also and he has filed PT warrant and produced the accused on execution of PT warrant before the court and he has filed police custody petition and obtained the orders and during the course of police custody, accused confessed the offence and he has recovered MO.1 and mediator report got drafted in the presence of

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 10 of 17

PW.3 and LW.11 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

18. To prove the case under sections 331(3) and 305(a) of BNS, the

Prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.1 deposed that on 04.11.2024, he has a lodged a report to police and he is the president of Sree Paradesamma Temple and he lodged a report to police that amount in Hundi of the temple committed theft and LW.2 informed the theft committed in the temple to him and on 03.11.2024 at about 7:30 P.M, they used to lock the temple and on 04.11.2024 at about 5:00 to 5:10 AM, LW.2 went to temple and found theft was committed by opening the main gate and he has informed the same to committee members and went to temple and he has found theft was committed in the temple Hundi and some of the cash was broken Hundi and then, he lodge a report to police and he has also found southern side of gate of temple was break open and police examined him and recorded his statements and approximately

Rs.20,000/- committed theft and after one month police informed him that they recovered some of the stolen property. P.w.1 is not the eye witness of the commission of the theft of M.O.1. P.W.2 also not eye witness of the commission of the theft of M.O.1. There is no eye witnesses in this case to prove the ingredients of section 331(3) and 305(a) of BNS. PW.3 is mediator Mediator. PW.4 is the

Investigation officer. From the Evidence of PW.1 to P.W.4, no witnesses deposed that they saw the Accused while committing the theft. From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 coupled with Ex.P1 to

Ex.P8, this court has come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the sections of 331(3), 305(a) of

BNS, with cogent evidence and prosecution has failed to prove the

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 11 of 17 accusation punishable under sections 331(3), 305(a) of BNS against accused beyond reasonable doubt.

19.The Offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS, Prosecution has to prove the following facts: i.e

i) Some person must be in possession of the property.

ii) Such Property must be stolen.

iii) The Accused has dishonestly received or retained the stolen property.

vi) The Accused Knew or had reasons to believe that the property was stolen property.

20.It is proper at this stage to mention the provisions of Section 119 illustration (a) of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (The

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 here in after BSA), which reads as follows: Section 119 illustration (a) of BSA, The Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. As per

Section 119 illustration (a) of BSA, the court can presume a fact that when the accused is in possession of stolen property that is soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the property knowing them to be stolen unless he accounted for them. Further the said presumption is discretion given on the court which cannot be exercised by the court against the Accused unless the cogent evidence is adduced by the prosecution for establishing that the case property under M.O.1 has recovered from the possession of the Accused soon after the commission of theft. On the other hand, if the presumption can be that the Accused has the receiver of the stolen property under M.O.1. It would be open to the Accused to

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 12 of 17 explain that the stolen properties were there for some purpose, but in the absence of such explanation, the presumption will be that he had taken part in the offence. When the prosecution adduced evidence to the effect that the Accused was found in possession of the stolen property, the presumption at once arises under section 119 illustration (a) of BSA that the possessor is either a thief or the receiver of the stolen properties and this presumption when unexplained shall be regarded as conclusive proof.

21.The defence counsel cross examined P.W.1 to P.W.4.

In Cross Examination, PW.1 deposed that he has no personal knowledge that accused committed theft. He does not know accused. At about 7:00 to 7:30 AM, he visited alleged scene of offence. He cannot say the exact amount in Hundi prior to theft. He used to calculate the amount in every one or two months and in festival time on the next day of the festival. In the month of 26 of

September, 2025, they have calculate the amount, in the presence of committee members. He denied the suggestion that no theft was committed. In Cross Examination, PW.2 deposed that no evidence that he has been working in said temple since 20 years. CC TV cameras are not working at temple. Temple is situated in a residential area. He came to know about the theft of Rs.20,000/-.

Today, he has not received any summons from the court. He has not found much amount around the Hundi of the temple. He denied the suggestions that no theft was committed and Rs.20,000/- not committed theft and he is deposing false. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing false evidence and he does not know anything. In Cross Examination, PW.3 deposed that he studied up to 10th class. He know reading and writing of Telugu language. One

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 13 of 17

K.M distance between his house to police station and that area is a residential area. Police not issued any summons to him. He used to visit police station occasionally. He does not know who drafted mediator report. Police obtained his Aadhar card. He knows that report was given by temple committee. Clues team came to the spot at about 2:30 PM. He has not gone through the mediator report.

Alleged scene i.e., temple had CC TV cameras. He adds those CC

TV Camaras are not working. He does not know the how much amount was in Hundi on the date of the alleged incident. He does not remember money coins was found on the floor of temple on the date of alleged incident. He denied the Suggestions that he does not know the contents of the mediator report and at request of police, he has signed on mediator report and he is deposing false evidence to help police. He further denied the suggestion that he is a stock mediator and he is deposing evidence as stated by the police and accused is no way concerned to this case and no property was seized in his presence and he is deposing false at request of police. In Cross Examination, PW.4 deposed that he has not given written summons to mediators. There is no denomination in mediator report about MO.1. He has not collected CC TV footage from temple with regard to the alleged incident. Some houses situated near by alleaged scene of offence and he has not examined the any person at scene of offence. On his dictation mediator report got drafted by his staff PC No.3941. He has not cited said person as witness. He denied the suggestion that mediator report prepared at police station. He further denied the suggestion that he has not video graphed the seizure of MO.1 as per BNSS. He further denied the suggestion that no punch slips were affixed and he has

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 14 of 17 conducted table investigation false case foisted against the accused.

The defense is not discredited the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 during cross examination.

22. From the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 coupled with Ex.P2 to Ex.P4, the prosecution has established that M.O.1 was recovered from the possession of the Accused. From the evidence of P.W.1 to PW.4

Coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, prosecution established that M.O.1 was committed theft and from the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 coupled with Ex.P2 to Ex.P4, the prosecution has established that

M.O.1 was had seized from the possession of the Accused in the presence of PW.3 by PW.4. The Accused has failed to disprove that

M.O.1 not seized from his possession either in his cross-examination or produced the any evidence either oral or documentary.

23.If see the facts of this case, the presumption under section 119 illustration (a) of BSA has to be drawn and it can be presumed in the present case that the Accused is either the stolen the M.O.1 or received the M.O.1 knowing him to be stolen property. The Accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 119 illustration (a) of

BSA.

24.In view of the above said discussion and above said circumstances, this court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case for punishment for the offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS against Accused beyond reasonable doubt and the Accused is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of prosecution.

25. In the result, The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 331(3), 305(a) of BNS accordingly he is

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 15 of 17 acquitted under section 271(1) of BNSS. The Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) of BNS accordingly he is convicted Under section 271(2) of BNSS.

Type to dictation on computer to the Personal Assistant (Contract

Basis),corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 24 th day of April, 2025.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Hearing on question of sentence:

26.The learned APP submitted that accused deserved severer punishment. When the accused was questioned about the question of sentence, he submitted that he has children and old mother and he is the sole breadwinner of the family and request the court to takes a lenient view and since one year he is in jail.

27.The Punishment prescribed for section Section 317(2) is imprisonment for 3 years or fine or with both.

28.Considering the nature of the offence proved against the accused which is property offence and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is not inclined to invoke beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused. However, having considered his poor financial condition, value of the property and recovery of the same and other

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 16 of 17 circumstances, this court is of the opinion that severe punishment is not suitable and it is fit case to take some lenient view. The circumstances do justify considering leniently.

29. Hence accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for

Fourteen months. The remand period from 05-03-2025 to 24-04- 2026 has given set off as per section 468 of BNSS. M.O1 had already returned to P.W.1 towards interim custody and such custody hold good after expiry of appeal period. Accused is informed about his right of appeal before Honorable Sessions Court and also informed about right to free legal aid. Copy of the Judgment given to the accused and copy of Judgment to Hon’ble DLSA, Visakhapatnam.

Typed to dictation directly on computer to the Personal Assistant (Contract Basis), corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 24 th day of April, 2026.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defense:

PW.1: Yanapu Venkata Rao. - None -

PW.2: Goripatnam Nani Babu.

PW.3: Thumpala Babu Rao.

PW.4: G. Tejeswara Rao.

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

APVS030061362025

Page 17 of 17

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: The report of PW.1.

Ex.P2: The scene observation report.

Ex.P3: The mediator report at about 10:30 hours, on 19.03.2025 (except confession part).

Ex.P4: The mediator report at about 12:30 hours, on 19.03.2025.

Ex.P5: The FIR.

Ex.P6: The rough sketch.

Ex.P7: The finger prints report along with radio massage.

Ex.P8: The proceedings C.No.394/FP/SOC/VSP,CITY/2024, dated 05.11.2024 along with report.

For Defense: - None -

Material Objects:

MO.1: The Rs.494/- (coins).

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

CC.No.3397/2025 // Fair Copy //

II ACJM COURT, VSP

Page 1 of 12

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

CALENDER CASE NO.4055 of 2019

Date of offence26.08.2019 at 11:00 hrs

Date of report or complaint26.08.2019.

Date of apprehension of the U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice, dt: 30.08.2019.

accused.

Date of commencement of trial30.01.2026.

Date of close of trial13.04.2026.

Date of sentence on order15.04.2026.

Accused in Jail/ on Bail On Bail.

Name of the ComplainantThe State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the accused A1: Reddipalli K.S.V. Kumar, S/o (Late) Joga Rao, Age 46 years, (C.I.T.U.C President). A2: Sirigudi Aruna, W/o Chitti Babu, Age 40 years, (CITU Women’s District Convener). A3: Kadiyan Kumari, W/o (Late) Vijaya Bhaskar, Age 43 years (CITU Working President). A4: Vanapalli Venkata Srinivasa Rao, S/o (Late) Tata Rao, Age 42 years, (CITU Leader). A5: Ommi Apparao, S/o Simhachalam, Age 39 years, (CITU Leader). A6: Mukku Subba Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Age 56 years,(CPM Secretary). A7: Gangarao Priyanka, W/o Y.S.N. Raju, Age 29 years. A8: Bhattula Mangamma, W/o Kondababu, Age 45 years.

CC.No.4055/2019

II ACJM COURT, VSP. // Fair Copy //

Page 2 of 12

OffencesUnder Section 341 r/w 34 of IPC.

Finding Found guilty.

Sentence:

In the result, Accused 1 to 8 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 341 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly accused 1 to 8 are

liable for punishment under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore

accused 1 to 8 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each and also Pay fine of Rs.500/- ( five hundred rupees) each for the offence punishable under section 341 r/w 34 of

IPC. In default of payment of fine, Accused 1 to 8 has sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each as default sentence. There was no remand period. Hence No set off as per section 428 of Cr.P.C. Accused 1 to 8 had reported means to engage a counsel

before Hon’ble Appellate Court. Accused 1 to 8 has informed about their

right of appeal before Hon’ble Appellate Court and also accused 1 to 8 has informed about their right to get free legal aid from Hon’ble DLSC,

Visakhapatnam. Office is here by directed to give free copy of Judgment to each accused .

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

CC.No.4055/2019

II ACJM COURT, VSP. // Fair Copy //

Page 3 of 12

APVS030057522019

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt.S. Varalakshmi,

II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, this the 15th day of April, 2026.

CALENDER CASE NO.4055 0f 2019

BETWEEN :

The State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

… Complainant

AND

A1: Reddipalli K.S.V. Kumar, S/o (Late) Joga Rao,

Age 46 years, (C.I.T.U.C President).

A2: Sirigudi Aruna, W/o Chitti Babu, Age 40 years, (CITU Women’s District Convener).

A3: Kadiyan Kumari, W/o (Late) Vijaya Bhaskar,

Age 43 years (CITU Working President).

A4: Vanapalli Venkata Srinivasa Rao, S/o (Late) Tata Rao,

Age 42 years, (CITU Leader).

A5: Ommi Apparao, S/o Simhachalam, Age 39 years,

CC.No.4055/2019

II ACJM COURT, VSP. // Fair Copy //

Page 4 of 12 (CITU Leader).

A6: Mukku Subba Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Age 56 years, (CPM Secretary).

A7: Gangarao Priyanka, W/o Y.S.N. Raju, Age 29 years.

A8: Bhattula Mangamma, W/o Kondababu, Age 45 years.

…. Accused.

This case has come before this Court for final hearing in the presence of Smt. B. Prameela, learned APP for prosecution and Sri.

K.A.J. Purnima, Ld. Counsel for A.1 to A.8 and upon the hearing the matter and on perusal of the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made as follows:

J U D G E M E N T

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

Police Station, Visakhapatnam City had filed Charge Sheet in

Crime No.320/2019 of II Town PS for the offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code ( Indian Penal

Code herein after refer to as IPC).

2.The Brief averments of the prosecution is as follows:

L.W.1/Sri. S. Khageswara Rao, Sub Inspector of Police. II

Town PS, Visakhapatnam City taken into possession of the accused A1 to A8 while the Asha Workers along with C.I.T.U

Party members participated in dharma by sitting on the road and stopping the vehicle by creating inconvenience to the public as they might have commit any cognizable offence and also wrongfully restrained the police without doing their duties.

Basing on the report of L.W.7, L.W.8 registered it as a case in Cr.No.320 for the offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 34

CC.No.4055/2019

II ACJM COURT, VSP. // Fair Copy //

Page 5 of 12

IPC of II Town police station on 26.08.2019 at 12.45 hrs and endorsed further investigation to L.W.7.

During course of investigation, LW.8 visited the scene of offence, seized the two sticks at scene of offence in the presence of mediators, examined as many as 6 witnesses and recorded their 161(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure ( Code of Criminal

Procedure herein after refer to as Cr.P.C) statements. During the course of investigation, on 30.08.2019, L.W.8 served notice under

Section 41-A (1) Cr.P.C to the A-1 to A-8. After completion of the investigation. L.W.8 filed the charge sheet.

3. The case has taken cognizance for the offence under section 341 r/w 34 of IPC by my predecessor.

4.On appearance of A.1 to A.8, copies of documents have furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.A.1 to A.8 had examined Under Section 251 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of the accusation for the offence punishable Under Section 341 r/w 34 of IPC, for which they denied the same and claimed to be trial.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.3 and got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.2 to LW.4 and LW.7. This Court has closed the evidence of LW.6 as Death Certificate filed.

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, A.1 to A.8 had examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the same has read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they have denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of A.1 to A.8.

CC.No.4055/2019

II ACJM COURT, VSP. // Fair Copy //

Page 6 of 12

9.Heard both sides. Perused the record and this Court has gone through the entire material on record.

10.Now the point for determination is:- “ Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the A.1 to

A.8 for the offence punishable under section 341 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ” ?

POINT :

11.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. PW.1 is the Police Constable. PW.2 is a independent witnesses. PW.3 is the Investigation Officer.

12.The learned APP submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of A.1 to A.8 by producing the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and punished A.1 to A.8 according to the Law.

13.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the A.1 to A.8 submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A.1 to A.8 beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence of prosecution witnesses had suffered with several contradictions, omissions and independent witnesses not supported to the prosecution case and prays the Court to acquit the Accused.

14.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution firstly examined PW.1 who deposed that on 26.08.2019 at about 11:00

AM, SI of police received credible information as per the instruction he went to Gandhi Statue near GVMC, Visakhapatnam as Asha workers doing Dharna and obstructed the traffic and SI of police/LW.8, I, LW.2 to LW.4 went to Gandhi Statue and Asha workers doing Dharna and obstructed traffic. LW.8 stated doing

Dharna is a illegal act and arrested 8 persons and shifted to police station. In Cross Examination, PW.1 deposed that he is not in the

CC.No.4055/2019

II ACJM COURT, VSP. // Fair Copy //

Page 7 of 12 complainant. There is no photos that accused done dharna at

Gandhi Statue on road. He denied the suggestion that accused had conducted dharna as per the permission area given by GVMC and false case foisted against the accused by political influence and he was deposing false.

15.There is no supporting evidence adduced by the accused to prove the said suggestions. More over it admitted that accused were conducted dharna with permission. But accused has not produced any proof and failed to file the document relating to permission.

16.Further, the prosecution has examined PW.2 who deposed that he was doing cloth business at Complex, Visakhapatnam and in the year 2019, one Dharna was conducted and police asked him about the incident and police not examined him about the case facts.

17.PW-2 did not supported to the prosecution case and he turned hostile. Even though he turned hostile and he deposed that in the year 2019, one Dharna was conducted. This version is also supporting the case of the prosecution.

18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 August, 2010, held that the evidence of prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because of witness was turned hostile.

19.Further, the prosecution has examined PW.3 who is the

Investigation Officer and he has deposed that on 26.08.2019 at about 11:00 hours, he has received occurrence report from PW.1 and basing on occurrence report, he has registered FIR vide

Cr.No.320/2019 under Section 341 r/w 34 of IPC and he has issued FIR and he has submitted the FIR to all concerned authorities and he has examined PW.1 and recorded his

CC.No.4055/2019

II ACJM COURT, VSP. // Fair Copy //

Page 8 of 12 statement and he went to scene of offence and at scene of offence, he has examined LW.2 to LW.4. PW.2. LW.6 and recorded their statements and he has prepared rough sketch and on the next day, he has collected news paper clippings of offence and he has Issued Sec.41-А Сг.Р.С notice to accused and after completion of investigation, he field charge sheet. In Cross

Examination, PW.3 admitted that accused not conducted dharna against police. He further admitted that accused raised the voice about the protest against Government by giving slogans. He deposed that accused can conduct dharna after getting permission and at a permitted place. He denied the suggestions that accused were conducting dharna at a place where the

Government was given permission but they draged the accused to the road and taken the photos and foisted false case against them and accused not committed any offence and no public nuisance was caused and false case foisted to support the Government.

20.There is no supporting evidence adduced by the accused to prove the said suggestions. More over said suggetions admitted the allegation of dharna in the road that accused were conducting dharna at a place where the Government was given permission.

But accused has not produced any proof and failed to file the document that the government was given permission for conducting dharna.

21.No doubt in the present case there were minor variations, contradictions and omissions in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 in narration of their evidence before the Court. Therefore, there is no need to give much importance to them as they were not go in to the root of the prosecution case and further they will not give better defence to the accused. Relating to this aspect this court is

CC.No.4055/2019

II ACJM COURT, VSP. // Fair Copy //

Page 9 of 12 relying on a decision Konda Gopalam case, Where in the Hon’ble

Apex Court held that “every discrepancy, contradiction in statement of witnesses cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the prosecution case and discrepancies which is not fatal to the case not create any infirmity.” In another decision in Takdir

SAMSUDDIN Sheikh -vs- State if Gujarat and another, where in

Hon’ble court held that “even there are Minor discrepancies,

contradictions, omission the Evidence not to be rejected in entirely”. The above decisions were applicable to the facts of the current case.

22.Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, the evidence prosecution witnesses is found to be credible and no reasons to disbelieve their evidence and to believe that the accused was falsely implicated in this case. The discrepancies raised by the learned defense Counsel are minor in nature. They do not go in to the root of the prosecution case and therefore it need not be given much importance to them.

23.Therefore on over all consideration of the oral, documentary evidence in the record at best the evidence on record is sufficient to prove that the accused were conducted dharma by sitting on the road and stopping the vehicle by creating inconvenience to the public. Which is an offence punishable under section 341 r/w 34 of

IPC. In view of the above decisions and discussion this court come to conclusion that the prosecution established the offence under section 341 r/w 34 of I.P.C against Accused 1 to 8 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered.

24.In the result, Accused 1 to 8 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 341 r/w 34 of IPC and

CC.No.4055/2019

II ACJM COURT, VSP. // Fair Copy //

Page 10 of 12

accordingly accused 1 to 8 are liable for punishment

under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation directly on computer to the Personal Assistant (Contract Basis), corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 15 th day of April, 2026.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Hearing on question of sentence:-

25.There is No representation on behalf of prosecution for hearing on question of sentence.

26.The accused 1 to 8 when asked about the question of sentence to be imposed against them separately, They submitted that they have not commit any offence and false case foisted against them by police and prays the

Court to take lenient view in imposing sentence.

27.Considering the nature of the offence proved against the accused and its gravity, this court is not inclined to invoke beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused.

However, keeping in view of the plea made by the accused, this court is of the opinion that if lenient view taken, it will effect the society at large. The circumstances do not justify considering leniently.

CC.No.4055/2019

II ACJM COURT, VSP. // Fair Copy //

Page 11 of 12

28.Section 341 R/W 34 of IPC. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

29. Therefore accused 1 to 8 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each and also Pay fine of Rs. 500/- ( five hundred rupees )each for the offence punishable under section 341 r/w 34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, Accused 1 to 8 has sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each as default sentence. There was no remand period. Hence No set off as per section 428 of Cr.P.C. Accused 1 to 8 had reported means to engage a counsel before Hon’ble

Appellate Court. Accused 1 to 8 has informed about their right of appeal before Hon’ble Appellate Court and also accused 1 to 8 has informed about their right to get free legal aid from Hon’ble DLSC, Visakhapatnam. Office is here by directed to give free copy of Judgment to each accused .

Typed to dictation directly on computerto typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 15 th day of April, 2026.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

CC.No.4055/2019

II ACJM COURT, VSP. // Fair Copy //

Page 12 of 12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defense:

PW.1: Killo Jagannadh.- None -

PW.2: Sunkara Nageswara Rao.

PW.3: S. Khageswara Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: The Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Ex.P2: The occurrence report.

Ex.P3: The FIR.

Ex.P4: The rough sketch.

For Defense: - None -

Material Objects: - None -

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

CC.No.4055/2019

II ACJM COURT, VSP. // Fair Copy //

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Smt.S.Varalakshmi

II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

S.T.C.No.1855/2025.

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

Between:

Bokka Kanakavalli, W/o Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Hindu, age 47 years, residing at D.No.36-93-394, Mahatmagandhid Nagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

... Complainant.

And.

Bogi Satyanarayana, S/o Sriramulu, Hindu, age 35 years, Residing at Simhagiri Rail Colony, Western, Block-868/A, Thatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam.

... Accused.

Offence: U/Sec.138 of N.I Act.

Date of offence: 06.08.2025.

Date of Complaint: 15.09.2025.

Date of hearing: 22.04.2026.

This matter having come up for final hearing before me coming on this day on this day on 22.04.2026 in the presence of Sri.Allu Suresh Kumar, counsel for Complainant and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:

This private complaint is filed by the complainant praying court to punish the accused for offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act.

D O C K E T O R D E R

1.Both parties called present. Heard both sides. Consider both side submission.

The Complainant filed this petition U/Sec.280 of B.N.S.S. for seeking dismissal of the complaint and submitted that both parties are compromising the matter at outside of the Court.

2.Perused the petition averments of case record.

3.The counsel for the complainant had submitted that both parties voluntarily compromised the matter at outside of the court and requested the court to permit the complainantto withdraw the case against the accused in the interest of justice. This court is satisfied that there is a sufficient ground for granting permission for withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant.

4. Hence in the interest of justice the complainant is permitted to withdraw the complaint. Permission accorded for withdrawal.

5.In the result, complaint is dismissed as withdrawn by the complainant and accused is acquitted U/Sec. 280 B.N.S.S.

Docket order pronounced by me in the open Court, on the 22nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.Varalakshmi.

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined.

No documentdarty evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- S.Varalakshmi.

II ACJM, VSP.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Smt.S.Varalakshmi

II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

D.V.C.No.114/2025.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Between:

Saraswatula Sravana Pratyusha, W/o Merusomayajula Shankaranand, Hindu, age 31 yrs, Housewife, residing at D.No.31-8-59, Opposite Neelammavepachettu, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam.

... Petitioner.

And.

1) Merusomayajula Shankaranand, S/o Bhaskaramanai, Hindu, age 38 years, Software Employee in Tech Mahindra, residing at 3/2 Brahmin Street, Karambakkam, Porur, Chennai-600116.

2) Merusomayajula Bhaskaramanai, S/o not known to the petitioner, Hindu, age 70 years, Private Employee, residing at 3/2 Brahmin Street, Karambakkam, Porur, Chennai-600116.

3) Durga Merusomayajula, W/o Bhaskaramanai, Hindu, age 62 years, Private Employee, residing at 3/2 Brahmin Street, Karambakkam, Porur, Chennai-600116.

4) Goda Padma, W/o not known to the petitioner, Hindu, age 52 years, Private Employee, residing at 3/2 Brahmin Street, Karambakkam, Porur, Chennai-600116.

5) Sunil Padasala, S/o not known to the petitioner, Hindu, age 28 years, Private Employee, residing at 3/2 Brahmin Street, Karambakkam, Porur, Chennai-600116.

6) Goda Krishna, S/o not known to the petitioner, Hindu, age 55 years, Private Employee, residing at 3/2 Brahmin Street, Karambakkam, Porur, Chennai-600116.

... Respondents.

This Petition presented Under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

This matter having come up for final hearing before me coming on this day on this day on 17.04.2026 in the presence of Smt.B.Neelima, counsel for Petitioner and

Sri.M.Ravi, Advocate for R1 to R6 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Petitioner called present. Respondent called absent. Petition filed and allowed.

Learned counsel for petitioner filed memo and submitted that matter settled out side of the court and prays the Court to dismiss the present petition as not press. Reason consider memo consider. This petition is dismissed as not press. Let the memo be part of the record.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on the 17th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.Varalakshmi

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined.

No documentdarty evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- S.Varalakshmi

II ACJM, VSP.